Author’s Foreword. The objective of this book is history, a language is no more than its ocular. To the curious, the work demonstrates the tangible origin of a good portion of the European languages from historic and genetic perspective. I have a very rudimentary familiarity with any live Türkic language, and for the linguistic contents, this compendium relied on attestations found in literature and dictionaries, and not in a small degree on insights and kind help of native speakers, Türkic and non-Türkic. The fundamental facts supporting this work are altered neither by the want of linguistic competence, nor by the want of unflawed presentation. The scrutiny is useless to those who already know it all. The work consists of two parts; the first part contains an overview of the history, methods, aspects of the problem, premises, and broad observations in the form of mini essays. The second part contains a catalogue of the lexical material under a heading Etymological Notes. With a vast measure of translations, quotations, references, and comparisons, such a mass is apt to accrete mistakes, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations. The father of linguistics M. Kashgari said a millennium ago, Yazmas atım yağmur, yañılmas bilge yañku “only rain shoots without misses, only echo is a sage without mistakes”. The surface of the historical canvas has been barely scratched. There is plenty of room for kind advice and improvement. A spectrum of averted subjects are ready for examination.

3

Kim ol jolsuz ersä aŋa keŋrü jol
Who does not trod a beaten path has his course wide open
(Proverb)

Turkism (or Turkizm) is a word in any language that comes from Türkic languages, directly or indirectly. The adjective Turkic (or Türkic) applies not to an individual language, but to the entire linguistic family numbering some 40+ languages with various degree of mutual understandability. Unlike the structured pairs Celtic/Celt, Turkish/Turk, British/Brit, the collective adjective Turkic (Türkic) does not have a standard counterpart noun in English, since the word “Turk” is already used as a concrete noun counterpart for “Turkish”. Very few names of the Turkic ethnoses and languages contain the part “Türk”. Most linguists know the difference between Turkish and Turkic/Türkic, and do not confuse them. In this book, for clarity, the complementary terms Türkic and Türk are used as collective designations.

The term “Proto-Türkic” refers to a continuum of languages with similar syntactic typologies that formed a lingua franca Sprachbund. The use of the term “Proto-Türkic” is better avoided since it is inaccurately used as a formed seed language under inapplicable Family Tree linguistic model. As a result of diverse linguistic amalgamations, its functional designation is better defined with the unconventional term “Türkic Sprachbund”. Following N.Trubetzkoy (N.Trubetzkoy 1923, 1928), the Türkic linguistic family belongs to the Sprachbund language union formed between language families consisting of unrelated Türkic, Uralic, Mongolian, and Manchurian families, dubbed “Union of Uralo-Altaic language families”. A language or language family can at the same time belong, or fluctuate between, two different Sprachbunds, such as Indo-European fluctuating between the Mediterranean and Uralo-Altaic Sprachbunds. A Sprachbund is defined as an areal group of languages with common traits:
1. considerable similarity in syntax;
2. similarity in principles of morphological structure;
3. a large number of common cultural words, and optionally
4. a surface similarity in sound systems, lacking however any systematic sound correspondences, correspondences in morphological elements, and common elementary vocabulary.

In contrast to the Family Tree model, amalgamation occurs on a case-by-case basis, it does not follow any particular “linguistic law”. Amalgamation is always unique, even when it occurs in nearly the same linguistic, economic, and environmental circumstances. It is a result of stochastic human interactions, environmental events, and very stochastic human whims. It follows the rule that there are no rules, only some tendencies with uncertain statistic frequencies. In that, amalgamation agrees with the Family Tree model and in particular with the Indo-European linguistic hypothesis where they accept a premise of statistical probability for tendencies inaccurately named “linguistic laws”. The Turkish language, for example, is amalgamated of dozens of languages, each with its own history and idiosyncrasies, not all of them entirely Türkic, with a substantial influence of the local, Arabic and Persian cultural layers. Just the Islamic segment of the M. Kashgari’s work of the 11th c. lists 8 Oguz and 2 Ogur monolingual Türkic communities, and 10 bilingual Türkic communities, neither of those accounted for the Arabic and Persian cultural influence. Nearly completely outside of the M. Kashgari’s orbit were the huge western and eastern segments of the Turkic phylum, many of which over the last millennium also contributed to the Turkish language. In the last two centuries, many languages experienced profound changes under unification, division, cleansing, reforms, leveling, and increasing influx from culturally and geographically domineering languages. All “IE” languages passed through a similar agglomeration that affected many linguistic aspects including typology and phonetics.

Typological features of the Türkic languages include an agglutinative and exclusively suffixing word structure, sound harmony, verb-final word order, with dependents preceding their head, and use of numerous nonfinite verb constructions. The Türkic long vowels disappeared way back, they only remain in some geographically and phonetically scattered dialects (Kyzyl and tribal Türkic languages of the southwestern Turkey). The clay of the Türkic languages is extremely malleable, while the clay granules and the affinity of different granules are fairly firm. This combination of properties allows smooth reuse of the same granules in very different functions, similar to the economy of English, where for example crossing a crossing at a crossing point recycles a three-phoneme stem and a three-phoneme suffix as a noun, verb, and an adjective. Agglutinative languages, like Turkic, Finnish, Sumerian, do not use articles, since suffixes serve as discriminators between verbs and nouns, and articles need not to be borrowed, unless a language is creolized and had lost its functional suffixes. Typically, articles are borrowed from а lingua franca or amalgamating languages, like the Hungarian the is a borrowed that, at times in a form of a calque, like the Türkic bir is a calque of one. In most cases such cultural exchanges are transparent and traceable. These typological features are largely shared by the “Union of Uralo-Altaic language families”, and their elements are shared by a wide spectrum of the Eurasian and Native American languages. The commonalities between the Eurasian and Native American languages attest to the existence of the “Union of Uralo-Altaic language families” prior to the peopling of Americas approximately 15,000 years ago. The word “Union” in this context is as stochastic as a stratified by elevation mountain forest with some species randomly scattered along the slopes.

The term “substrate” in linguistics refers to an indigenous language that in the process of diffusion and convergence contributes features to the language of the later migrants, it presupposes distinct layering of the language, defines the temporal sequence, and the direction of convergence. The term “substrate” implies a distinct formed local language at the time of its encounter with a distinct formed alien language. By definition, the English being a Germanic language, the substrate of English was overlaid and supplanted by Germanic, making it a Germanic language, and then by the Old French, it was gradually enriched by Celtic, Danish, Latin, and other lexicons that also carried numerous Turkisms. The term “substrate” presupposes a linear development, a particular case of an amalgamation. Amalgamation is a layered process. Where amalgamation processes are not linear, the term “substrate” from an absolute becomes a conditional term, changing its content to suit a specific situation. That is the case with English, where the amalgamation process is far from being clear, is an object of the research, and the term “substrate” is a conditional convention to name one of the basic components.

To recognize substrate words within a mixed lexicon was proposed a complex of logical diagnostic criteria arranged in an order of relative importance:
1. candidate word with dubious or no etymology in the host family
2. candidate word with a base root within the substrate family
3. wide distribution (>50%) of the compared words in the substrate and host families
4. semantic affinity
5. phonetic affinity

Each substrate candidate should be examined along the minimal, but largely insufficient criteria, to validate a candidate and at least to reveal additional factors supporting or contravening a substrate affinity. Frequently, applicability of individual criteria is hindered by a paucity of sources, especially in the temporal aspect. The criteria of a comparatively later appearance of a word in a host language (e.g. Lat. vs. LLat.) vesus an earliest attestation help to come to a reasonable conclusion. Given that just to be rated a candidate a substrate candidate satisfies criteria 1, a bias in the prior evaluations may flag a preference for attribution of the cognates to an advocated linguistic group, with a support from a circular logics. The only objective path to a reasonable conclusion is an equitable comparison of attested base roots, without appeal to “reconstructed” unattested models.

Languages are bio-cultural hybrids, products of evolution and hybridization. Linguistic process, like all processes in universe, are cyclical. Processes emerge, run, and decay. Processes are controlled by obstructions. Processes run as interactions between the energy of the process and sturdiness of the obstruction. Processes drug chunks of obstructions forward, carried by the process flow, drop them off as some barriers built of various obstacles. They continue in a new quality, resuming anew after some equilibrium point, embarking on a new cycle under new conditions. Regular patterns arise from random starting conditions, and end with the rise of the new random conditions. In linguistics, little is known of the cycles preceding the advent of our era, save for few known cycles that happened on the European peninsula at the end of the western Eurasia. The most powerful processes were connected with the expansion of the Greek and Latin languages, which in the process of Europeanization, later called Indo-Europeanization, overcame the resistance of the local languages. The advent of the Classical languages waned with Industrial Revolution, opening an era of cultural and technological languages: French, German, and nowadays English. In the 2nd mill. BC, long before the run-up to our era, the Türkic languages of the Kurgans were on the wane, supplanted by the resurgence of the local European languages. Before that, the Türkic languages were widespread, in lieu of historical records that is attested by the Türkic substrates in the European languages. Some languages consist largely of obstructions, others are a robust mix of obstructions and sediments. Of the pre-historic processes, we can only get a glance using the imprecise measurements of archeology and genetic part of the biology, and some fragments of the early writing. Prior to the scientific archeology and genetics, the paucity of the knowledge allowed any fancy to steady and bloom, alternating between predominant and counter-culture story.

The term “cognate” in linguistics refers to the words derived from the same word in an ancestral language: if a word exists, it has to come from somewhere. Examination of cognates is the method of historical linguistics, it seemed to fit well into a Family Tree model, and is complemented by the concept of the loanwords. The model, however, drives the examination of the cognates, instead of the other way around, in the process creating discrepancies and grounds for critical re-examinations. The developing of the Sprachbund concept and the Wave model was a consequence of the misuse of the Family Tree model far outside its range of applicability. It is, however, impossible to define the range for something lacking a definition and identified by individual gut feelings. Once a hypothesis coagulates into a theory, there is a specific domain where a theory is applicable. Beyond that domain a theory is false, and a viable theory validated by its predictive capability has to supersede it.

As a means of communication, language is not tied to a location, it migrates with the people, and can superimpose on the local languages (adstrate) or, in the case of replacement of the local languages, serve as a basis (substrate), incorporating elements of the local languages. The idea of migration was already seeded in the William Jones' discovery of the kinship between classical Sanskrit and European languages. That kinship could only come with migration, hence the start of the endless Urheimat odyssey in search for a single focal point chimera. All languages that surround linguists are a result of amalgamation. A chimera of a proto-language had to be contrived like a creation mythology, it could not hail from the linguistic experience. Migrations created mixed populations that were creating their languages in a convoluted reciprocal evolution of many individual streams. They were intertwined into a continuously changing web of overlapping Sprachbunds delineated by physical or cultural barriers. Individual streams formed and dissolved randomly, feeding back on the societies and their languages in endless cycles of creation and attrition of the speech and its facets.

An ability to discern the inner skeleton of a word parsed from the barnacles enveloping it is like using an optical magnification. A word reveals its inner core, a core of a living reef enveloped by layer upon a layer of sediments leading to its present appearance. The core skeleton survives largely intact, like a fossil bone. A concept of a word root is a part of the comparative linguistics method that routinely invents new “reconstructed” roots when one is needed to fill a gap between the reality and a mystical “proto-world”. In practice, the invented “IE” “proto-world” is frequently a phantom clone of a real attested root from a linguistic family outside the students’ mental horizon. That is the case, for example, with the notion “stay” and its immediate derivatives, an allophone of the Türkic üstü “stay”, lit. “on feet, standing”, from the root üst “get up”, “standing on feet”, lit. “atop, aloft, upward” formed with a locative suffix -t/-d “up, upward movement”. The words “stay, stand”, etc. elided the initial vowel, hence the unattested “IE” phantom clone *sta- in lieu of the attested üst. Both elision and prosthemia, so regular within the bounds of the “IE” etymology, appear to run into a mental block outside its bounds, where mechanical deduction takes over.

A distinct source for English was the Anglo-Saxon language, it was a backbone and a main vehicle that carried substrate language to the Old English and eventually to the modern English. A good portion of the substrate language, albeit quite late in time, is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon dictionaries and grammars. Numerous lexemes that escaped a contemporary record but found their way into English without direct borrowing from the neighboring languages may have also come from the Anglo-Saxon and its siblings, and absent counterindicators thus accepted as belonging to the substrate. Anglo-Saxon was a member of a distinct cluster of languages in a loosely-knit body of mutually comprehensible dialects, fairly far removed from Gothic and other Germanic languages.

A very considerable uniquely English lexical portion appears late and apparently from nowhere, with cognates known only from Türkic languages; that type of words can also be deemed to be a part of the undocumented substrate layer. A conspicuous lexical portion is shared by many archaic languages in the area, affording a good possibility that it was also shared by the substrate of English. Since Türkic languages were developing in mobile and open societies noted for their coexistence with alien peoples, at least some of the English substrate may be re-borrowing of the local lexemes.

In the context of this compendium, the term “linguistics” refers specifically to the theory and practice of historical linguistics, a narrow branch of the entire philological field which studies lingual evidence of the past. The term “IE etymology” refers to the self-contained circular version of the historical linguistics with etymological studies focused solely on languages viscerally postulated to be Indo-European (IE). The “IE” linguistics is not a parcel of philology that represents the full universe of communications, it is rather an isolated parochial interpretation of a confined domain. To not appear to be built to order, linguistic reconstructions, and especially etymologies, must be based on plentiful actual material independent of the research method, they should reflect realities of time, space, and social world, and withstand critical analysis in any aspect. Unlike a science, where asserting irreproducible findings falls to ostracism, the “IE” practitioners are lauded when their tentative proposition looks convincing enough to be held for a mighty fact. Its not unlike any other etiology in the practice of promotional propaganda. Otherwise, etymology is a study of the sources and development of words, to find the sources wherever they may be found in our full universe.

The term “IE languages” refers to a theoretical construct that presupposes a linear evolution of a single linguistic kernel, deemed theoretical or real, into a huge branch, defined by a spectrum of intuitive perceptions of a “common knowledge”-type conceptualization. Unlike any other scientific discipline, it does not rely on its mathematical apparatus. For now, there is no definition of the “IE languages” other than the trade practitioners' personal intuitive perceptions. While some practitioners believe that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language existed as a formed language used by real people, others believe that it is a theoretical construct like the one time ether, useful for canvassing a model but that never existed in reality. In practice, both sides treat the hypothetical construct as a proven reality. Omission of material contravening concept is driven by confirmation bias that ignores disconfirming evidence, a propensity to seek only suitable examples whilst flouting those confounding. Excluded exceptions undermine the concept to a useless subjective speculation. The subject of the PIE and “IE” languages remains, historically and hence on, prone to patriotic approaches of all suits, marked by systemic disregard of annoying contrary evidence and fabrication of faux scenarios. And, the same fuzzy concept was mechanically applied to other languages, at times against all contraindications.

Genetic studies have broken the glass wall that separated and counterposed the “Indo-European” and Türkic worlds. A significant part of the Europeans turned out to be descendents of the Kurgan people, marked by the inheritance of the Y-DNA haplogroups R1a and R1b. From the standpoint of the parochial “Indo-European” linguistics, that would compel inclusion of the Türkic family into the “Indo-European” superfamily, ostensibly consistent with the contents of this work. That expansion, however, would clash with the historical reality outside of the linguistics’ control. The “Indo-European” languages became “Indo-European” during the Corded Ware period, in contact with the nomadic Kurganians, and the Kurgan culture not only precedes by far the Corded Ware period, but its migrational waves were the immediate cause for the formation of the distinct Corded Ware communities. The “Indo-European” languages were formed in the presence and under repeated influence of the Kurganians’ languages.

The Türkic linguistic map is uniquely broad in its Eurasian extent. It extends in the Southwest from Near and Middle East on the Atlantic Ocean's fringes to the Southeast, to Eastern Turkistan and on into China toward Pacific Ocean. Then it stretches to the Northeast covering Southern and Northern Siberia to the Arctic Ocean, and Northwestward across Western Siberia and Eastern Europe. The Türkic languages are fascinating with their vast geographical distribution, their contacts with many different linguistic zones, their peculiar stability over time, their morphological and syntactical regularity. Their spread represents a great number of different peoples and languages, most of them politically and scientifically reduced to a vanishing point. Currently, there are about twenty Türkic codified languages, about 42+ acknowledged languages, and about the same number of unacknowledged, amalgamated, vanishing, unexplored, and trace languages. This was actually the beginning of a Western European front against Russian Turkology that came to dominate for decades. Across Eurasia, Türkic languages lived through the periods of expansion, blossoming, migration, contraction, devastation, mutilation, genocide, prohibition, and prejudicial, cultural, political, and scientific bans. Currently, except for the lingering prejudices, most of the previous severe restrictions on studies the life of the Türkic folks have abated.

Türkic languages, from the time of M. Kashgari, are divided into Western and Eastern languages. The M. Kashgari's notion of language is not known, probably it differs significantly from the modern interpretations. Probably, his definition was a common perception based on identical typology and morphological and lexical similarities; his notion of Western and Eastern languages probably saw Kashgar as a central point. M. Kashgari could not have known of the nomadic migrations beyond his temporal and spatial horizons, nor of the Türkic languages that diverged too much to be comprehensible to the speakers of Türkic languages of his interpretation. Today, the M. Kashgari's Western languages can be roughly associated with the Oguric languages, and his Eastern languages can be roughly associated with the Oguzic languages; the h- languages of the Caspian-Aral area do not figure at all in the Oguric/Oguzic classification. The term “Common Turkic” (CT) or “Shaz Turkic” refers to one of the taxa in some classifications of the Turkic languages, in practice it is a euphemism for the Oguz-type languages. It stands in opposition to the Ogur-type “r” or the Chuvash “l” languages. Taxonomy does not cover all languages, since none of the Turkic languages escaped numerous amalgamations with linguistic varieties found across Eurasia, and the linguistic variety exceeds by far the suggested simple taxonomic criteria. Debate on the place and chronology of Oguric within Türkic continues, the differences are studied predominately through the shreds of Danube and Itil Chuvash Bulgar, without a benefit of the languages like the Hunnic that historically were connected with the Ogur languages.

However, the Western-Eastern association is period-dependent: Oguric languages in the historical time expanded from the Mesopotamian-Caspian-Aral basin to the Ordos, reverted back to the Caspian-Aral basin, and expanded westward to the Eastern and northwestern Europe. Nomadic communities used to leapfrog over occupied territories, and spread over remote defenseless sedentary populations, thus the once western languages could become extreme eastern languages, vice-versa, and anything in-between. M. Kashgari could not have known of the Oguric languages much outside of the Moslem world. Similar swings happened to the M. Kashgari's Eastern languages that during the historical time traversed Eurasia from Mongolia to Balkans and beyond. The genetic pallets of the Türkic ethnicities, drawn starting from the last decades of the 20th c., provide a good illustration of the admixtures that compose each ethnicity. Genetic pallets of the nation-states and nations united within a common linguistic family also provide a good graphic illustration of the fallacy of the Family Tree models.

In the context of this compendium, the term Western Türkic languages refers to the pre-historic languages of the Kurgan western waves plus the Western languages of M. Kashgari, and the term Eastern Türkic languages refers to the pre-historic languages of the Kurgan eastern waves plus the Eastern languages of M. Kashgari. Under that hazy definition, the Türkic language dictionaries compiled in the Muslim world largely cover the Eastern Türkic languages, with accidental elements of the Western Türkic languages spilled to the Muslim areas. The multi-ethnic composition of all Türkic confederations, always based on a system of marital unions between non-blood related and largely alien members, precluded formation of a single common language that can be identified with a single ethnic or political entity; any lingua franca of any confederation inevitably was a blend of few, at times very diverse, languages.

Although the first written evidence of the Türkic languages comes from Mesopotamia (5th-3rd mill BC), archeological evidence shows that Mesopotamia was a fringe finger much to the south of the bulk of the eneolithic Kurgan people, whose expanse of the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures (5th mill. BC) were focal points for the coming expansions. The first written attestations came with the very first inscriptions in the history of the mankind, the Sumerian and Türkic yer, English “earth”; the Sumerian sig-, Türkic sok, English “sock” (beat); the Sumerian akka, Türkic aga, English “age”, and numerous others. Such cognates have not deserved the attention of those who declared Sumerian to be a “language isolate”. Not the typology and grammar instigated the assertion, since European philology holds those as malleable. These cognates testify that not only the Sumerian was a flourishing amalgamation of the Türkic and a local language, but that it is still an essential component of the undoubtedly agile modern Türkic and English languages. Türkic vernaculars were settling in the Middle East for about 6 thousand years with each influx of the mounted nomads, at least 3 thousand years before the Indo-Aryan arrival there ca 1500 BC, and many times after that. The Türkic component found its way in all three stages of the Persian language, contributing to its complexity as a blend of primarily local, overlaying migrant vernaculars, and multi-stage vernacular amalgamations, and to the drastic changes between stages. With such complicated history, outside of the late Islamic innovations, any presumption asserted in attributing to the Persian language as an ultimate source is jeopardizing credibility. Etymological data shows way less Persianisms in the Old Türkic (10th c.) than the Turkisms in the Persian. Historical processes outside of the contemporary Moslem world nearly completely escaped attention of M. Kashgari.

Language abbreviations

Summary

Archeological and genetic works demonstrated migrations, amalgamations, and replacement of populations in the Western Europe, where the Germanic branch of the Indo-European (IE) languages occupies a prominent place. Linguistic works demonstrated that Germanic branch contains a substantial layer of non-Indo-European substrate. The English language is a prominent member of the Germanic branch. The sources of the Germanic substrate remain debatable, with numerous candidates explored and rejected. With the insights provided by archeology and genetics, and based on their converging contention that from the time of the population replacement in the 3rd millennium BC until the middle of the 1st millennium BC, the Türkic (Proto-Türkic) linguistic field dominated the whole Eurasia reaching the Atlantic Ocean on one end and Pacific Ocean on another end, a concept was formulated and substantiated that the non-Indo-European substrate of the Germanic branch was rooted in the Türkic (Proto-Türkic) linguistic field. The groundwork for this linguistic concept has already been established, the concept is a necessary corollary of the positively attested migratory flows. The concept explores the Türkic–English morphological and lexical correspondences, and finds substantial traces of the Türkic substrate in English, potentially exceeding 30-40% of the English words used in the daily life. Of the English suffixes, 63% descend from the Türkic origin and remain morphologically active in forming English words. The concept touches on the substantial trace of the Türkic–Latin–English correspondences, linguistically corroborating the thesis that the Kurgans' circum-Mediterranean path via the Pyrenees to the Continental Europe brought about the Beaker Culture, ancestral to the Pra-Celts and Pra-Italics. The Beaker Culture's language in terms of the Celtic archeology is called Celtic, but is meant to name that ancestral language.
4

The results of the study corroborate archeological and genetic conclusions, on the example of the English and Latin languages providing a salient amount of linguistic evidence in their favor. The results introduce solutions for lingering questions, raise questions about adopted dogmas, and open gates for multi-discipline studies of the questions raised. Far from exhaustive treatment of the subject, the study attempts to follow a holistic view on the Eurasian history with languages being one of the major human attributes where the past instigated the present. It explores a portion of relevant information where neglected evidence is disproportionally substantial in relation to the attention it has been receiving. The study leaves much material unexplored, it only extends to a degree sufficient to substantiate the proposed concept and illustrate stochastic nature of the past linguistic dynamics. In the world where observation, not preconception, describes the reality, preconception is fleeting. The study draws attention to the perspective research in this field in a diachronic typological approach, which, in my opinion, may shed light on reconstruction of the linguistic prehistory of Eurasia.

The concept fits in well with the theoretical and experimental facts. It fits well with the fact that nobody could ever substantiate the location of the “IE” Urheimat, the area where the “IE” languages were born, that some people had thought existed. It fits well with the assertion that the Scytho-Iranian Theory was a poorly executed hoax concocted for political ends at a certain apex of the late colonial mentality. It fits well with five dozens or so counterindicators that demonstrate impossibility of the said Theory. Some counterindicators are as weighty as the genetic conflict between the predominantly Kurgans’ R1b Y-DNA haplogroup and the predominantly Iranian J2 haplogroup, the biological conflict between the milk-based diet of Kurgans and the general lactose intolerance of the Iranians, and the conflicts of the literary, ethnologic, linguistic, and ethnic appellations’ nature. It fits well with the archeological conclusions on the Kurgan migrations, with the genetic dating of the Kurgan migratory paths, with the genetic composition of the North-Western European population, with the existence of the substrate language underlying Germanic languages, with the European geography of the Classical period, with the abundance of Turkisms in the Anglo-Saxon, Gothic, Latin, and other documented languages of the Classical and Late Classical period. The predictive capability is well beyond serendipity at a random examination of Proto-Germanic *prototypes where the “IE etymology” stops dead at the *PG model. Random experiments with random sets of suspected Turkisms in English found that in about one-half of the cases the suspicion was justified, depending on physical or abstract notion, by direct or readily apparent metaphoric concordance. Moreover, in many cases both literal and metaphorical semantics of a word constitute instances of paradigmatic transfer. Random statistical testing demonstrates the reality of the Türkic-Germanic link. Finally, the concept is supported by the incompatibly potent explanatory capacity, and a viable predictive capability for minor and crucial indicators.

A number of the Scytho-Iranian Theory counterindicators have a predictive capability, they have already accurately forecasted the future genetic findings before they became confirmed by facts. They have already accurately forecasted the salient presence of Turkisms in the archaic European dictionaries. They open a gate for future discoveries. Combined altogether, the various facets of the concept are weighty enough to inspire confidence that the concept is well substantiated.

Introduction

Attention to the Germanic-Türkic commonalities must have arisen many times over on various levels. Probably, it far predates the discovery of the “IE” connections. Over the centuries, many word lists may have been produced impromptu, and they circulated in the Internet Age, primarily for the German language due to historical exposure. Typically, a closer look at such listings related to English produces a high degree of etymological misfires, the remaining small minority tend to be repetitive, inevitably inclusive of a standard complement of obvious clones, mostly nouns: ace, dawn, do, earth, guest, eat, say, son, and the like. On the other hand, about every tenth word turns out not to be a false lead, and a few more appear plausible but on inspection lacking a preponderance of evidence.

E.Forrer (1934) raised to a scientific discussion the observation that Germanic languages have a non-Indo-European substrate. Before that, the linguistic terrain belonged exclusively to the “IE” studies, based solely on the Family Tree model. All apples were falling at the root of the mama tree, and all saplings were its kids. The concept of substrate had infringed on that idyllic cartoon. Not only the mamma could grow in a distant banana grove, but the saplings could be various kinds of hybrids. The “IE” Theory was incessantly criticized and adjusted since its inception two centuries ago, and it is still lacking its fundamentals, such as a basic definition of what is and what is not Indo-European. An archaic notion that at some time there existed the PIE Adam and Eve speaking PIE language has been shelved long ago, pulling the rug from under a stipulation that at some time, somewhere, existed a community that used to speak the PIE language, that the PIE is not a chimera. An evidence that PIE was not a compact language, and even not a language at all, pops up everywhere. Either lexically, phonologically, or morphologically, the “IE” Family Tree is perplexing.

Perpetuation of the obvious etymological manipulations in support of the “IE” Theory has an opposite effect of seeding discontent. To account for the contraventions, the model has to be disfigured with areal and contact interpretations fused into a single-dimension paradigm, with optative inspiration that a three-dimensional amalgamation of Family Tree and a Wave models may putatively address the nature and distribution of the correlations found among the “IE” languages. A few core languages provide well attested “IE” correlations, while the optimistic attribution of other languages to the family rests on statistically insignificant spotty evidence carried by mounds of interpretations. Aside from notoriously circular argumentation, the Family Tree model is bound with fluid interpretations of undefined parameters. Beyond a fuzzy notion that a majority (dubbed “consensus”) of some particular scholar community should be convinced on attribution of a language to a particular linguistic group, no defined criteria requires to meet any evidentiary specifications neither for pro nor for the con position. Conclusions are driven more by embedded ideological trends than by analysis. In the end, the PIE comes out as a clash of beliefs, rather than a clash of evidence. The problem remains a tag-of-war between competing opinions of the “IE” linguists.

Genetic evidence shows a massive demographic imprint of the R1b haplogroup in the Western Europe and in the Inner Asia. In Western Europe this demographic imprint is connected with the Germanic languages, in Inner Asia it is connected with the Türkic languages. Another unique for the mankind common biological adaptation is the lactose tolerance that could only germinate and survive in a pastoral economy dependent on dairy products for subsisting and successful reproduction. Biological connection is independent of nationalistic notions, ideological biases, religious affiliations, dress codes, and other curses of the New Era civilizations. Instead, that connection carries common nomadic societal traits atypical for the Classical Europe: respect for individual liberties, autonomous parliamentary organization, respect for women, and spirit of mobility. Logics bears to seek demographic commonalities in the fields beyond the innate biological and societal domains. Language, being a major human demographic attribute, can't escape from demographicly carrying its uniqueness form generation to generation, and across all kinds of societal and demographic perturbations. As objects of cultural exchange, linguistic elements permeate incompatible languages, living linguistic clues everywhere. Inescapably, linguistic elements are passed along across generations, millenniums and populations. Unlike the strands of DNA revealing the story of human migrations, theoretic linguistic strands live their own life of abstruse and denial, obfuscating rather than attesting linguistic flows across our small globe. In the surrounding richly amalgamated world, linguistics of the past had created its own closet world of linear surrealism little permeable to the rest. Linguistic clues sloth about, unneeded to divine past wanderlust behind sundry present.

An unexpected development came from the genetic studies that confirmed nearly complete wipe-out of the “Old Europe” population by the 3rd mill. BC, and its replacement by the mounted Kurgan nomads, long stipulated by the archeologists. A corollary of the population replacement by the waves of the pastoral Kurgans is that the Türkic languages of the Kurgans replaced, penetrated, and amalgamated with various European languages still in the 3rd mill. BC. In one form or another, the Türkic languages dominated most of the Europe as lingua franca, although demographically, the pastoral populations are always sparse. The “Old Europe” populations found a refuge in the Eastern Europe, from where in the 2nd mill. BC their descendants migrated to the South-Central Asia, and in the 1st mill. BC their other descendants bounced back to the Western Europe. The “IE” migration to the South-Central Asia from the Eastern Europe is reflected in the diminished “IE” element in comparison with the Germanic languages (Prokosch 1939). After some wild excursions in space and time, the PIE theory is about to curdle down to the N.Pontic geographically and 3,500 BC temporally. Conceptually, that puts it right next to, and thus intersperced, with the real Kurganians, and enables it to at least discursively to accept the iniquity of amalgamation.

Domestication of animals for food was a first step in liberating people from the burden of daily provisioning. Domestication of horses vastly increased that benefit, it made provisioning portable. A feedback was revolutionary. It initiated a self-perpetuating technological revolution that extends to our days. Pastoralism sparked a mass of inventions that crucially changed the human society. Just the invention of a portable home and a wheeled mobile home required a creation of a technological complex spanning numerous engineering fields. Pastoralism freed societies from the constraints of immobility and torpidity. It required daily ingenuity, cultural openness, flexibility, and providence. It removed constraints of climate, distance, areal containment, and stewing in its own juice. It opened a path to flourishing societies, to continent-wide cultural and technological exchange. It shared its knowledge far and wide with the sedentary neighbors, both of agricultural and hunting economies. That did not get unnoticed, news of the pleiad of the nomadic teachers is found in classical literature of literal nations, Greek, Indian, Chinese, etc. Nomadic societies were on the move and evolving, and facilitated explosive evolution among their static neighbors. They either spawned or spread totally unforeseen novelties, like parliamentarism, religion, and personal freedom.

Genetics corroborates independently migratory flows marked by distinct archeological traces. Their corollary defines linguistic situation in the Eastern and Western Europe in the course of the 5th – 1st mill. BC. Earlier migrations set up conditions for the following migrations preceding to and during the period of the Great Migration of People in the 1st mill. AD. Genetics helped to clarify the phenomenon of the Celtic migration, it corroborated archeological understanding of the Celts coming from Africa to Iberia at about 2800 BC, and traced their migration in a circum-Mediterranean movement to its source in the Eastern Europe of the 6th-5th mill. BC. Some linguistic elements, shared by the Eastern European languages in the 6th-5th mill. BC, survived both the overland and circum-Mediterranean movements of the Kurgans, and along with the later migrations and local vernaculars, they formed the Germanic substrate now found as linguistic vestiges.

Among potential Germanic substrate donors were suggested Fennic, Uralic (Wiik, 2002), Semitic (Vennemann, 2003), Tyrsenian (Steinbauer, 1999), but due to the episodic nature of the linguistic parallels, none of them gained an acceptance. Consensus remains with the S.Feist's assessment of about one third of the Proto-Germanic lexemes originating from a non-Indo-European substrate, and that the Germanic languages were a result of pidginization and creolization or koineization of that substrate with the later adstrate. Pidgins are simplified conflated languages with trimmed grammar and limited vocabulary; a pidginated language is stripped down to the roots of nouns, verbs, and adjectives, with vestigial morphology and inflection, a fluid word order with prime accent on action, and a use of uncoupled vestigial elements as modal semantic determinants. Within a single or few generations pidgins develop into viable creole languages with fairly fixed syntax, grammar, morphology, and syntactic clauses. Any semantic gaps are filled in with local innovations that replace the lost conventions of the parent languages. A pidgin stage is an innate part of the human development starting from the moment of birth. The pidgin processes are fairly uniform. The most rudimentary SVO syntax, not burdened with convoluted conventions, tends to tarry on in the formed language. Here again, the northwestern Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages differ by inconsistent syntactic preference attributable to contacts with SOV-type languages, in our case specifically with the Türkic languages of the steppe Kurgans.

The spread of the European languages during the era of the global colonization had created numerous pidgin islands across the globe, spreading Indo-European languages to all kinds of natives, and promoting Indo-European languages to become a predominant linguistic family of the entire world. Nowadays, computers and English, with a twist of exploding literacy, do the same, creating vernacular English creoles across the globe. The process, started by the first waves of the mounted Kurgans to the Europe and Far East, continues unabated.

Based on the combination of the archeological, genetic, and linguistic indicators, the present concept was formulated and substantiated that the substrate of the Germanic languages was or were languages of the Türkic linguistic family, whose male speakers had a frequent marker of the haplogroup R1b, and who amalgamated with the local populations marked by the predominant male haplogroups I and N. The haplogroup I is identified with the native European populations, in particular the Balkans and Scandinavia, noted for their sedentary lifestyle, cereal farming, and military vulnerability. The haplogroup N is identified with the northern Eurasian Fennic populations, noted for their sedentary lifestyle, hunter-gatherer economy, sparseness, and military vulnerability. The haplogroup R1b is identified with the Kurgan cultures, noted for their horse nomadic husbandry, high mobility, and high military aptitude.

The proposed concept disbands unsustainable “IE” etymologies, analyzes and explains the peculiar geographical linguistic distribution stretching from Northwest India up to the Pontic Steppe and on to the North Sea, corroborates archeological and genetic evidence of migrations and amalgamations, is in concordance with the documented history of the Eurasian Steppe and Northern European people, is in concert with historically attested ethnological and cultural distinctions, and is constructively helping to rid the swollen “IE” paradigm from unrelated burdens. It allows to discern particular groups and distinctions that contributed to the evolution of the English language. It uses hard statistical probability in lieu of warm linguistic feelings to discern correspondences from similarities, disbanding speculative justifications and accounting for wide distribution of similarities across Eurasia to the significant exclusion of the Near East that muddles the “IE” paradigm. It demonstrates partial adoption of an entire lexical, morphological and script paradigms that can be accounted for only through borrowing, attesting to demographic fusion. The material that forms the concept is not amenable to a flawless reverse interpretation. Impervious to the evidence and testimony the faux etymologies fall flat. The circular logics, endemic in general linguistics and particularly universal in the “IE” methodology, is eschewed as counterproductive. It demonstrates futility of limiting the field to poorly substantiated and arbitrarily applied phonetic processes, to a reflexive exclusion of all other indicators. The concept illustrates mechanisms of the typological change, replacing habitually postulated miraculous conversions with demographically-driven and component-specific mechanisms, like a pidginization leading to a linguistic analyticity, Cf. English and Bulgar among the European “IE” languages. The concept strives to avoid elastic definitions drafted to include diverse material, it seeks to rely on attested evidence in lieu of theoretical concoctions. It allows to place the few core languages in a historical perspective, stripping them of a special ancestral status without throwing the baby with the water.
5

The converging genetic dating allowed to trace genetic markers in space and time, and draw observations about their migration, spread, and timing. According to Klyosov 2010, “The modern Uigurs, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, and some other peoples of Siberia, Central Asia and the Urals descend in part from the ancient R1b1 branch, and by now retain the same haplogroup for 16,000 years. The “Türkic-lingual” haplogroup R1b expanded from the South Siberia, where it formed 16,000 years ago, across the territories of the Middle Volga, Samara, Khvalynsk (in the middle course of river Volga) and the Ancient Pit Grave (“Kurgan”) archaeological cultures and historical-cultural complexes (8-6 thousand years ago and later, the common ancestor of the ethnic Russians with the haplogroup R1b1 lived 6,775 ± 830 years ago), northern Kazakhstan (for example Botai culture dated by the archaeologists 5,700 - 5,100 years before present (BP), in reality much older), passed through the Caucasus to Anatolia (6,000 ± 800 BP by the dating of R1b1b2 haplogroup of the modern Caucasians), and through the Middle East (Lebanon, 5,300 ± 700 BP; the ancient ancestors of the modern Jews, 5,150 ± 620 BP), and Northern Africa (Berbers of the R1b haplogroup, 3,875 ± 670 BP), crossed over to the Iberian Peninsula (around 4,800-4,500 BP, present day Basques 3625 ± 370 BP) and further on to the British Isles (in the Ireland 3,800 ± 380 and 3,350 ± 360 BP for different populations), and to the continental Europe (Flanders, 4,150 ± 500 BP, Sweden 4,225 ± 520 BP).” The trace is seen as linear, while its object is turbulent, consisting of eddies and vortices of local and global dimensions. The exponential increase in the accumulated quality and quantity of the available genetic analyses tends to advance precision of the early dating, adding sharpness and geographical detail to the temporal assessment without substantial challenge to its topography.

According to the archeological evidence systemized by M. Gimbutas, 1994, Europe also experienced three major Kurgan overland migration waves, some of them were repeat migrations into the same areas. The dating of the Kurgan migration waves, produced by archeologists using radiocarbon analysis, is in concert with the genetic dating: wave 1 at c. 4400-4300 BC, wave 2 at c. 3500 BC or somewhat later, and wave 3 soon after 3000 BC; the circum-Mediterranean Celtic Kurgan wave reached Europe independently at 2800 BC. Along its route, the circum-Mediterranean wave remains archeologically unexplored. Between the 3000 BC wave and Sarmatian migrations of the 2nd c. BC, there is a historiographical lacuna, but considering the sequential waves of the Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Kangars-Bechens, and Oguzes of the 1st mill. AD, there is no reason to suspect an absence of the Kurgan migrations during the lacuna period. It is reasonably expected that the waves, separated by the timespans on the order of millenniums, were likely composed of linguistically differing tribes of the same linguistic family but complemented by different allies, were impacted by the specifics of their migration routes and their durations, and were bringing to the new territories their particularly distinct vernaculars. Although belonging to the same nomadic horse-breeding Kurgan historical-cultural complex, they possessed different technologies, starting with the Neolithic, and ending with the metals.

The notion of the Türkic languages underlying European languages is nothing new. At the time preceding the emergence of the Scytho-Iranian Theory by two and a half centuries, as far back as 1653, M. Van Boxhorn suggested that a Scythian language was the Family Tree's proto-language of Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Iranian, Romance, and Slavic languages. At the time, in the 17th century, following the heritage from the Antique period, the old collective name Scythians was vaguely synonymous with the Türkic people, at the time known as undifferentiated Turks or Tatars. The vagueness of the term was predicated by the vagueness of the European knowledge about people further east, and especially the pastoral nomads; practically nothing was known of the pre-Islamic northern Eurasians, their kurgans, their cultures and scripts. The Van Boxhorn's suggestion was numerously modified by later scholars as new studies filled in the scholarly gaps, and survived in the crevices left out by the rise of the nation-states with their reinvented and politicized histories. According to the Türkic substrate concept, Van Boxhorn's suggestion is solidly corroborated, especially in respect to the English language, and to the Germanic languages in general. Some other European languages do not lag too far behind, each with its own historical and linguistic peculiarity.

The breakthrough afforded by the genetics helped in dislodging interpretations based on simplistic presumptions, it allowed to correlate migration of the genetic markers with migration of certain archeological cultures and people. The R1a and R1b haplogroup markers were felled from their “European” pedestal, they were found to originate in the South Siberia - Northern India area, and being dispersed west and east in a sequence of numerous migrations. Paleogenetic studies allow to peek into genetic composition of long-gone cultures and people, either bridging the past and present or demonstrating a demographic disconnect between them That is best illustrated by the western European peninsula, where the modern predominance of the marker R1b contrasts with the paleogenetic predominance of the markers I and G. The gullible presumption of the genetic continuity was felled, the realization that the Western Europe is largely populated by the Asian migrants has taken over. After many migrational waves, the marker R1b has survived and blossomed, while their companion markers R, R1, R1a, and many others, present in the past migration flows, have faded.

That does not negate their value in the genetic studies, not only to better describe the past populations, but also to cross-correlate genetic dating for the populations' samples. An asymmetry of the male Y-DNA and female mt-DNA markers, with fast-changing Y-DNA and slow-changing mt-DNA, may fairly well reflect a demographic picture (changing males and stable local females), but provide a skewed linguistic picture, with languages propagated on the maternal side playing a relatively larger role than the ones propagated on the paternal side. These correlations affect dissemination of linguistic traits, and our perceptions of the mechanics of the linguistic development.

Reverse tracing the Indo-European languages, before their partial migration from the N.Pontic to the South-Central Asia in the 2nd mill. BC, and a back migration to the Western Europe in the 1st mill. BC, tells that the bulk of the linguistically European population lived in the Eastern European refuge, with dispersed linguistic isles of the “Old Europe” surviving across Western Europe and with a considerable isle in Scandinavia. The European refugees of the “Old Europe” camped in the Eastern Europe from the beginning of the 3rd mill. BC. Before that, they were the “Old Europeans” and the future Indo-Europeans of the Western and Central Europe, they were farmers, and many of them amalgamated with the pastoral people of the Kurgan wave 1. The linguistic traces of the “Old Europeans” are still with us, the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan/Sanskrit daughter languages.

The Kurgan wave 1 of the mid 5th mill. BC was neither peaceful, nor destructive, it replaced the rustic social organization of the “Old Europe” with culturally alien elite, with demographic and linguistic situation largely left intact. It was the old Neolithic “Old Europe” under a new management. The new world order lasted for 15 centuries, or 60 generations, till the destructive Kurgan wave 2. Before the Kurgan wave 1, the Neolithic “Old Europe” was peaceful and happy for millennia, from the time of the introduction and spread of farming, which supplanted the rare scattered hunter-gatherers and greatly affected their demography by boosting their fecundity. The few members of the “Old Europe”, excavated from the Central European “killing fields”, belonged to the Y-DNA Hg I and G. The genetic picture is regularly improved by new paleogenetic data.
6

Conceptual map of Kurgan westward waves with datable genetic markers (arrows)
(background R.R.Sokal et al. 1992 and M. Gimbutas 1994)

This detailed genetic picture provides an impetus for linguistic studies. Presently, English is credited with approximately 800 Türkic cultural loanwords of mostly medieval Ottoman and Kipchak origin (Bikkinin I., 1998), of them about 250 are found in common English dictionaries, and are listed in the Wikipedia “List of English words of Turkic origin”. According to the Türkic substrate concept, a deeper linguistic layer forms the substrate layer of the Germanic languages, and particularly of the English language. The fresh approach would not change the body of the factual evidence, it would bring out new connections instead of trying to trod the same path and expect different results. Fresh approach either challenges the standing theories and hypotheses, or confirms them till an emergence of a new challenge.

For the sedentary societies, the Kurgan expansion and population replacement, attested by the “killing fields” of the period between 4500 and 4000 ybp, would overlay a continuous chain of mutually incomprehensible vernaculars every 200 km. This value would not apply to the mobile nomadic society, where the linkages are much longer and alien encounters are much more frequent, resulting in more pronounced effect of linguistic leveling. Still, with the longitudinal distance of 55°, as depicted on the Conceptual map of Kurgan westward waves above, and the timespan of 2,500 years, the development of local Sprachbunds is unavoidable. Allowing a theoretical 5-fold increase in the linear spacing would divide the European theater into 10 conceptual Sprachbund areas, 5 areas wide and 2 areas across. Given the relative stability of the roots in the agglutinative languages, the interplay between these European Türkic Sprachbunds and later historical events that shaped various European languages would create a raster of allophones for each word, at times barely recognizable, united by their origin from a small group of relatively close vernaculars.

The last Kurgan waves belong to the Iron Age, they are connected, in sequence, with the last northward movements of the Scythians coinciding with the formation and rise of the Roman Empire and with Kurgan migration from the Central Asia to the Urals. The Uralian Sarmat men were supplanted by the migrants, who inaugurated the Late Sarmatian Age. Retreating Sarmats overrun the N. Pontic Scythians, and expanded into the Central Europe, turning it into European Sarmatia described by Ptolemy and Strabo. In the process, Europe gained theretofore unknown nomadic people called Wendeln and Goths, Burgunds and Turings, and others that pushed out the old Scythian nomadic tribes into inaccessible Netherlands and Jutland. With the newcomers came their vernaculars, mixing, and amalgamation.

The next Kurgan wave is known under the name of the Huns, although its bulk consisted of the Early and Late Sarmatians known under variety of names. With the Hunnic wave came more vernaculars, mixing, and amalgamation. From the Hunnic wave arose Anglo-Saxons, history becomes much less blurred, and we receive the first records on the languages of amalgamated nomadic peoples, in case of Anglo-Saxons and Goths a blend of recognizably Türkic and unrecognized local European languages that become known as Germanic languages. From the same milieu of the Türkic and local vernaculars rose the Slavic languages.

The next Kurgan wave was already termed Türkic, it brought along Avar, Bulgar, and Suvar Türks, and numerous tribal names, but their western influence did not extend much beyond the Slavic linguistic area. All subsequent Kurgan waves, those of the Bechens (aka Pecheneg), Oguzes (aka Torks and Türks), and Kipchaks (aka Polovetses) did not extend beyond Balkans. The last Kurgans that reached central Europe were a branch of Bulgar Onogurs with their allied Ugro-Finnic allies who took over Pannonia and formed the Magna Hungaria. The last Kurgan wave was that of the Chingizids, it was stopped at Adriatic and barely affected the Balkans. The Hunnic wave was the last one connected with the Türkic substrate of the English language.

The eventful life of the Kurgans shaped their languages. According to Turkologist S.E. Malov 1952, “Western Türkic languages show that they had very rich and long life, they experienced many different influences and other exposures. That could not have happened in a very short period. In the west, all settling of Türkic people from Central Asia that we know of (for example, the Huns, Mongols and Tatars, Kyrgyz) did not exert influence and shift toward Eastern Türkic linguistic elements that could be expected if here in the West have not been established the steady and well-ossified Western Türkic languages”. The western traces of the Türkic languages ​​are deep and wide, so deep that they continue their active and productive life in the languages across much of the Europe, so wide that they could not have been wiped out by the pre-Industrial Age extermination campaigns. The traces are neither erasable nor untestable.

Long before the horse nomadic Scythians brought their kurgans from Siberia to the N. Pontic (ca 8th c. BC), kurgans were already ubiquitous across much of the Europe. The first kurgans came to Europe with the wave 1 of the pastoral horse-riders ca 44 c. BC, by that time the Kurgan Culture of the Eastern Europe was about 3 millennia old. Wave 1 established a European forepost, wave 2 fortified the revolving east-west links, and the wave 3 drastically changed the European demography and culture. In turn, Europe was changing the nomads. A major factor was the transition from the severe continental climate to the oceanic climate, with its mild winters and cool summers. Instead of subsisting on under-the-snow winter forage, herds had a continuous round-the-year access to fresh grass. Sedentary hunter-gatherer and farming populations were defenseless against the mounted nomads, they could easily be levied for labor-intensive supplies. The long-range meridional and mountain elevation migrations, and migrations to the winter refuge became unnecessary. Herds of horses could remain in situ, and be complemented by incapable of the long-range migrations cows and sheep. Compared with horses, cows and sheep produced an abundance of milk and meat. The technology of mobile homes waned in favor of the permanent settlements. An abundance of waterways reduced the need for overland travel that faded to became a secondary option. The extent of the year-around pastures allowed to bring pastoralism into the theretofore inhospitable latitudes, particularly to Scandinavia and the Isles with their pastoral economies surviving to this day. Economic adaptations turned once perilous and isolated pasturing routs into communal ventures that involved diverse ethnicities and social strata. They were a medium which grew cultural, syncretistic, linguistic, etiological, social, and technological adaptations. The hallmark of the adaptations was expressed by the Central Europe's regional Tumulus culture (Gmn. Hügelgräberkulturca, 16th - 12th cc. BC), another name for the Kurgan culture, from the Türkic tumlu “tomb”. Germanic and other European tribes were “Huns” long before the coming of the Western Huns to Europe in the 4th c. AD.

After some unknown prehistorical events, ca 8th c. BC, masses of the European nomads migrated northward with their minions, to the Scandinavian area. Climate-wise, the area afforded the same favorable conditions, but otherwise it was an area reliably secured from attacks by the wide bodies of water. That probably was a reason for migrations. The following two thousand years saw plenty of demographic activity, little known initially, but well documented for the later literate period. The events of that period attest to all kinds of amalgamations, diffusions, and divergency. There are indications that on the way, Denmark accepted Cimmerian and Scythian refugees who established their own enclaves behind the safety of marches and water barriers. Ethnically distinct, these nomadic migrants had enough commonalities with the Scandinavian pastoralists to coexist and amalgamate. These processes are fairly well known, up to the specific name of Ases of the Norse sagas, but lightly studied for historical reasons, the nomadic pastoral culture fell by wayside in comparison with unduly glorified culture of the farming population and the Viking glory. On one hand, the skewed science brings skewed results, but on the other hand it leaves plenty of room for historical explorations that would right aberrations in many involved disciplines, not the least, and probably most heavily, in linguistics.

Available dictionaries cover Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon from the 7th c., the Old German from the 8th c., the Old Frisian from the 13th c. copies of the older material, and the Jute that combined Jute and Cimbri (the Classical Cimmerians) from the 13th c. The Angles, Saxes, and Jutes were the most important initial contributors to the development of the English. The Anglo-Saxon lexis remains a solid backbone of the English, it formed in the Central Europe before the 5th c. migrations to the British Isle. English was greatly transformed in two periods of fast and cardinal changes, the first in the 11th c., the second in the 15th c. The first transition from the Anglo-Saxon or Old English to Middle English was connected with the Norman conquest, the second transition from the Middle English to New English was technologically driven by the introduction of typography.

English has estimated 500,000 words, absorbed from every imaginable language; about 30% of the lexicon ascend to the Germanic, Celtic, and substrate portions; the unique words shared by English and individual Germanic languages serve as indicators of the colorful blend: 120 Anglo-Frisian words vs. 40 Friso-Scandinavian words. Thus, for example, the particular form sin “sinful” came from the Türkic exclusively via Frisian. Only a portion of the Türkic lexicon in the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary survived into English, numerous Anglo-Saxon Türkic words are absent in English, but at the same time English is endowed with numerous Türkic words not documented in the Anglo-Saxon lexicon.

The layer of the Türkic origin may number only few hundred words, but they are the most important words: I, do, this, my, make, give, talk, eat, write, tell, kill, earth, time, day, dawn, body, and the little suffixes that make English the English. They are also the most necessary and endearing household words: mommy, papa, daddy, baby, puppy, doll, lullaby, cry, hash, wake, fart, butt, son, girl, brother, cousin, kin, guest, say, tell, candle, loaf. In the G.Doerfer's classification, these words are “essential basic words”, essential for the daily life and for the substrate concept. Of the Swadesh list of 207 “basic” words, about 62 words or exactly 30% correspond to this study’s entries on the 800-word listing of the English Turkisms. Pointedly, the study did not pursue a targeted examination of the Swadesh-207 list, and the results are random coincidences between two independent tabulations. That allows to predict that a complete examination would produce a number somewhat closer to 40%. In reality, since the Swadesh list is tailored to the specifics of the English with its absence of locative suffixes and similar inflectional markers, the English words indicating inflection can’t be classed as“basic words contained in any language”, making the Swadesh-207 list somewhat smaller, and even in this random examination the actual proportion of the 62 words stands higher than the pedantic 30%.

So far, most of the Türkic words meet etymologists' blank eye, many appear from nowhere in the records of the late Middle Ages as a “folk speech”, which what they precisely were, the speech of the ingenious English folk little affected by the Lat. influence. Quite remarkably, some of these basic words echo in the Chinese and Korean, demonstrating their spread from one end of the Eurasia to another, which only the horse-mounted Kurgan nomads could feasibly achieve. That common thread once propelled, under a spell of the Family Tree model, a suggestion of Sino-Caucasian superfamily.

A study of English Turkisms may be helpful in understanding development of the Türkic languages. The portion of the Turkisms brought to English by the Anglo-Saxons and other concomitant ethnicities may illuminate semantic nuances and extensions that did not survive to the 13th c. late records for the eastern languages. For example, the Anglo-Saxon word sink in the compound naegledsink “studded vessel”, lit. “nail-adorned vessel” uses the word sink for a an object translated as “vessel”, but could be a funeral casket made of a watercraft, or a watercraft used in funerals, or a casket patterned as a watercraft, while the recorded Türkic stem siŋ-/sı:n carries notions of submergence into water instead of floating on the water, a sink basin, and a tomb, i.e. the objects that can't be imagined studded. The older records of the Anglo-Saxon language may also elucidate the apparently unconnected derivatives and concrete nouns. Some basic Turkisms came to us practically unchanged, they may be as old as the parental haplogroup NOP, Cf. earth, don, tell, sink, sail. Other basic words stratified into clusters of barely compatible allophones with very different degrees of recognisability.

We do not know the names of the Kurgan nomads before 2200 BC, we know some names of these nomads from the Assyrian tablets ca 2200 BC: Guties, Turuks, Komans, Kangars; ca 1600 BC in China they are called Juns (Rongs) and Jous (Zhou); at approx. 800 BC in N.Pontic and Asia Minor they are called Cimmerians and Scythians; ca. 200 BC north of China they are called Huns, Juns, Tokhars (Yuezhi), Usuns, Saka, Kangars, and Tele; and in 200-400 AD they are called Huns in the west, in India, and across the eastern Eurasia, and Kangars and Usuns in the center of the Asia. After that, they continue to rush around Eurasia and build kurgans for their deceased for another 1,000 years, coming into the present.
7

Contrary to the evidence and testimonies, Germanic peoples are held as autochthons of the Scandinavia. Jordanes (6th c., Getica) introduced an opinion that most of the European peoples originated in Scandinavia. At the same time, Jordanes knew of the Goths' “Scythian” origin: “the Goths dwelt in the land of Scythia near Lake Maeotis. On the second migration they went to Moesia, Thrace and Dacia, and after their third they dwelt again in Scythia, above the Sea of Pontus” (Jordanes V.38). The Gothic origins are relayed in the initial legendary part, the non-fictional part of the Jordanes' work starts in the 3rd c. AD with Roman clash with the Goths.

Toponymic research demonstrated a paucity of native German place names in Germany, corroborating that Germans came to Germany in the last centuries BC (Chemodanov, 1962, 79). The south Scandinavia, reputedly the original homeland of the Germans, definitely could not populate the whole of the Europe. It has a gap between the cultures of the Bronze and Iron Ages (Mongait, 1974, 324), when sometime during the Sub-Atlantic climatic phase (cold wave, 5th c. BC - 50 BC) it was completely deserted, and then re-populated with a reverse flow. Evacuation of the farming population rolled out within a period of less than a century. Then enter the Classical writers, who found Germanic tribes in Gaul and Germany. In the first centuries AD the names Suebi and Germans had an equal currency. Apparently, both the names Germani and Suebi are exonyms, the first means “manly, brave” in Türkic, the second means “vagabond, vandal, wendeln (Wanderers)” in Celtic. The Germanic form wendeln is a calque of the Celtic word. The names Suebi and Germani are umbrella terms like the names Scythians, Saka, Sarmats, Alans, Ases, Goths, Huns, Türks, or Tatars, and like the names Celts, Greeks, and Romans. They refer to horse nomadic pastoral societies, mobile and perilous for sedentary farming peoples. From around 58 BC on, the fragmentary information on Germans becomes fairly continuous. Strabo (1st c. BC) described the category of the Suebi nomads as peoples living off their flocks on meat and milk, with “small huts” yurts and wagons, driving their herds from pasture to pasture, and opposite to the settled farming. The description of Suebi is indistinguishable from the description of the Scythians and their variety. As a number of distinct tribes with their own distinct names, the Suebi tribes occupied more than a half of Germania. The nomads and local farmers coexisted, occupying different interspersed niches. The nomadic part of Europe must have been very sparsely populated, because the pastoral economy is highly manpower-efficient but needs huge pastoral tracts to sustain large herds. East of Germania was the endless European Sarmatia, populated by the Sarmat Scythians, and nobody knew where one ends and another starts. A number of Suebi tribes have transparent Türkic names, Cf. Goths that stands for generic Guz (and gur) “tribe”, Alamanni that stands for generic alaman “raid” (Vorontsov, 2009, 65), Hercyni (as in Hercynian forest) that stands for generic “nomad” lit. “kindred (hence the appellative Hun) people”, As that stands for “plain (people)”, its Slavic calque is pole “field”, Polyan “field-man”.

The Normans' genealogical legends also recall that they “came from Asia”, they lived there in an ever flourishing country, richer than the cold Scandinavian coasts. The description of the “old country” echoes that of the Cockney, in Türkic köken “motherland, native place, ancestral land”, a “mythical luxurious country”. The Old Norse Prose Edda provides numerous parallels with the Türkic mythology, etiology, and ethnology. It links the Norman-Germanic genealogy with the god-ancestor Thor (Þor, Þorr), the Tengri of Tengriism and the Chinese Tian “heaven”. Following a prophecy, a legendary leader Odin led a “multitude of Ases” to the country of Saxes, and then on to other regions of the Germany. The Türkic term yazï “steppe, plain, flatland” is almost synonymous with the word alan “plain, flatland”, the names As and Alan were used interchangeably. The confusing parallelism of these two terms in the historical records and in Türkic attests to their common source, it is a salient case of paradigmatic transfer. Under the leadership of Odin, Ases triumphed everywhere over the local population, and in the end “the tongue of these Asiamen was the true tongue over all these lands;... and (that) the Asa brought the tongue hither into the north country; into Norway and into SviÞiod, into Denmark and into Saxland; but in England there are old names of the land and towns, which one may skill to know that they have been given in another tongue than this.” (Snorri Sturluson (ca 1220), 1842, 111). Of the nomadic Scythians, Strabo singled out the “best known of the nomads are those who took away Bactriana from the Greeks,... Asii or Asians, Tochari,... who originally came from the country on the other side of the Iaxartes River (Syrdarya) that adjoins that of the Sacae and the Sogdiani and was occupied by the Sacae.” The sources trace Ases and Saxes (Saka, Sacae) from the 140 BC Horezm to Bactria, to the N. Pontic Scythians, and to the vicinities of the Baltic Sea. Before that, in the 3rd c. BC, the Asii-Yuezhi controlled Ordos. The migrants had to carry not only their spoken language, but also their written language, the traditional titles, social and state organization, and a myriad of other cultural and societal traits. The Germanic Normans have a glorious obfuscated pedigree. The Normanic Vikings used to intimidate their neighbors a millennium before they turned to consummate the sitting ducks across Europe.

Snippets of the nomadic traces are scattered in the lexicon, morphology, semantic links, distinct phonetics, and regular phonetic shifts throughout the body of the examined English Turkisms. The body of knowledge inherited from the early days of the Germanic people had to suffer from a cognitive dissonance on the institutional level, when the uncivilized nomadic ancestry was first minimized in favor of the civilized agricultural traditions, then in favor of the civilized religion, then in favor of the civilized wars and colonization, and finally in favor of the civilized parochial patriotism. Linguistics is but one facet of the discrepant humanities; not only matters like earth/erde “earth” is unrelated to the Türkic yer “earth”, but the Germanic runes are unrelated to the Türkic runes, the European jurisprudence is unrelated to the nomadic jurisprudence, the European parliamentarism is unrelated to the nomadic parliamentarism, and so on in the department of new mythology of the European humanities. No applied science discipline can be institutionalized with one blinder on, rather, a minutest discrepancy is mercilessly massaged and studied till it is resolved, exhaustively tested, and applied for practical needs. No applied science discipline can exist without crisp definitions of its basics and effects. No applied science discipline can exist with two sets of contradictory textbooks. Humanities, in contrast, can have three Saxonias, one in Horezm bordering on the Asii, the other the Sakacena in Azerbaijan in the Caucasus, another one in the center of the Europe, and any contiguity is in a state of denial. Or have the two Asii folks, one in Bactria and Horezm, the other by the Baltic, and no contiguity in language or script. Science searches for quark entanglement, the humanities in contrast, in conflict with all counterindicators, postulate a disentangled egression. Instead of amalgamation, is firmly postulated an internal development.

A Zoroastrian source (speculatively dated by 1200 BC, on the events of the 7th c. BC, if that makes any sence) recites the As-related events: “Some Turanians, expelled from the Media country by (the legendary) Kai Khosrow, settled in the northwest karshvar (province) of the known inhabited earth. They crossed the river Erehsh (Arax) and Kurush (Kura), and lived on both sides of the mountain Erezur (Caucasian Elbrus) of the Hara Berezati ridge. These Turanians were also called by the name Ihkuzu (As Scythians). Later, they moved into the vast plain north of the ridge High Hara to the rivers Ranh and Danush (Itil and Don)... The Saka living by Danush (Don) were also called Danavas Turs (Danavo Turs) because in their country flows the river Danush, the longest and most dangerous of the rivers” (Zarathustra, 2002, 29). The name Scandinavia may be an echo of the name Saka-Danavo.

In Turkic languages tur/tura means “live, dwell”, “stopover, layover”, “settlement, dwelling”, toručï “inhabitants, population”. The names Tur and Turan are popular with Avesta, in the Iranian languages the names are not etymologized, etymologized, they attest to the Türkic linguistic influence on the Iranian languages of the time. As a specific toponym, Turan persevered for 3 millenniums, predating both Persia and the Han China.

Although the Old Norse sagas clearly depict Odin as a leader of the Asparukh type, who at a time of trouble leads his people to safety, the European historiography presents Odin as a head of a religious pantheon. There is no need to confuse the issue, since the Almighty is Thor. Attempts to re-christen Odin as a supreme being were not successful, under any dressing Odin could not replace the Almighty Thor. The mythological Odin may have been treated as a deified figure, but he remained a figure of flesh and blood, an eponymic tribal ancestor of the Nordic royalty. His name appears to be a title-name, like Attila (Father of Country) and Ataturk (Father of Türks), consistent with the pre-Islamic, pre-Christian Türkic naming tradition. The god-like qualities of Odin are consistent with the properties of the boyar class, who were held in reverence for their foresight, wisdom, knowledge of omens, foreboding, and even magic powers. The prosthetic initial w- in his name is of the same nature as the prosthetic f- in “father”, an allophone of the Türkic ata “father” (Gothic atta) with a pl. suffix to express a notion of respect. The title is a straightforward epithet, an allophone of the ata-ani “ancestor” (lit. “father-mother”), with some dialectal peculiarities. In Slavic languages, the title Odin has a form otchina/votchina (отчина/вотчина), from otets (отец) “father”, an allophone of ata that also has a variant with a prosthetic initial v-, specific for Slavic languages. It goes without a saying that a mortal, even if deified, can't head a religious pantheon. However, as a deceased fatherly figure, he can provide some occult protection, along the line of the dependable Catholic saints and the time-tested Roman/Greek gods. The name Odin is another relict of the Asian ancestry.

Huns play a major role in the German genealogical legends, an especial place occupies Etzel Attila (Nibelungenlied). The western Hunnic state operated on the model of the prior and later Türkic states, as a confederation of kindred tribes and their sedentary dependents. Attila inherited a state with a long-ingrained notion of the Türkic-Germanic kinship. The blurred footprint prevented Classical authors from delineating where the European Sarmatia ends and the Germania starts. The tribal composition of the Attila's forces at the Chalons (Catalaun) battle and the rise of the Germanic states after the split of the Western Hunnic Empire present a vivid attestation of the confederation membership. In a genetic bird's-eye view, the Roman-Hunnic confrontation and the succeeding melees were a conflict of the R1 haplogroup (R1a and R1b varieties) with the native European haplogroups, a replay of the millenniums-old confrontations during the previous Kurgan waves, including the last Sarmat wave of the 2nd c. BC. Huns left a sizable trace in the European culture and social organization, it took a millennium to suppress the last vestiges of the Türkic religion (in the forms of Arianism, Bogomilism, and other monikers), but the will for freedoms and the social canons have survived as the modern canons. Except for the eastern fringes, the European civilized slavery system did not survive the Hunnic period. Unlike the sedentary civilized societies, barbarians practiced confederations, not enslavement. The individual freedoms and parliamentary system are the vestiges of the steppe societal traditions.

Methodology

To establish in a systematic fashion a conjectural genetical link between English and Türkic, suggested by history, archeology, ethnology, and biology, comparisons must be made between all linguistic aspects, namely typology, syntax, morphology, lexis, phonetics, distribution, script, and statistical significance. All these aspects must corroborate, or at least not contradict, the proposed concept. The historical background, and the parent and kindred languages systemically infused with Türkic elements, must be a canvas over which the linguistic aspects are drawn.

The discipline that pursues in that direction is called comparative historical linguistics, and that term should be used for the task of identifying Türkic-type layer in English. However, due to self-imposed preconceptions and limitations, that task can be called comparative historical linguistics only with major caveats. From its inception, the discipline of comparative historical linguistics emerged and was defined as a linguistic analysis of the Family Tree model, it is a “normal”, “accepted”, or “established, traditional” discipline; deviations from the “norm” are held abnormal and peripheral. Whatever linguistic classification scheme is selected, it is the Family Tree model, to the deliberate exclusion of other models, like the Wave model, by the very essence of the “normal” comparative procedure. Atomistic in method, the “normal” comparative historical linguistics behaved as an interpretive discipline-isolate, short-circuited on itself, and opposed to a holistic approach.

Historically, ethnic depictions described typical appearances of the alien peoples. In the “them” vs. “us” descriptions, the part “us” is omitted as well known to the reader. For the later students that part was understood as implied opposite: “they” are swarthy, then “us” are “white”, “they” are nomadic or sea-fairing, then “us” are stationary, “they” are blonds, then “us” are brunettes, etc. For centuries. the notion of race underlain and tainted all aspects of ethnic studies, including linguistics. The understanding of the origin and propagation paths of the typological traits is a newer development. The Indo-Arian “blond beast” turned out to be a trait alien to the Mediterranean “us”, it is carried by the genes originated in the northern Eurasians, the Finns and their genetic kins, the carriers and descendants of the Y-DNA haplogroup NO with that unique mutation. In the age of genetics, not once a discovery of light-haired dead was still hailed as an evidence of linguistic Indo-Europeanism. Similar misconceptions in respect to Mongoloidness and other acquired appearances covertly underlain the fundamentals of the comparative linguistics.

In reality, very few societies and their languages fall under the essence of such “comparative” procedure. A test of such peculiar comparative historical linguistics built on the Family Tree model, applied to any language in Europe from the Noah-equivalent point for the historical period, with terminal points from when it was documented for the first time to the modern language, would fail to reconstruct the modern language from the initial one, and vice-versa. That failure would be predicated by the deficiency of the model that neglects the most important factors in development of any European language, those of the Sprachbund effect, demographic effects of amalgamation and migration, demic cultural impact, and impact of mass media that started with introduction of mass print and spread of literacy. In pursuit of the proposed concept, no developmental model should be presumed, it should be a conclusion of the exploration, not its premise or precondition, nor a target nor a guiding star.

A similar position should be taken toward all other linguistic aspects, directed toward examination of the factual material without pre-imposed targets and limitations. Personal beliefs on what is possible and impossible must be dispensed with beforehand. Elementary justice demands a search for, introduction, and examination of every relevant evidence and every testimony for every etymological investigation, with unmitigated attention to counterevidence and wanton presumptions. Instead of being dispensed with as malleable variables to justify diversity within the “IE” family conglomerate, the subjects of typology and syntax, completely ignored by the “normal” comparative procedure, need to take their proper place as the leading and most conservative properties. The statistical significance stepdaughter of linguistics, which the “normal” comparative procedure knows only from citations of few selected luminaries, need to be a common and productive tool.

In the lexical aspect, opinions on the statistical significance for genetic connection vary from 150 cognates (G.Doerfer 1981) or every 70th word within a presumed basic 10,000-word dictionary, to a probability of 1:100,000 for “individual-identifying evidence” (J. Nichols 1996). That range of “opinions” on primary definition, from 70 to 1 individual, is ridiculous by any standards. For this examination, the G.Doerfer's suggestion, generally deemed to reflect a sound skeptical conservatism, is accepted as a vaguely defined threshold of credibility, as a lexical-statistical point which satisfies a minimal requirement for genetic connection. The lexical paradigm, nearly exclusively used in the comparative linguistics, is a low-hanging fruit. Other traits, like the paradigmatic transfer of the entire cooking lexicon, or the transfer of embedded morphology, are statistically immeasurably more weighty, each additional element exponentially reduces a possibility of falsification, quickly reaching a point of no return.

Under “normal” comparative procedure, geographic distribution rarely gets a cursory look, and when it does, it mechanically expands the depth of the Family Tree model to another level of a mature “pra-language” seed of the Nostratic theory. For this examination, the preconceived Family Tree model is dispensed with, and the term Nostratic is used for putative Eurasian Sprachbund elements connected with migratory flows prior to the domestication of animals as a means of transport. That invention cardinally changed the patterns of cultural exchange, replacing a slow-moving omnidirectional dispersion to a directional fast-pace dispersion.

The concept of genetic connection within linguistic family stipulates a base vocabulary shared by the members of the family. In essence, that is a standing non-codified definition of a linguistic family. Numerically, the base vocabulary is miniscule, numbering 10 to 20 dozen words selected for their stability across all candidate languages, it is a hard linguistic nucleus. In a conceptual 10,000-word dictionary, 200 words constitute 2% of the lexis. The remaining 98% of the lexis constitutes a shell enveloping the base vocabulary, it is malleable, it is not limited by any qualifications. The qualitative division onto the base and shell vocabularies was established by the “normal” comparative linguistics, it was a necessary theoretical accommodation of the fact that 98% of the Indo-European lexis is incompatible between the putative members of the Indo-European family. It also made “guests” an ordinary and predominating phenomenon, allowing a single “guest” to systematically infiltrate numerous languages from numerous linguistic families and their numerous branches. The conditional accommodation freed a 98% of any member's lexis from concordance with any linguistic laws, since the “guests” originated from any walks of life and joined via all kinds of paths.

The freedom from the laws allowed a freedom of typology, it brought, at least theoretically, under the “IE” umbrella such incompatible languages as Celtic, Armenian, Kartvellian, Ossete, and Kashmir. The conditional accommodation allowed to stipulate an attrition rate for the base vocabulary, at least for the tested European samples. Applying the formulated concept of genetic connection to the families other than “IE” flashed out an utter parochialism of the concept. In case of Türkic languages, and generally of typologically agglutinative languages, the core vocabulary numbered way in excess of 50% of the lexis, and the stability of the root as a key element was an order of magnitude higher than that for the “IE” languages. As a systemic diagnostic tool for genetic connection, the concept of the core vocabulary established for the European languages plus Sanskrit and Persian can't be extended across linguistic families other than the IE. For the non-IE substrate languages, the substrate concept must examine cases from the 98% shell, not stay shy from examining cases from the 2% base vocabulary, shrink down to individual words, their ultimate origin, their membership in the paradigmatic transfers, and to attempt to visualize historical paths between disparate linguistic families.

The method of the “normal” comparative procedure assembles a listing of the study's target words in allowed language (say, Lao) suspected to be cognates of the word list with known affiliation (say, Sino-Tibetan); the two listings are juxtaposed, compared, and analyzed in phonetic and vaguely defined semantic aspects, with episodic excurses into known political history as a dating tool. By definition, the method is not holistic, it leaves a bulk of the linguistic properties outside of the purview. At the same time the comparative procedure declines to give a credence to the analogous lexemes from unfavorable candidates. The two-faced-Janus approach proved to be beneficial for the sanity and racial purity of the “IE” comparative linguistics, imposing few limitations beyond the “normal” scope of purview, but at a price of introducing methodological flaw of circular logic, when the results filtered through the aperture of premises invariably validate these premises. With the circular logic, like in love, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

As a linguistic dating tool, the known political history may be a convenient, but profoundly unrealistic approach. The multi-ethnic composition of all Türkic confederations is not an exception, but rather a rule: during historical period, few political entities, even isolates, were monolingual, if only because the mammalian trait of sexual procreation extends way back beyond our historical period, and staunchly continues into our present. Way before the appearance of the human ethnicities, a drive for trophy husbands and wives was crossing any boundaries within the same species, the Neanderthalian admixture within the modern population saliently attests to that. Confusing political, ethnic, and linguistic categories is akin to a scholastic ghettoization of climate, you can do it, but dynamic events disagree with a static model. A fixated search for a ghettoized Urheimat instead of a linguistically fuzzy amalgamated and amalgamating Sprachbund in a time and space motion requires a holistic approach. That, in turn, would re-write definitions for the objective and the target.

The “IE” linguists routinely stipulate as a justification for the bifurcated methodology that the listings from uncouth suspects can't be taken seriously, asserting that unlike their sibling “IE” listings they are methodologically flawed, inconsistent with the given postulates, and prove absolutely nothing. The main tool of that approach is not to methodically refute alternate concepts, but to plant a doubt. At the same time, the miniscule qualifying requirements and the absence of concise definition allows essentially unlimited possibility to claim “IE” genetical connection for languages of entirely different origin, without any consideration for the relationship of the primary vs. the secondary, fluid, and possibly borrowed, properties. For this examination, the bifurcated methodology is dispensed with, the same criteria are applied without prejudice and any preconceptions. The body of cognates in the candidate language is viewed as a paradigm with its own structure, segmentation, and logics; the paradigm has to be consistent with advances accumulated by all disciplines including linguistics.

The “normal” comparative procedure does not trace evolution of the morphological elements, not in a small degree because no elements fit the entire “IE” Family Tree model, they belong to languages with incompatible typology and incompatible syntax, and offer commonalities only within certain Sprachbund areas. Within and without “IE” linguistics, the primacy of the language typology and syntax are established facts, phonetic modifications are effects and not causes of the linguistic changes. Consistent application of that cause and effect sequence creates insurmountable conflicts for the “IE” family concept; advancing phonetics into the cause position allows to save the concept by postulating, selectively for the “IE” family concept, malleable typology, syntax, and lexis. Morphology is not a building block of the “IE” Theory, it is its greatest Achilles' heel in need of secure disposition.

The proposed concept, in contrast, treats morphology as a most powerful diagnostic trait, it traces numerous European morphological elements to the Türkic agglutinative morphology, and demonstrates a genetic connection and adaptation to the typologically incompatible European languages. The treatment of morphology is not selectively fitted to any model, with understanding that every individual language formed from inherited, amalgamated, and innovated components, and a part of dialects of any linguistic grouping may carry traces of an archaic phenomenon shared with other dialectal groups, while any member of a dialectal group may replace archaisms with borrowings and innovations. In most cases, the English Turkisms allow to connect an English word with its real primeval root, still active, productive, and surrounded by a slew of morphologically derived offsprings, all ascending to the primeval notion of their living progenitor. The diagnostic tool of morphology is applicable across the entire language, without a need to target examination to particular grammatical classes.

The treatment of lexis within the proposed concept is based on the monumental work performed by “IE” linguists in the course of the past 200 years. The cognate listings cited in “IE” etymological compilations in most cases are used verbatim, extending beyond the “IE” horizon where applicable. One major difference is the accent on semantics instead of phonetics, the corollary of that difference is differentiation between homophones and allophones. Where the “IE” linguistics accentuates phonetics and treats semantics as a malleable property, a close attention to semantics allows to discard spurious and artificial parallels, cleansing analysis of notional biases aimed at a certain result. The other difference is an open horizon, a corollary of untargeted analysis, it expands linguistic geography to the places where the foot of the “IE” linguistics did not trod, and brings up systemic results outside of the “normal” purview. Another difference is the independence of the cognate candidates from the much berated “IE” linguistic laws. That is justified by the absence of linguistic laws that systematize malleability of Turkisms obtained in the processes of population replacement, amalgamation and cultural borrowing, and keeps in the parallels usually discarded by “normal” linguists who apply “IE” linguistic laws to stochastic phenomena in order to keep the stochastic process tamed and targeted. Another major difference is a healthy skepticism toward reconstructions fancied from applications of dubious laws to stochastic effects. Since the “IE” linguistic laws are no more than formulated observed tendencies, they carry a statically defined probability, and can be applied only in statistical context.

Conventional scripts that existed prior to codification, brought about by the introduction of printing, are conservative and traceable to their primeval forms. Scripts, however, are a separate branch of science neither endorsed nor used in comparative historical linguistics, to the detriment of the last. The independent life of graphemes is as much a historical evidence as are the spoken and written forms of phonetics. The proposed concept embraces the evidence, conveyed by the comparative historical orthography both in graphic and phonetic aspects, within the limits of immediate perception.

The statistical significance denotes a numerically expressed value of a set of data within a body of data, applied to measured parameters (statistics) and predicted statistical outcome (probability). The most informative statistical measurements in the proposed concept are the frequency of use, which is statistics on relative standing of a particular word in a language, and probability of chance coincidences. The frequency of use statistics allows to appraise numerically the place of the substrate language in the examined language, a most significant parameter of the examined language. The factor of probability of chance coincidences, on one hand, allows to validate or reject a test subject based on the valuation of probably vs. improbable, and on the other hand allows to validate or reject linguistic assertions made from the perceptions of personal intuition and ingrained biases.

Some statistical reality needs to be accounted for in assessing formulaic interpretations “fortuitous, echoic, onomatopoetic”, and similar dead-end etymologies. The limitations of the source base are not uniform, they vary greatly depending on subject, e.g. well documented religious lingo vs. poorly documented daily utilitarian lexis. That shortcoming is especially great in the paramount areas of the nomadic economy, animal husbandry and the metal and weaponry production. At times, barely 10% of the specialty lexicon recorded in the source base matches that documented by special studies, Cf. A. Shcherbak, 1961. The statistical chances of locating a relevant cognate for the niche semantics is really fortuitous, reflecting the ratio of the live lexis vs. the recorded compendium. Since the lexical distribution paths are totally unknown or at best tentative, an omission of a single pertinent cognate is critical in each individual case, denying an opportunity to locate a possible demographic path, and generally to establish possible genetic connection. Under such conditions, assertions on the fortuitous, echoic, etc. formulaic origins can be valid only when they are based on exhaustive study of a wide range of synonyms extended as far as the real and potential migratory trails.

The historicity of the comparative historical linguistics is an unsettled issue with diametrically opposing opinions, from purists arguing that comparative historical linguistics is unable to penetrate or reflect historical processes to practitioners associating linguistics with specific political events. A holistic assessment of the lexical material in the context of the proposed concept allows to link linguistics with history and the disciplines as diverse as biology, economy, ethnology, and technology, and to use the mutually corroborating evidence to affirm the proposed concept.

The trait of paradigmacity is a most powerful tool attesting to the genetic connection, it is one of the tenets of the “IE” comparative linguistics. The observed transfer of paradigms, traceable from the Türkic to Germanic and on to the English corroborate the proposed concept. Generally, members of paradigmatic transfer share common traits: their “IE etymology” bravely declares them to be “of unknown origin” or spottily suggests easily confuted mostly incredible etymology; in paradigmatic transfer cases cognates are endowed with their separate mutually unrelated “PIE proto-word” origins; the cases of paradigmatic transfer slip undetected and unaddressed; morphology-related paradigmatic transfer is ignored.

The trait of paradigmacity is a most powerful tool attesting to the genetic connection, it is one of the tenets of the “IE” comparative linguistics. The observed transfer of paradigms, traceable from the Türkic to Germanic and on to the English corroborate the proposed concept. Generally, members of paradigmatic transfer share common traits: their “IE etymology” bravely declares them to be “of unknown origin” or spottily suggests easily confuted mostly incredible etymology; in paradigmatic transfer cases cognates are endowed with their separate mutually unrelated “PIE proto-word” origins; the cases of paradigmatic transfer slip undetected and unaddressed; morphology-related paradigmatic transfer is ignored.

The reason for such inept treatment is that the bulk of the accumulated etymological studies is a century old, from the time of horse carriages and inchoative nation-states with high attention to creation their historical narratives. Nearly all studies were produced in Europe, by the European scholars, in accordance with the European norms of the day, and for the European consumption and mentality; exemplary pedantry was held in high esteem, it did not need an open mindset, abhorred scientific heresy, and had powerful tools to curb deviance. Lexical similarity and cognates were not only a base of the science, they were the science. Still, other than a general concept, the tool of the paradigmatic transfer is in its incipiency, a theoretical tenet in waiting for practical implementation. In support of the proposed concept, the method used is duly concerned with cases of paradigmatic transfer in their many configurations, and seeks to detect each case as the most credible evidence.

While the methodology used in support of the proposed concept in many respects conflicts with the tenets of the “normal” comparative historical linguistics, the method is productive in its approaches, in the spectrum of examined factual material, analysis, the width of corroborating evidence, and achievement of credulity for the proposed concept.

Given that English is a considerably modified version of Anglo-Saxon, the most expedient approach would be a direct comparison of Anglo-Saxon versus Türkic, a task beneficial for the present examination and fruitful for the “IE” linguistics. That such comparison, in spite of a plethora of documented indicators, has never been conducted, is a monumental methodological flaw. The expediency of the Anglo-Saxon – Türkic comparison would however miss English Turkisms absorbed via other languages that formed the English substrate, particularly Frisian, Celtic, and Gothic components. Numerically limited, such components are invaluable testimony to the richness and complexity of the English linguistic history; to deliberately abandon them would distort the evolution of a living language. The method used in support of the proposed concept, in contrast, attends to the substrate Turkisms irrespective of their source.

General

The English substrate words of Türkic origin are scattered in numerous works of mostly non-linguistic nature, where they are accidental to the topic of the work. A few of them are picked up from the linguistic work of G.Shuke 2010, who compares substrate lexicons of the Latvian and Russian vs. the Türkic, and unwittingly cites numerous English cognates in the Latvian and Russian Türkic-based substrates. Numerous Christian terms of the Türkic origin are analyzed in the work of Yu.N. Drozdov, 2011. The Old Türkic Dictionary (OTD, 1969), though extracted from the eastern Türkic languages, includes numerous words of the Türkic-English substrate lexicon, and hints at more words, of which only derivatives or some particular forms were recorded, leaving the stems to be produced by truncating their word-forming suffixes. G.Clauson Etymological Dictionary of pre-13th c. Turkish (EDT, 1972), though also extracted from the eastern Türkic languages, includes most of the cognates listed in this compendium, frequently indirectly and directly translated with their English cognates. A large number of Turkisms in Russian language covered in the work of E. Shipova Dictionary of Turkisms in Russian Language have matching English cognates identified in etymological dictionaries of English lexicon as “of unknown origin” or otherwise listed with partial or dubious etymology, frequently bent to Indo-European side. There is a tendency to use semantically unrelated Skt. examples as real cognates, just to make a point. In contrast with the flexive IE, the Türkic stems are not readily changeable. Generally, the romantic “IE” unattested *reconstructions of the English substrate lexicon are leaving a bad taste, confirming the old adage that Indo-European reconstruction inevitably has a character of a scientific fiction; not too numerous “IE” *stem conjectures are intentionally left out as confusing noise.

The listings of Turkisms in this compendium is intentionally limited to a number of 800, to prevent the task from being open-ended. A potential for increase is obvious even within a deliberately restricted scope, many words have semantically distinct derivative and allophonic versions, like the pair dip and deep, each with a trail of its own allophones and derivatives. Dozens of words are mentioned here as examples without elucidation, dozens more not mentioned here are obvious cognates. Increased inventory adds little to advance the concept. An expansion of the list has a trend of diminishing returns: although the words are innately English, the frequency of their use tends to decrease, with a net result that adding quantities does not materially increase the degree of the role Turkisms play in the modern English.

The whole body of the documented Türkic words in English can comfortably stand on its own without any non-attested stem forms. To illustrate this point, here is a list of words that are practically the same in the two languages, they only differ by divergent conventional Romanization.

Sample list of cognate Türkic–English words

These English words can be substituted in casual speech with their properly suffixed Türkic counterparts, and nobody would hardly notice (like kel- > kelter vs. kilter, qatïɣ > qatïɣir vs. category, kast- > kastis vs chastise);
just the opposite, replace them with some colloquial English or European versions, and they would stand out: compare with European (Fr. (de)calage, categorie, chatierai, Gmn. Gleich, Kategorie, kasteien respectively), or with the barely recognizable 10th c. Old English forms hlaford “lord”, brohte “brought”, scolde “should”, licode “liked”, and the like. In many cases, Türkic counterparts look like dialectal forms from the other side of the river, a type of the Cockney version.
In many cases modern spelling obscures phonetic connection (like ög-, A.-Sax. ege, eage, aga, modern eye); some regular alterations, like b/f, also obscure phonetic connection (like bur “fire”, A.-Sax. fyr); such cases are not included in this selection of easily recognizable samples.
The sample list of readily recognizable words (about 450) is pulled from the dictionaries transcribing the Middle Age Türkic lexicon in Central Asia. It represents about 55% of the 800 lexemes cited in this compendium.

	English	Türkic	English	Türkic	English	Türkic	English	Türkic	English	Türkic
1	abode	oba	can	kanata	dumb (adj.)	dumur	king	kengu	sing (v.)	siŋ- (v.)
2	abundant (adj.)	abadan (adj.)	can (v.)	qan (v.)	dune	dun	lamb	-la:n	sink (v.)	siŋ- (v.)
3	abysm	abamu	candle	kandil	durable	dür- (v.)	loaf	lavāš	sip (v.)	syp (v.)
4	ache	аčï	cap	kap	duration	dür- (v.)	mallet	maltu	sling	salïŋu
5	acid (n., adj.)	аčï- (v.)	car	köl- (v.)	duress	dür- (v.)	mama	mamü	skull	kelle
6	act (v.)	aqtar- (v.)	caragana	qaraqan	dust	doz	mammal	meme	smile (v., n.)	semeye (v.)
7	Adam	adam	care	qorq	dye	dawa	man	men	soak (v.)	saɣ- (v.)
8	again	aga (adj.)	carnival	kerme	earl	yarlïqa- (v.)	many	munča (adv.)	sock (beating)	sok- (v.)
9	age	aga	case	kečä	Earth	Yer	mantra	maŋra- (v.)	sock (legging)	sok- (v.)
10	ago (adj., adv.)	aga (adj.)	case	qaza	eat (v.)	ye- (v.)	marasmus	maraz	socket	sok- (v.)
11	aggrieve	aɣrï	cash	kečä	eave	ev	mare	ma:	sodden (adj.))	sod
12	alimentation	alım	cast (v.)	kus- (v.)	eke	eken (v.)	matt (adj.)	mat (adj.)	son	song
13	alimony	alım	cast (v., n.)	qïsdï (v.)	elbow	el	me (pron.)	min (pron.)	sorrel (adj.)	sary (adj.)
14	all (n., adj.)	alqu (n., adj.)	castigate (v.)	kast- (v.)	eligible (adj.)	elïg- (v., n.)	means	min	squeeze (v.)	qis- [qys-]
15	Alban	аlban (n., adj.)	category	qatïɣ	elite	elit- (v.)	mengir	meŋgü	stay (v.)	üstü- (v.)
16	alms	almak	cattle	katıl	elk	elik	mental (adj.)	meŋtä (adj.)	subliminal (adj.)	sumlîm (adj.)
17	amen (adj.)	ämin (adj.)	cause	köze:-	ell	el	menu	meŋ	suck (v.)	saɣ- (v.)
18	analogue	anlayu (adv.)	cavalry	keväl	elm	ilm	mickle	mig	sundry (adj.)	sandrı:- (v.)
19	apt	apt	cave	kovı:	en-	en-	mind	ming	sure (adj.)	sürek (adj.)
20	arch	arca	cavern	kovı:	endure	endür- (v.)	mint (v., n.)	manat	surrender (v.)	süründi- (v.)
21	argue (v.)	arqu- (v.)	cavity	kovı:	enigma	tanığma	mist	muz	swell	siwel
22	Arthur	artur- (v.)	Celt	kel- (v.)	-er	er (morph.)	monastery	manastar	tab	tap- (v.)
23	as (adv.)	aδïn (adv.)	chalant (adj.)	čalaŋt	Erik	erk	money	manat	tablet	tü:b
24	ashlar	aslïq-	chalk	chol	equal (adj.)	egil (adj.)	mother	mamü	taco	toqüč
25	ass	eš(äk)	chastise (v.)	kast- (v.)	ether	äsir	mount (v.)	mün- (v.)	tad	tat
26	assign (v.)	asïɣ	chat (v.)	čat- (v.)	evacuate (v.)	evük- (v.)	mouse	muš	tag	toqu
27	astute (adj.)	asurtɣuq (adj.)	chattel	čatïl	evict (v.)	evük- (v.)	much	munča (adv.)	tack (v., n.)	tak- (v.)
28	at (prep.)	at- (v.)	chatter (v., n.)	čatu:r (v.)	evil (adj., n.)	uvul-	murky (adj.)	mürki (adj.)	tale	tili- (v., n.)
29	Augean	aqür	cheap (adj.)	čıp (adj.)	evoke (v.)	evük- (v.)	nose	ñü:z	talk (v., n.)	tili- (v., n.)
30	aught	ot (adj.)	check	chek	ewe	eve	oat	ot	tall (adj.)	tal
31	aurora	yar-	cheek	čaak	fare (v., n.)	faqr(lïq)	oath	ötä- (v.)	tally (v., n.)	tili- (v., n.)
32	awe (v.)	ö- (v.)	cherub	čebär	feeling	bilin-	ocean	ӧkän	tambourine	tambur
33	awhile (adv.)	äwwäl (adv.)	chill (v., n.)	čil	gabble (v.)	gap- (v.)	ogle (v.)	ög- (v.)	tap (v., n.)	tap (v.)
34	baby	bebi	chip	čïp	gadding	qad	ok (interj.)	ok (interj.)	tap (v.)	tap (v.)
35	bad (adj.)	bäd (adj.)	chisel (v.)	čiz- (v.)	gaffe	ɣafillïq	old (adj.)	ol- (adj.)	tar (v.)	ter- (v.)
36	bag	bag	chitchat (v., n.)	čit čat (v.)	gain	gänč	omen	aman (adj.)	tariff	tarïɣ
37	baize	bez	chop (v., n.)	čop- (v.)	gamut (adv.)	qamit (adv.)	on (prep.)	on- (v.)	tart (adj.)	tarqa (n.)
38	bake (v.)	baka:č (n.)	circle	sürkülä (v.)	gaze (v.)	giz- (v.)	onus	önüs (adj.)	tell (v.)	tili (v., n.)
39	bald	bül (adj.)	clinch (v.)	qïlinč (v.)	gene	gen- (v.)	orate (v.)	orı: (n.)	terrain	ter- (v.)
40	bale (v., n.)	bele- (v.)	coach (v.)	köch (v.)	gift	kiv- (v.)	ore	öre:	theriacum	tiryak
41	barge (n.)	barq	coagulate (v.)	qoyul- (v.)	gird (v.)	qur- (v.)	ortho-	örti-	thick	sik
42	bark	barq	cock (latch)	kök	give	kiv- (v.)	other	ötürü (adj.)	thief	tef
43	baron	baryn	cock (fowl)	kök	God	kut	otter	ätär	think (v.)	saq-
44	bash (v.)	baš (v.)	cockney	köken	goose	qaz	ought	ötä	throne	tören
45	bath (v.)	bat (v.)	colon	kolon	gore (v.)	göres- (v.)	owe (v.)	oye- (v.)	tick (v., n.)	tiki
46	be (v.)	buol- (v.)	colossal	qolusuz	Gorgon	qörq-	ooze (v.)	ӧz (v.)	tick	tik- (v.)
47	bear (v.)	ber- (v.)	con- (pref.)	kon-	grey (adj.)	ğır (adj.)	pat	pata (v.)	till (v.)	til- (v.)
48	beetle	bit	coney, cony	kuyan	groom	görüm(čï)	penny	peneg	time	timin (adv.)
49	Belgi (adj.)	Belgü (adj.)	cook	kok- (v.)	guest	göster	pot	patır	tire	teyir
50	bellow (v.)	belä- (v.)	copious (adj.)	köp (adj.)	gut	kut	pour (v.)	pür	tit	tiši:
51	belt	bel	corset	qursa	habitat	oba	push (v.)	puš- (v.)	to (prep.)	tu- (v.)
52	berm	bürma	count	köni	hador (OE)	xatär	pussy (n., v.)	päsi (n.)	toe	toy
53	bet (v., n.)	büt- (v.)	courage	kür (adj.)	hard (adj.)	qart (adj.)	quality	qïlïɣ	toilet	tölet
54	big (adj., adv.)	big	court	qur- (v.)	hare	horan	queue	kü	toll	tol
55	bill (v., n.)	bil- (v.)	cousin	qazïn	haze	häzl	quit (v.)	ket-	tomb	tumlu
56	bill	bilä- (v.)	cove	kovı:	heap	kip	robe	rop	tooth	tiš
57	bode (v.)	bodi	cow	coy	Helen	ellen- (v.)	sag (v.)	sök- (v.)	top	töpü
58	bodega	butïq	coy (adj.)	köy- (v.)	herd	kert	saga	savag- (v.)	topple	topul
59	body	bod	crime	krmšuhn	hilarious (adj.)	güleryüz (adj.)	sagacity	sag	torah	tör
60	bog	bog	cue	kü	host	göster	sage	sag	toss (v.)	toš- (v.)
61	bogus (adj.)	bögüš (adj.)	cull (v.)	čul- (v.)	I (arch. ic)	ič (es)	sail (v.)	salla (v.)	tuber	tü:b
62	boil	bula- (v.)	culture	kültür- (v.)	ideal (adj.)	edil (adj.)	sale	sal- (v.)	truth	dürüst
63	bong	böŋ	cup	kap	idyl (adj.)	edil (adj.)	sane	san- (v.)	tuck (v.)	takın- (v.)
64	boot	bot	cure (fix, v.)	kur- (v.)	ilk	ilk	sanity	san- (v.)	turkey	turuhtan
65	booze (v.)	buz (v.)	cure (food)	kuri:- (v.)	in (prep.)	in (n.)	sapphire	sepahir	turf	ter- (v.)
66	bore (v.)	bur- (v.)	curd	ko:r	inch (n., v.)	ınča	sari	sarïl (v.)	turn (v.)	tön (v.)
67	Boris	böri	curt (adj.)	qïrt (adj.)	inn (n.)	i:n (n.)	sash	saču:	twat	tat
68	boss	boš (adj.)	curve	qarvï (adj.)	jack (v., adj.)	cak- (v.)	satisfy (v.)	satsa- (v.)	udder	ud
69	botch (v.)	bud- (v.)	curse	qur- (v.)	jag	čak(k)	satyr	satir	ululate (v.)	ulï- (v.)
70	boutique	butïq	curtain	qur- (v.)	jam	jem	savant	savčï (v.)	un-	an- (morph.)
71	box	boɣ	dad	dedä	jar	jart	savvy	savan (adj.)	under (adv.)	aŋıttır- (v.)
72	brother	birader	dam	da:m	jar (v.)	jar- (v.)	say (v.)	söy- (v.)	unite (v.)	una- (v.)
73	bulge (v., n.)	beleg (n.)	dash (v., n.)	taš- (v.)	jeer (v.)	jer- (v.)	sea	si	until	anta
74	bunch (v., n.)	bunča (adv.)	dash (n.)	taš- (n.)	jig (v.)	jïq (v.)	secede	ses- (v.)	us (pronoun)	ös (pronoun)
75	bundle (v., n.)	bandur- (v.)	dawn	tang (taŋ)	jig (n.)	jig	secret	soqru	usher (v.)	üšer (v.)
76	burl	burnï	deep	dip	jog (v.)	jag (v.)	sector	chektür	vacuum	evük- (v.)
77	bursary	bursaŋ	delve (v.)	del- (v.)	jolly (adj.)	yol	sell (v.)	sal- (v.)	vat	but
79	bust	basta	dementia	dumur	journey	jorï (v.)	sepia	sepi- (v.)	voucher	vučuŋ
80	butt	büt	derrick	terek	juice	jü	seize (v.)	sız- (v.)	while	äwwäl (adv.)
81	cab	qab/qap	descend (v.)	düšen (v.)	jut (v.)	jalt (adj.)	seizure	sïzğur- (v.)	whip	yip
82	cabbage	qabaq	diadem	didim	keen (adj., v., n.)	qïn- (v.)	sever (v.)	sevrä- (v.)	wig	yü:g
83	cackle (v.)	kakla- (v.)	dick	dık- (v.)	keep (v., n.)	kap-	sharp (adj.)	šarp (adj.)	will (v., n.)	bil- (v.)
84	cadre	kadaš	dike	dık- (v.)	Kent	keŋit- (v.)	she (pron.)	šu (shu) (pron.)	yacht	yaɣ- (v.)
85	caginess	qïjïm	dingdong	daŋ doŋ	kick (v., n.)	kik- (v.)	sheep	sıp	yell (v.)	yel (v.)
86	cairn	kayır	dip	dip	kill (v.)	öl- (v.)	shilling	sheleg	yet (adv.)	yet- (v.)
87	cake	kek	do	tu-	kilter	kel- (v.)	shit (v., n.)	šıč-	yield (n., v.)	yılkı:
88	call	qol	doll	döl	kin	kin/kun/kün	shock (v., n.)	šok- (v.)	you (pron.)	-üŋ (pron.)
89	calm (v., n., adj.)	kam- (v.)	don (v.)	ton- (v., n.)	kind (adj.)	keŋ (adj.)	short (adj.)	qïrt (adj.)	young	yangi:
90	callous (adj., v.)	qal (adj., v.)					sick (adj.) (ill)	sık- (v)	Yule	yol
91							sin	cin (jin)	youth (n., adj.)	yaš (adj.)
							sinew	siŋir	yuck (excl.)	yek (n., adj.)
									yummy (adj.)	yemiš (adj.)

Of the approximately 450-word sample list of readily recognizable words, about 320 words are identical semantically and strikingly close phonetically. The main differences are few morphological endings (like -age in courage vs. kür-), fluctuation of vowels (like amen vs. ämin), voiced/unvoiced d/t, b/p, g/k, and the like. Some of these words are amazingly old, they display attested endurance and conservatism over record-grade timespans. The title earl vs. yarlïqa- ascends to the 21st c. BC, 4200 years ago, it means “councilman”, and refers to the title of the Gutian ruler of Akkad. The Augean vs. aqür ascends to the Greek legends of the 1st millennium BC, 3000 years ago, it literally means “horse stables”. The Adam vs. adam and ewe vs. eve ascend to the Hebrew Bible, they literally mean generic “man” and “female”, the Bible story ascends to the 1st millennium BC, 3000 years ago. A real record-setter could be cairn vs. kayır, the first cairns belong to the 6th millennium BC, 8000 years ago, they belong to the dawn of the Kurgan Cultures, cairn literally means “heap of stones”. Their Gaelic and Scottish forms could only come with the Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration, arriving to Europe in the 28th c. BC, 4800 years ago. The selection of enduring words (about 320) represents about 40% of the 800 lexemes cited in this compendium, it demonstrates an amazing lexical conservatism traceable over millenniums.

Sample list of identical Türkic–English words

	English	Türkic	English	Türkic	English	Türkic	English	Türkic	English	Türkic
1	Adam	adam	caragana	qaraqan	eligible (adj.)	elïg- (v., n.)	mock (v.)	-mak	suck (v.)	saɣ- (v.)
2	amen (adj.)	ämin (adj.)	Charlemagne	Charla-mag	elite	elit- (v.)	monastery	manastar	sundry (adj.)	sandrı:- (v.)
3	-an (pl.)	-an (morph.)	chat (v.)	čat- (v.)	elk	elik	mouse	muš	sure (adj.)	sürek (adj.)
4	apt	apt	chattel	čatïl	ell	el	much	munča (adv.)	surrender (v.)	süründi- (v.)
5	arch	arca	chatter (v., n.)	čatu:r (v.)	elm	ilm	murky (adj.)	mürki (adj.)	swell	siwel
6	archaic (adj.)	arca	cheap (adj.)	čıp (adj.)	en-	en-	oat	ot	tab	tap- (v.)
7	are (v.)	-ar (v., n.)	check	chek	endure	endür-	OK (interj.)	ok (interj.)	tad	tat
8	argue (v.)	arqu- (v.)	cheek	čaak	enigma	tanığma	omen	aman (adj.)	tag	toqu
9	Arthur	artur- (v.)	chill (v., n.)	čil	-er	er	on (prep.)	on- (v.)	tack (v., n.)	tak- (v.)
10	ass	eš(äk)	chip	čïp	Erik	erk	onus	önüs (adj.)	tale	tili- (v., n.)
11	at (prep.)	at- (v.)	chitchat (v., n.)	čit čat (v.)	ewe	eve	orate (v.)	orı: (n.)	tall (adj.)	tal
12	Augean	aqür	chop (v., n.)	čop- (v.)	gader	qad	ore	öre:	tally (v., n.)	tili- (v., n.)
13	aught	ot (adj.)	circle	sürkülä (v.)	gamut (adv.)	qamit (adv.)	ortho- (adj. prefix)	örti- (v.)	tambourine	tambur
14	awe (v.)	ö- (v.)	clinch (v.)	qïlinč (v.)	gaze (v.)	giz- (v.)	otter	ätär	tap (v., n.)	tap (n.)
15	awhile (adv.)	äwwäl (adv.)	coach (v.)	köch (v.)	gene	gen- (v.)	ought	ötä	tap (v.)	tap- (v.)
16	baby	bebi	coal	kül/köl	goose	qaz	owe (v.)	oye- (v.)	tar (v.)	ter- (v.)
17	bad (adj.)	bäd (adj.)	cock (latch)	kök	gore (v.)	göres- (v.)	ox	öküz	tariff	tarïɣ
18	bag	bag	cock (fawl)	kök	Gorgon	qörq-	ooze (v.)	ӧz (v.)	tell (v.)	tili (v., n.)
19	baize	bez	cockney	köken	groom	görüm(čï)	pat	pata (v.)	terra	ter- (v.)
20	bake (v.)	baka:č (n.)	colon	kolon	guard	qur- (v.)	pot	patır	theriacum	tiryak
21	bale (v., n.)	bele- (v.)	con (v.)	qun- (v.)	guest	göster	pour (v.)	pür	thick	sik
22	barque (n.)	barq	con- (pref.)	kon- (n., adj.)	gut	kut	push (v.)	puš- (v.)	thief	tef
23	bark	barq	cook	kok- (v.)	haze	häzl	pussy (n., v.)	päsi (n.)	throne	tören
24	baron	baryn	copious (adj.)	köp (adj.)	heap	kip	queue	kü	tick (v., n.)	tiki
25	bash (v.)	baš (v.)	corset	qursa	Helen	ellen- (v.)	quit (v.)	ket-	tick	tik- (v.)
26	bastard	bas + tard	count	köni	herd	kert	quite (emph.)	ked (emph.)	till (v.)	til- (v.)
27	bath (v.)	bat (v.)	courage	kür (adj.)	hilarious (adj.)	güleryüz (adj.)	robe	rop	time	timin (adv.)
28	bear (v.)	ber- (v.)	cousin	qazïn	host	göster	-s (pl.)	-z (morph.)	tire (n.)	tire- (v.)
29	bear	böri	cove	kovı:	house	koš/quš/xüžə	-'s (poss.)	-si (morph.)	tit	tiši:
30	beetle	bit	cow	coy	ideal (adj.)	edil (adj.)	sag (v.)	sök- (v.)	to (prep.)	tu- (v.)
31	Belgi (adj.)	Belgü (adj.)	coy (adj.)	köy- (v.)	idyl (adj.)	edil (adj.)	sage	sag	toe	toy
32	belt	bel	cue	kü	ilk	ilk	sail (v.)	salla (v.)	toilet	tölet
33	berm	bürma	cull (v.)	čul- (v.)	in (prep.)	in (n.)	sale	sal- (v.)	toll	tol
34	bet (v., n.)	büt- (v.)	culture	kültür- (v.)	inch (n., v.)	ınča	sane	san- (v.)	tooth	tiš
35	big (adj., adv.)	big	cup	kap	inn (n.)	i:n (n.)	sapphire	sepahir	top	töpü
36	bill (v., n.)	bil- (v.)	curb (n., v.)	kır	jack (v., adj.)	cak- (v.)	sari	sarïl (v.)	tor	tärä
37	bill	bilä- (v.)	cure (fix, v.)	kur- (v.)	jag	čak(k)	sash	saču:	torah	tör
38	bode (v.)	bodi	cure (food, v.)	kuri:- (v.)	jam	jem			toss (v.)	toš- (v.)
39	bodega	butïq	curt (adj.)	qïrt (adj.)	jar	jart	satyr	satir	tuber	tü:b
40	body	bod	curve	qarvï (adj.)	jar (v.)	jar- (v.)	say (v.)	söy- (v.)	tuck (v.)	takın- (v.)
41	bog	bog	dad, daddy	dedä	jeer (v.)	jer- (v.)	sea	si	turn (v.)	tön (v.)
42	bogus (adj.)	bögüš (adj.)	dam	da:m	jig (v.)	jïq (v.)	secede	ses- (v.)	twat	tat
43	bong	böŋ	dawn	tang (taŋ)	jig (n.)	jig	sector	chektür	un-	an- (morph.)
44	boot	bot	deep	dip	jog (v.)	jag (v.)	sell (v.)	sal- (v.)	unite (v.)	una- (v.)
45	booze (v.)	buz (v.)	derrick	terek	jolly (adj.)	yol	sepia	sepi- (v.)	until (Prep., Conj.)	anta
46	bore (v.)	bur- (v.)	descend (v.)	düšen (v.)	journey	jorï (v.)	seize (v.)	sız- (v.)	us (pronoun)	ös (pronoun)
47	Boris	böri	diadem	didim	juice	jü	seizure	sïzğur- (v.)	usher (v.)	üšer (v.)
48	boss	boš (adj.)	dick	dık- (v.)	keen	qïn-	sever (v.)	sevrä- (v.)	voucher	vučuŋ
49	boutique	butïq	dike	dık- (v.)	keep (v., n.)	kap-	sharp (adj.)	šarp (adj.)	wake	vak
50	box	boɣ	dingdong	daŋ doŋ	Kent	keŋit- (v.)	she (pron.)	šu (shu)	was	var- (v.)
51	brother	birader	dip	dip	kick (v., n.)	kik- (v.)	sheep	sıp	while	äwwäl
52	bunch (v., n.)	bunča	do	tu-	kilter	kel- (v.)	shilling	sheleg	whip	yip
53	bursary	bursaŋ	doll	döl	kin	kin/kun/kün	shock (v., n.)	šok- (v.)	wig	yü:g
54	bust	basta	don (v.)	ton- (v., n.)	kind (adj.)	keŋ (adj.)	short (adj.)	qïrt (adj.)	yacht	yaɣ- (v.)
55	butt	büt	dune	dun	king	kengu	shove (v.)	sav- (v.)	yah (interj.)	yah (interj.)
56	cab	qab/qap	duress	dür- (v.)	loaf	lavāš	sick (ill)	sık- (v)	yeah	yah (interj.)
57	cabbage	qabaq	dust	doz	lamb	-la:n	sick (vomit)	sök- (v.)	yell (v.)	yel (v.)
58	cackle (v.)	kakla- (v.)	dye	dawa	make (v.)	-mak	sin	cin (jin)	yet (adv.)	yet- (v.)
59	caginess	qïjïm	earl	yarlïqa- (v.)	mama	mamü	sing (v.)	siŋ- (v.)	you (pron.)	-üŋ (pron.)
60	cairn	kayır	Earth	Yer	man	men	sink (v.)	siŋ- (v.)	young	yangi:
61	cake	kek	eat (v.)	ye- (v.)	matt (adj.)	mat (adj.)	sip (v.)	syp (v.)	Yule	yol
62	call	qol	eave	ev	mental (adj.)	meŋtä (adj.)	soak (v.)	saɣ- (v.)	youth (n., adj.)	yaš (adj.)
63	can (v.)	qan (v.)	eke	eken (v.)	menu	meŋ	sock (beat)	sok- (v.)	yuck (excl.)	yek (n., adj.)
64	candle	kandil	elbow	el	mint (v., n.)	manat	sock (cloth)	sok- (v.)	yummy (adj.)	yemiš (adj.)
65	cap	kap					son	song

8

The role of the Türkic substrate in English speech can be evaluated with the help of the word frequency listings, as for example are given in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists/TV/2006/1-1000, Rev. date 5 September 2013. The ongoing minor tweaking of the Wiktionary lists is inconsequential. The frequency count of the words comes from a collection of TV and movie scripts/transcripts of the actual words said by the speakers. The total word count in the collection at the time was 26,376,342, far in excess of the needs for a present rough assessment. Slight modifications were required to combine entries listed separately, like I, I'll, I'm, I've etc., and varying transcriptions like yes, yeah, ya, etc. Accounting for these peculiarities of the Wiktionary lists makes results more accurate by upping the partial values of frequency and rating for few most frequently used words, but affect little the conceptual valuation.

The usage frequency should not be confused with the composition of the lexis, which refers to the fractions of the entire lexis. The test was conducted in two steps, first on a subset of the common vocabulary containing about half of the examined vocabulary, and then repeated for the other half. The standard experimental method of independent testing examines random subsets of data, in computational linguistics it is applied for statistical validation of reliability and results. The method produces repeatable and predictable outcomes independent of the researcher. The experimental method arrived with conclusively close numbers.

 The method produces accurate results for major classes of simple words. However, it does not account for compound words of a type “notwithstanding” that agglutinates the words “not”, “with”, and “standing” that accounted for would boost a frequency result. Such a conservative method raises a confidence level of the exploratory assessment.

Initial trial of the frequency test, using a 2000-word frequency list and 450-word list, found a match for 129 more frequently used words, producing a combined number of 26.9% frequency. Results of the trial indicated that allowing a conservative 3.1% frequency for the remaining 300 unmatched words, about 30% of the English daily lexicon is retained or is based on the lexical base that originated with the Türkic linguistic family. So few words constitute such a huge portion of the language because we have to use them continuously to keep English the English. Considering the volume of the texts sampled for the frequency listings, in this case 26,376,342 words of text, the results were fairly accurate, and would fall into that ballpark number at any similarly structured frequency test, even if some correspondences are disqualified.

A consequent frequency test, using the same 2000-word frequency list and a 800-word list, found a match for 217 words, producing a frequency value of 36.39%. The last, 2000th, word on the list carried a frequency of 0.0036%; allowing on average for each additional word to add half of that, or 0.0018%, out of the total 800 words the 585 remaining unmatched words would be expected to add a product of 585 words times factor 0.0018% or 1.05%. The total for the 800-word list would be approximated as 37.4%. The result of the expanded calculation agrees within reason with the result of the initial trial, confirming that about 1/3 of the modern English daily lexis originated with the Türkic linguistic family. For the validation of the Türkic substrate hypothesis, precise accuracy is pointless, the impressive result of approximately 1/3 of the lexis amply proves the concept.

Assuming that the 800-word listing of Turkisms covers 2/3 of the entire body of Turkisms in English, and that each Turkism has a trail of 5 cognates and derivatives, a ballpark estimate for the entire body would amount to 7200 words, or 1.5% of the English vocabulary of 500,000 words. The lexis' 1.5% produce 1/3 of the daily vocabulary. It does not take a strenuous effort to appreciate, with no exaggeration, the extent of the Türkic component’s presence in the daily English speech. The top ten most used cognates, the you, I, and, that, this, my, do, time, tell, and make, according to an independent study of 26 mln words of text, comprise a disproportional 16.6% of the non-specialized English usage.

The body of the Turkisms in English constitutes a massive case of multi-faceted paradigmatic transfer, it provides incontrovertible attestation of the Türkic admixture in English. For comparison, the Russian lexis reportedly consists of 25% of the Türkic admixture, in reality much more, with the 25% portion so far documented academically. The numbers in English and Russian are quite compatible, difference lays only in the degree of the admixture. Some native clusters consist exclusively of Turkisms, take the unrefined sexual lexicon: Eng. sex, Rus. sik(at), Tr. sik- (v.) “sex, copulate”, sik (n.) “penis”, Eng. cock, dick, Rus. huy, Tr. kök, küy “penis”, dık- (v.) “erect, stand straight”, and so on, extending to compounds, Cf. Eng. childbearing, Rus. ber(emen), Tr. ber- (v.) “carry”, ko:l (n.) “comrade”.

Considering that the western Türkic languages are severely underrepresented, with only a few chance citations by the Classical authors, that they do not have dictionaries or texts compatible in scope with that of the EDT and OTD, and that numerous old languages are classified provisionally or for various reasons are misclassified, it is very safe to assert that a significant portion of the western Türkic lexicon is not available for comparisons, with a considerable portion of the Türkic substrate lexicon remaining unexplored, and their English counterparts remaining either “of unknown origin” or dubiously etymologized.

A notable device of the common etymological practice is to present the “onomatopoeic” or “echoic” origin as etymology. In most cases such diagnosis is a true non-statement, since different people draw completely different onomatopoeic imitations, and to be valid an assertion of onomatopoeia must be specific to either a linguistic branch or at least to a linguistic family. Comparison of onomatopoeic forms from different sources makes guests from local languages and from different linguistic families readily visible. Diligently applied, onomatopoeia is a valid diagnostic tool on the philological origin, be it a peculiarity, a Sprachbund or a substrate rudiment.

The Türkic–English onomatopoeic correspondences demonstrate closer connections than their many counterparts supposedly grown from the same PIE root. The onomatopoeic roots of any lexicon ascend to the first linguistic experiments, when they were a part of a mimic display needed to convey an idea with inchoate vocabulary. Agglutinative languages allow to observe a gradual, step-by-step, formalization and build-up of the primitive onomatopoeic stems into developed lexemes that stand on their own after grammatical, phonetical, and metaphorical transformations.
9

Swadesh list

To gauge linguistic kinship of two lexicons, is used a Swadesh list of “basic words”, it provides some uniformity on the level of a linguistic gage. It is a kind of a canonical list of the “IE” “basic words”, ascending to the kernel of the hypothesized PIE language, supposedly found in the majority of the 439 “IE” languages, and in the majority of its individual branches. Based on the faulty Family Tree model, and based on what was held as specifically “IE” “proto-language” or a grouping of kindred languages, Swadesh list is conceptually wrong, it is actually a random collection of lexemes tailored for a special pleading case. This is a list that substitutes for a missing definition of the “IE” paradigm, a surrogate of the definition agreed to by the “consensus” of the “IE” linguists. It is a core fundament of the “IE” linguistics. The list was assembled on a faulty presumption that all languages use the same basic toolbox of grammatical nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., and compatible syntaxes that allow them to be compiled into phrases. That presumption fits well into the bulk of the “IE” languages, but can’t be generalized for all earthly languages. Even within the “IE” family are oddballs that defy that presumption and add uncertainty to other traits contradicting their “IE” classification. Comparisons of languages deviating from the basic presumption with those that are in full accordance with the presumption encounter obstacles that necessitate introduction of additional presumptions to synchronise comparisons, Cf. languages where nouns can serve as adjectives vs. languages where adjectives are formed morphologically. The Türkic linguistic group falls into noncompliant category, comparisons are augmented by vaguely interpreted presumptive caveats. With that qualification, Swadesh list generally remains a useful, but far from universal, tool. But it is its randomness that makes it a quasy-universal tool for linguistic studies across the Earth languages. Swadesh list is routinely used as an objective tool to get a rough statistical assessment on similarities and differences between sampled languages. In the course of the present study, Swadesh list is used to objectively assess the Türkic contribution to the English language, and as a side benefit the Türkic contribution to the “IE” languages.

According to the Swadesh 207 count, the basic vocabulary of English has 113 or 55% “IE” *reconstructed roots, another 31 words or 15% are of dubious “IE” *roots, 63 words or 30% are definitely non-IE, and the combined dubious and positively non-IE words constitute 94 words or 45% of the Wikipedia “Appendix: Proto-Indo-European Swadesh list”. The heavy doze of non-IE component supplies ready candidates for statistically credible admixture. To be validated, these “essential basic words”, and the rest of the candidates need to undergo a scrupulous testing procedure suggested by G.Doerfer 1981. It has been estimated that the English lexis consists of 70% Romance lexicon, and the balance of Germanic, Celtic, and unknown. However, within the basic vocabulary of, say, 2000 words, Romance holds a considerably more modest place, and still smaller place in a base lexicon of, say, 1000 words, and a miniscule place in the usage frequency of the daily vocabulary. The above frequency test shows that a mere 10.75% or 216 words of the 2000-word basic vocabulary pull disproportionate 36.35% of the usage frequency, significantly contributing to the daily lexicon at the expense of the Romance components, while leaving enough room for the prehistoric Germanic and Celtic languages of the Northern Europe.

Numerous “IE” *roots come as close allophones of the real Türkic forms. The PIE reconstructions for these words create some phantom lexicon that would be nicely dubbed a Proto-Türkic (PT) lexicon (like the PIE “reconstruction” *h₃ok^w for eye, eidetic to the real attested Türkic root ög-). A dictionary of PIE reconstructions composed of such real Türkic words would replace phantom fictions with real attested Türkic forms. In essence, that dictionary would attest to the Türkic origin of the “IE” languages within the scope of the Türkic part. The portion of such PIE basic words in the Swadesh 207 English list, plus the portion of the non-IE words of Türkic origin in the Swadesh 207 English list would provide a numerical approximation on the Türkic contribution to the English language. A fairly large proportion of these words permeate the “IE” Romance, Germanic, and Slavic branches of Europe, and in the “IE” linguistics is taken exclusively as an absolute criterion of Indo-Europeanism. It was keenly noted that in respect to the core vocabulary, the eastern “IE” languages fall far behind European languages. Since there is no definition of the “IE” paradigm, an eastern version of the Swadesh list may as well demonstrate that the western “IE” languages fall far behind the eastern “IE” languages.

Sample list of PIE “reconstructions” versus the Türkic originals
Numbers correspond to the conventional numbers on the Swadesh list

No	English	Türkic	Proto-Indo-European
1	I	ič (es)	*éǵh2
8	that	šu (pron.)	*só
16	not	ne (part.)	*ne
19	some	kim (morph.)	*kaylo-
42	mother	mamü	*méh2tēr
43	father, dad	ata (father) dede (= daddy, dad)	*átta, *ph2tḗr
51	tree	terek	*dóru
74	eye	ög- (v.)	*h3okw
75	nose	ñü:z	*nā́s
80	foot	but	*pṓds
90	heart	chäre	*ḱḗr
93	to eat	ye- (v.)	*h1ed-
176	black	belä- (v.)	*bhleg-
178	day	dün	*dei-n
202	in	in (n.)	*(h1?)en

About 62 of the Swadesh list 207 words correspond to the respective entries in the 800-word listing of English Turkisms. Most of them do not have any hypothesized “*PIE proto-words”. That confirms the complex origin of English. The results are random coincidences between two independent listings, a complete examination would produce a higher number of matches. The number 62 is approximate because linguistic notions may be expressed by more than a single word, Cf. the notion “father”, with English forms father and dad (daddy) corresponding to the Türkic forms ata and dede, both matching the notion of the Swadesh list without a particular preference to the either word. In few cases PIE hypothesizes more than a single form, offering a choice to suit each of the different “IE” branches; at least some of the “PIE” forms ascend to the Türkic origin shown in the listing, Cf. ič – I – *éǵh₂ and the like. The entries like this and that, differentiated by locative suffix and similar inflectional markers, may originate from a single form in languages like Türkic, where a series of locative suffixes form different locative aspects; such duplicative derivative entries can't be classed as “basic words”, making the valid words number less than 207.

The 62 Türkic–English correspondences in the Swadesh list constitute exactly 30% of 207 words, or higher accounting only for valid Swadesh entries. That number matches other lexical valuations of around 1/3 of the English daily lexis derived from the Türkic phylum.

Properties like phonetic and spatial dispersion, overlaid on the historical background extracted from written, archeological, and genetic dating, allow to narrow dating of the most components to not much earlier than the 1st millennium BC, the time of the reverse wave of the linguistically European refugees returning to the Central and Southern Europe, and the Sarmat influx into the Northern Europe. Such conceptual dating puts into question the much older hypothetical dating of the remaining PIE part of the list, the dating deduced nearly exclusively from the linguistic theoretical considerations. Similarly, some postulations concerning temporal changes within “IE” family are not applicable to the “reconstructions” of the non-IE admixtures, Cf. ič – I – *éǵh₂ and the like. Applying to the case of English the attrition rate suggested as a valid rate for any language would increase the hypothetical fraction of English Turkisms at the turn of the eras to about 50%, a most questionable scenario. Interpolating observations for some cases to the entire class of words intuitively held as “IE” leads to erroneous “reconstructions” for all cases materially different from the cases underlying the temporal postulations. On the other hand, some unadulterated words, like the ata “father”, are also shared by some Amerindian languages, attesting to their existence prior to the 15th millennium BC Amerindian migration from Asia to the Americas. Such deep connections protrude far beyond the PIE temporal horizon.

The Swadesh list's Turkisms come in 3 flavors, either Proto-Indo-European “reconstructed” forms are some allophones of the attested Türkic form (20 cases, Cf. No. 1 ič ~ *éǵh₂₂), or the English word does not belong to the PIE phylum (18 cases, Cf. No. 15 how), or the PIE “reconstruction” is unrelated to the English word (24 cases, Cf. No. 7 this ~ *kos), or even a combination of some two flavors. These etymological flavors extend far beyond the “basic words” vocabulary, with the edition of the dubious “echoic” origin, they are endemic for the rest of the 800 cited English Turkisms.

Phrases

Comparing lexicons and trying to get to the prehistoric level is fraught with lots of white noise. Enthusiastic linguists easily fall prey to their gusto, and the “IE” paradigm provides lofty examples of that, in loving hands the noise of homonyms and conflations is confused with cognates, mistaking a chance consonance for linguistically meaningful coincidence, and creating a path for phantom PIE concoctions. The process biased with contracted horizon is leaving untoward cognates unexplored. Etymology has two components, a descent from a root and a path that reaches the subject word. A focus on the root leaves out an implied or vaguely presumed path, but it is the path that determines diffusion and development of the word. Circular logics brings circular results, an incorrect premise leads to unsound conclusions, usually salient due to unrealistic semantic stretch. Combined with the simplistic Family Tree model, the wayward finale is inevitable. Circular results obscure the path, spread, and development, obscure distinct tell-tale transformations inflicted in propagation along contrasting Sprachbunds, and in the end lead to a result opposite from that intended. Instead of illuminating very specific linguistic aspects of the history, false etymology smothers them into historical mythology. Lacunas in the records, especially beyond the range of the literary purview, leave some candidates unprovable and undatable except for purely linguistic evidence, like the words bode, boss and vampire.

Linguistics has devised a system of checks and balances to filter the noise out. Computer literacy brings acceptance of mathematical methods to linguistics, abhorred by the old linguistic schools. For quantitative analysis of the established kinship in the lexicon is used Swadesh method, equally applicable to the romantic Genetic Tree and the Wave models. It establishes statistical correlation between different languages using a standardized linguistic test, shedding some light on the linguistic development. Reasonable lexis-related criteria for establishing kinship were formulated by G.Doerfer 1981 , he gave a definition to the perennial linguistic bewilderment of what exactly is necessary to firmly establish genetic relations between two different languages. Evaluation of statistical chance resemblances is offered by M. Rosenfelder 2002 . These criteria rarely apply to morphology and other key linguistic properties, but with consistent transparency in application and similarity in function, it would be difficult, for example, to deny morphological continuity between the Türkic aɣrïüt, English aggravate, and Lat. aggravare, or Türkic baiyar, Russian boyar, and Indian Boyar caste. In all fairness, each etymologized word should be assigned a credibility or confidence weight, equally applied to the proposed “IE” and non-IE etymologies. Such weighting would allow comparison between alternate etymologies, and would enable to calculate a Bayesian probability for the suggested etymologies for each set of the words.

The concept of paradigmatic transfer defines borrowing of some entire complex of features. In the past few centuries, paradigmatic transfer became a universal tool of acquiring terminology with technology, at first medical and biological terminology based on Latin and Greek, then industrial terminology from industrialized nations, and lately the computer terminology from the American English. On a different level, the paradigmatic transfer may have been a driving force of human evolution since the earliest times. Any complex of linguistic traits borrowed entirely of partially is an example of paradigmatic transfer: typology, syntax, morphology, script, and lexicon; in extreme case nearly entire language is transferred, Cf. Latin American versions of Spanish. Statistically, a probability of chance independent invention of a paradigm is negligible, and any appeals to chance coincidence not supported by evaluation of numerical probability carries no weight, because any additional element, however minor, reduces the value of chance coincidence probability by orders of magnitude. Since civilizations developed not as much on inner innovations as on cultural borrowings, the examples of paradigmatic transfer are innumerable: Lat., Gk., and Türkic terminology was borrowed complete with morphological modifiers, morphological systems, entire alphabets and entire letters, partial alphabets, lexemes and their calques, idioms, folklore, practically any aspect of civilization. The phenomenon of paradigmatic transfer is a powerful diagnostic tool in cases when a mechanical transfer can be positively excluded (Cf. alphabet, economy, ideas); a transfer that necessitates a demographic component (Cf. morphology, alphabet elements, idioms) attests to a -strate model, such as substrate, adstrate, superstrate, etc. A paradigmatic transfer of entire phrases is one of indelible diagnostic parameters.

Numerous phrases in English, and by association in other European languages, are close allophones of the real Türkic forms. Practically, they are a word-for-word re-formulations of the Türkic phrases. The statistical significance of such allophonic phrases is enormous, since each additional phoneme reduces chances for accidental coincidence by orders of magnitude, making genetic connection obvious. The following is some sampling of allophonic phrases taken directly from EDT and similar works, with retained transcription and punctuation. In more than few cases, the literal and literary meanings are identical, a separate literary form is not needed, since the Türkic phrase is transparent without much elaboration:

Few examples of extended phrases would illustrate the concept. An arsenal of about 800 words in the present compendium, constituting statistical 35% of the English daily vocabulary, allows to compose many types of phrases where English text is closely mirrored in the Türkic text, recognizably resembling each other in spite of incompatible syntaxes and discrepant morphology. Illustrations are staple phrases, cited in English, Türkic, and German, Turkish, or Slavic (Russian) adjusted for the modern Türkic syntax.

And

Lining up word for word, the English-Türkic-Slavic match looks like this. Few words shown in bold do not have direct correspondence. Square brackets stand for words indicated by agglutinated morphology, round brackets enclose suffixes and suggest synonyms. Experimenting with other Gmc. languages would bring somewhat resembling results.

Except for conjunctions, all other words are allophones of Türkic lexemes, with some shifts: Türkic gamu “gamut, all” in English is expressed with synonymous all, and in Russian with “IE” vse, while the Russian allophone of the Türkic gamu is spelled gamma and designates the whole, all octave; Russian somnenie is a derivative of Türkic ming (miŋ) “mind” and an allophone of English mind with stem mn and “IE” prefix s-/so- “with”.

A cross-comparison of Slavic, Baltic, and English Turkisms helps to detect less obvious Turkisms in English. Dating is problematic, it is vaguely anchored to the known historical events or archeologically detected known historical events, confirmed by isotope and genetic allele dating. Within the holistic body of the evidence, genetics attest that Germanic people of the European Sarmatia are the same people who originated from the Sarmatian area in the heart of the Eurasia, archeology and genetics assert that with various Kurgan waves they spread out to flood the same area of the Western Europe, they introduced to the Western Europe the identical peculiar runiform alphabet with common graphical symbols and some preserved common phonetics, they share hundreds of common words, and they retained legendary memories of their Asian origin. Under the weight of the evidence, any branch of science would find it scandalous to even question a common origin.

Runes

The Old English (OE) is a euphemism for the Anglo-Saxon language, used to create periodization without turning to the historical people who brought the English over to the isles. Whether called OE or Anglo-Saxon in the etymological references, it is still the same old Anglo-Saxon language, documented mostly between 700s and 1050s, after the encroaching of Christianization, and before the Norman conquest. At its dawn, the Anglo-Saxon English used runic script; a modern codified version, that probably does not include all real non-codified graphemes and all sounds peculiar to the languages of its creators, still contains a number of graphemes that display a genetic connection with the Horezmian (Turanian) and Orkhon versions of the Türkic alphabet, and also contains few Roman or Greek letters. The formal transition of Anglo-Saxon literature from the runic to the Latin alphabet took place in the first two centuries in the new lands. Before its migration to the British Isles, runic script was a means of written communication in Scandinavia and on the continent, its monuments are engraved on gravestones and stones, metal, and rare perishable relicts that survived the period of severely enlightening Christianization.

The term Anglo-Saxon in the England's context refers to the conglomerate of tribes that moved to England in force, over extended period, from their initial location at the junction of modern Moravia, Germany, and Poland. As their name implies, initially it was a union of two major components that likely absorbed numerous local fragments, of which Gothic left a detectable trace. The union was further enriched in their location along the southern banks of the Channel, of which Frisian left a detectable trace. The contributions of the local vernaculars are not always readily identifiable, and in dictionaries are cited under an indiscriminate Anglo-Saxon label. Probably, the motley composition of the migrants helped in some standardization of the island's runic alphabet before the illiterate monks denounced it as some type of supernatural satanic device. In view of the historical longevity in the correspondence between the shape of the graphemes and their morphemes which allows tracing of the alphabets to their most remote ancestors, the morphemic reshuffling of the runic alphabet from its original and traceable composition to the haphazard sequence of the Futhark happened in the darkest period of the early Dark Ages. The Germanic Futhark appears without a prehistory, compiled in a rigidly structured form, with its morphemes mechanically reshuffled without any visible taxonomy, as a work of some invisible intelligent design. Stalin and Mao were not the inventors of the methods to mass-convert literate people into illiterate. The oldest runic inscriptions, composed before the miraculous reshuffling, remain systemically undeciphered, and held as written in unknown languages. The later runic inscriptions, composed according to the Futhark sequence, are readily deciphered, and even freely read by scholars steeped in Futhark.

The discovery of the Germanic-looking runiform script in the far-away Siberia was an exciting news in the 18th c. The discoverers were struck by the similarity of the Orkhon script with the Germanic runes. Graphical similarity was so strong that the European zealots had to re-define the very term “runes” as solely “Germanic runes”, leaving other runes to come up with their own terms. The trademark patent did not expire in 17 years, various encyclopedias still define runes as “Germanic runes”, a unique case of copyright protection extending more than 2 millennia backwards. The oldest runic inscription was carbon-dated by the 5th c. BC, it is the Issyk inscription found in 1970 in the nomadic kurgan in the vicinity of the lake Issyk in Kazakhstan, the homeland of the Saka Scythians according to the historical records. The Orkhon discovery hibernated for two centuries, till the Finnish scholars started exploring a possibility of the Germanic runes written in an unknown language with some connection with the Finnish past. Of the Scandinavian people, only Finns came from Asia, they could have brought the runic script to the Northern Europe. Finnish scholars attracted attention of all Scandinavian paleographers, they were the first who published a compendium of the Siberian inscriptions. In 1893 the Dutch Vilhelm Thomsen (1842 - 1927) deciphered the bilingual Türkic-Chinese inscription from Orkhon in Mongolia. After that, the interest to the Türkic script for another half-century again went into hibernation. Any links between the Germanic and Türkic runes were repudiated, any similarity was denounced as fortuitous, any genetic connection as chimerical.
11

Even more striking is the cross-comparison of the whole alphabet sets. Each grapheme of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet finds an exact counterpart in the Orkhon alphabet, with seemingly random shuffling of phonetics. The northern Europeans with high presence of Turkisms in their languages managed to independently invent, sometime at the turn of the eras, a whole set of symbols totally identical to another alphabet used in the Middle Asian coins of the turn of the eras and in the 8th c. Türkic Kaganate. Such a coincidence between two alphabets that reportedly have no connection whatsoever, and are localized at two different ends of the Eurasia, must be ascribed to no less than a miracle, it can't be sanely explained within the framework of the prevailing postulates. If it can be even more miraculous, the shape þ of the grapheme for the voiced interdental th (ð, the δ of the OTD), not found in other alphabets, is identical in the Middle Asian (Turanian) and the Germanic Futhark alphabets. Even today, the depictions of the Latinized Gothic, ONorse, and Anglo-Saxon words use the grapheme þ, first depicted on the Middle Asian coins with Türkic legends.

Statistically, a chance coincidence of the same form and sound from two unrelated alphabets, selected from a limited subset of the forms of all alphabets compiled by humanity during its whole history, is so small that it would require lots of paper to place all preceding zeroes. The long-denounced connection between the Türkic alphabets and the Futhark alphabet is undeniable, the question is only on the mechanism of that connection. Modern forensics asserts that perfect crimes do not exist, any criminals leave traces beyond their capability to wipe them clean. It is only a matter of the willingness and ability of the investigators to to find and analyze the traces.

Latin and Türkic Languages

Numerous English words are ascribed to the Latin and Latin via French, implying that either the English did not have words for such concept at all, or that the Anglo-Saxon (OE) lexicon was fully supplanted. Numerically, the Romance strata in English is estimated to be on the order of 70%. However, an assessment of the set of 800 Türkic-English cognate words cited below finds that
– much of the corresponding Latin vocabulary is related to the same Türkic substrate that formed the English lexis. Historically, such continuity is consistent with the thesis that most of the “Old Europe” population was vanished by the 3rd mill. BC, and from the 3rd mill. BC to the 1st mill. BC it was replaced by various Türkic populations and their varieties of the Türkic languages.
– a very significant portion of the “Latin” lexicon belongs to the Vulgates, Late and Middle Latin, and is Latin only in name. Although Latin is cited as a dead, frozen language, the cited words belong to a living language. The Turkisms used by post-Classical Latin include some significant proportion that originated from the nomadic nations - Vandals, Burgunds, Alans, etc., and from the Germanic nations, including Anglo-Saxons, Goths, Lombards, and others that influenced the local Latin vernaculars. For centuries, the academical and ecclesiastical Latin co-existed along the Vulgate Latin languages of various nations.
– a portion of the “Latin” lexicon originated in the Gallic space, it is usually denoted as OFr. fr. Lat., where Lat. is an indiscriminate blend of the Classical and post-Classical Latin, and where Burgund and Alan words were assimilated into post-Classical Latin.

An initial trial of the English-Latin-Türkic lexical correspondences, using a preliminary 400-word list of the English-Türkic correspondences, found a match for 127 words, producing a combined 32% of the sample. That number couldn't be applied to the whole body of the Romance in English, which is expected to be much diluted, and be smaller by an order of magnitude. Results of the initial trial indicated that arbitrarily allowing a conservative 10% for the remaining Latin lexis, about 40% of the Latin lexicon is retained or is based on the lexical base that originated with the Türkic linguistic family. The results were fairly reasonable, and should fall into that ballpark number at any similarly structured test, even if some correspondences are disqualified.

A consequent test cited below, using the 800-word list, found a match for 334 words, or 41% of the sample (Table 2a). The result of the expanded comparison agrees within reason with the result of the initial trial. The test covers apparent Turkisms in Latin; it is a statistical indicator of the Türkic-Latin lexis vs. the Türkic-English 800-word list. In respect to the Latin lexis, it is a random lexical selection: 334 words of a random 800-word list. This number can't be applied to the whole body of the Romance in English, which is expected to be much diluted by various admixtures, and be smaller by an order of magnitude. In the context of the Türkic-Latin-English commonality, the number 41% is significantly exaggerated by dubious Lat. cognates. It can be inferred that without Vulgates', Middle and Late Latin words, and dubious cognates, the proportion of the Turkisms of the Classical Latin origin would be reduced by half, to about 20% of a random sample. Allowing another 5-10% to cover the other Latin Turkisms from the remaining portion of a typical 10,000-word Latin vocabulary, a very rough prediction can be made that about 25-30% of the Classical Latin lexis hails from the Türkic phylum. The numbers in English and Latin are quite compatible, difference is but in the degree of admixture.

Visible indicators point to the Latin and English Turkisms originating from much different versions of the Türkic vernaculars, likely separated by timespans measured in millennia, relayed by different sources, planted on completely different substrates, and compared with the geographically far remote OTD/EDT lexis recorded for a time period one millennium later in the English case, and a few millenniums later in the Latin case. The Latin lexicon of the Türkic origin was superimposed, supplanted, and conflated with the English innate lexicon of the Türkic origin, forming a local version of something like a European Türkic-based Sprachbund layer.
12, 13, 14

In all cases, a borrowing from Latin and English into Türkic is positively impossible, especially so in the case of the Central Asian and Far Eastern Türkic languages. In case of Uigur, for example, Uigurs are continuously attested in the Central Asia-Far Eastern region from the 3rd c. BC, before the rise of the Roman Empire on the other end of the Eurasia. Numerous Türkic tribes are attested still further east of the Uigurs. Neither the Romans, nor the English possessed the mobility of the mounted Türkic tribes, used the steppe belt as a transportation corridor, or are known for their mass migrations across Eurasia to effect such borrowing.

The quite substantial presence of Türkic–Latin–English lexical correspondences mocks the standing thesis that the Centum language group is devoid of the Türkic presence. The Centum group includes Italic, Germanic, Celtic, and Hellenic languages, and besides English and other Germanic languages, numerous cognates of the Türkic stems belonging to the Italic, Celtic, and Hellenic languages. Originally, the thesis may have reflected the true extent of the knowledge of its authors, but the continuous recitation of the old thesis must be an embarrassing display of orthodox beliefs. The conundrum is not amendable: albeit in the past two centuries numerous modern languages underwent ethnic cleansing, it is impossible to mechanically cleanse the ancient Greek or Latin, their Turkisms have been sown wide and deep, and grew deep roots, and they provide indelible evidence.

Sanskrit and Türkic Languages

The “IE” linguistics holds Sanskrit as an “IE” language; the traditional “IE” theory claims its age at about 1700 - 1500 BC; one of the pillar tenets at the foundation of the “IE” theory was, and that is still holding, the great antiquity of Sanskrit. Sanskrit was and continues to be held as closest to the PIE language. The opposition within and without “IE” linguistics disagrees with every tenet. Long lists of non-IE Vedic and Sanskrit words were compiled, similar to the Germanic and Russian non-IE listings, believed to be of non-Aryan origin. Were identified extensive lexical, phonological, structural, and morphological correlations between the old and modern Indo-Aryan languages and the non-IE languages of India, mainly Dravidian and Munda. Indian scholars challenge the Eurocentric classification of the Sanskrit as an “IE” language, asserting that it is a product of socio-politico-cultural circumstances. The observed lexical and structural similarities are hardly traceable or attributable to borrowing, convergence, etc. Some opposition supports a concept of “South Asia linguistic area” covering various Indian languages and language families.

Historical background attests to more than 2 millennia of the Türkic presence in the South-Central Asia, with a long list of ethnicities and polities, starting with Indo-Scythians and ending with the Moghuls, from whom Britain wrestled control of India. The linguistic traces of the Türkic presence are indelible in the Indian languages, Cf. the Indian hallmark sari, the Türkic “wrapped”. In that respect, Sanskrit is consistent with the other Indian languages.

In the linguistic aspect, historical background should also question the linguistic cohesiveness of the Indo-Aryan farmers. No mass migrations can happen in one humongous swoop. Any migratory process has a wave character, with reciprocal movements that involve gradually increasing flows from gradually increasing source territories. Accepting that the source population even within an ethnically single phylum was a continuous chain of mutually incomprehensible vernaculars every 200 km, it is reasonable to propose linguistically motley sources of the migrants, who in new location for a millennium were forming a new lingua franca that finally reached us as a Classical Sanskrit. The surviving “IE” linguistic elements of the Classical Sanskrit are a sampling of the vernaculars involved in unidirectional migration.

The 800-word assembly of Turkisms and Türkic substrate in English includes frequent instances when the “IE etymology” cites Sanskrit to establish the “IE” origin of the English lexis. The body of the references to Sanskrit and Avesta attests that both were familiar with and to a degree amalgamated with the Türkic languages, even down to morphological elements. The status of Sanskrit, a product of the 2nd mill. BC, as some preeminent version of the PIE language, a vision dated to the 18th c., had long lapsed, but still lingers on in many “IE” etymological discourses.

An initial trial of the English-Sanskrit-Türkic lexical correspondences, using a preliminary listing of the English-Türkic correspondences, found a match for about 10% of the sample. Results of the initial trial indicated that arbitrarily allowing a conservative 10% for the remaining Sanskrit lexis, about 20% of the Sanskrit lexicon is retained or is based on the lexical base that originated with the Türkic linguistic family. Results gave some rough idea on the Sanskrit admixture, they were consistent with the assertion that only a fraction of the presumed European “IE” vocabulary reached the Indian subcontinent.

A consequent test using the 800-word list, found a match for 100 words, or 12% of the sample (Table 2a). The result of the expanded comparison agrees within reason with the result of the initial trial. The test covers apparent Turkisms in Sanskrit; it is a statistical indicator of the Türkic-Sanskrit lexis vs. the Türkic-English 800-word list. In respect to the Sanskrit lexis, it is a random lexical selection, since the content of Turkisms in English is independent from the content of Turkisms in Sanskrit, or of the Sanskrit loanwords in Türkic: 100 words of a random 800-word list. This number can't be applied to the whole body of the Romance in English, which is expected to be much diluted by various admixtures, and be smaller by an order of magnitude. In the context of the Türkic-Sanskrit-English commonality, the number 12% is significantly exaggerated by dubious Skt. cognates. It can be inferred that without Türkic words absorbed in the last two and a half millenniums, and the dubious cognates, the proportion of the Turkisms of the Classical Sanskrit origin would be reduced by half, to about 5% of a random sample. Allowing another 5-10% to cover the other Sanskrit Turkisms from the remaining portion of a typical 10,000-word Sanskrit vocabulary, a very rough prediction can be made that about 10% of the Classical Sanskrit lexis hails from the Türkic phylum. The numbers in English and Sanskrit are quite compatible, difference is but in the degree of admixture..

However, the number 10% is a very rough approximation, being dependent on the number of factors that influenced etymological sources. First and foremost is the poor appearance of Sanskrit cognates in the “IE” etymological exercises: the citing is spotty, only to the degree needed to establish connection consistent with the premise of the effort; just that flaw may underrepresent reality by a factor of 2 or 3, potentially raising proportion to 20-30%. Then there is a loose treatment of semantics, when Sanskritisms are cited inappropriately (Cf. janiṣ is cited both for “queen” and “wife”, “milk” is derived from “wipes off”, “bewail” equated with “call”, “Earth” is equated with thira which is an allophone of “terrain” and hails from the Türkic for “pasture”, etc.); that factor is falsely inflating the proportion. The presence of Sanskrit terms of Buddhist lexicon that grew on the Indian soil also inflates the proportion, since although they entered English as Turkisms, etymologically they originated with Sanskrit and were brought to English as the Türkic substrate at about the turn of the eras. These cases are few, but with the small sample of 100 words they need to be considered. Then there is a case of erroneous attribution to Turkisms in the body of the 800-word list; the questionable cases also inflate the proportion by as much as 1/3. Adjusted for these factors, the proportion of Turkisms in Sanskrit may be reasonably assessed as to be in the range of 10 to 15%. The presence of the basic vocabulary that could not have been introduced by the demographicly inferior Indo-Saka, Indo-Scythians, Huns, Kushans, Ephthalites, and later migrants, attests to a time depth of these loanwords ascending to the middle of the 2nd mill. BC, the time of the initial migration of the Indo-Aryan farmers to the South-Central Asia.

The detectable presence of the Türkic substrate in Sanskrit points to the demographically mixed origin of the Indo-Aryan farmers, an idea that seems to have never crossed the minds of the “IE” linguists. At the dawn of the Bronze Age, and enduring into the 21st century, ethnicity and trades were connected very tightly. The leaders and rulers could have been of one ethno-linguistic group, the military base and its economy of another ethno-linguistic group, the Indo-Aryan Levites of a third group, farmers and their economy of a fourth group, and artisans still of another group. We know for whom the Hebrew Levites wrote their version of the history, but we may never know the native vernacular of the Indian Levites. The Sanskritic foundation may be a layered cake, misdated, misinterpreted, taken for a gospel, and exploited by patriots and politicians. The problems of the “IE” theory are rather systemic, precipitated and protracted by loyalty to the premises grown more on the notions of aged popular beliefs than on empiric experience. Started as a lump of raw dough, it was baked into a good-looking tangible and spongy loaf, tunneled through in all directions by incessant criticisms, and now stands as a fossilized crust, to be re-ground and re-baked with whatever flour it contains.

Germanic and Türkic Languages

There goes around a notion that Türkic-IE connection does not exist, that the “IE” could and was solely impacted only by the Ugro-Finnic group. In that scheme of geographical ethnography, the highly mobile Türkic people were confined to Altai, and Altai is too far from the European arena to possibly pass any borrowings into the “IE” languages. As a principle, alternate explanations are not considered, facts are viewed through a lens of preconception. This myth is solidly supported by a thorough disregard of linguistic reality. In contrast with the “IE” etymologies, most of the Türkic borrowings, or rather sharings, are so transparent, it takes a certified blind to pretend not seeing them with a naked eye. The etymology of the Türkic substrate in English practically does not exist, most of the Türkic words in English are left without any, even most flimsy, explanation. Etymological dictionaries and encyclopedias state with a straight face an “unknown origin”, or at best lead to OGk. or OLat., like if those were there on the first day of creation. Within the IE-centered enterprise, etymologies of “unknown origin” are routinely fossilized, for centuries recited between publications in defiance of scientific curiosity within the “IE” cocoon.

The reality is much simpler than it is popularly presented, and at the same time much more interesting.

Forrer (1894–1986) advocated that “IE” was composed of two unrelated languages (Forrer E., 1934, Neue Probleme zum Ursprung der indogermanichen Sprachen. “Mannus”, B. 26).
 - Von den Velden, Friedrich, 1912, 1920 stipulated Uralo-Altaic origin of the Germanic substrate. At the time, the Uralo-Altaic was a pre-1950's concept.
 - Also, Feist, Sigmund (1865–1943), 1932, “The Origin of the Germanic Languages and the Europeanization of North Europe”. Language (Linguistic Society of America) 8 (4): pages 245–254. doi:10.2307/408831. http://jstor.org/stable/408831
 - Also, Uhlenbeck C.C., (1866–1951), 1957, suggested that “IE” was a mix of Ural-Altaic and Caucaso-Semitic type languages, The indogermanic mother language and mother tribes complex // American Anthropologist, Philadelphia, v. 39, no. 3, 385-393.
 - Also, John A. Hawkins (1990), Germanic Languages, in The Major Languages of Western Europe, Bernard Comrie, ed. (Routledge). ISBN 0-415-04738-2
 - Also, Edgar C. Polomé (1990), Types of Linguistic Evidence for Early Contact: Indo-Europeans and Non-Indo-Europeans. In: Markey-Greppin (eds.) When Worlds Collide 267-89.

The list is going on and on.

Notably, in reconstructive phonology, “The development of vowels in German languages shows a feature resembling the reconstructed development in Altaic: the reflexation of vowels (in particular the short ones) in stem-initial syllables strongly depends on the vowels of the following syllable(s)”, which allows reconstruction of Germanic phonology using Altaic parallels (A.V. Dybo, G.S. Starostin, 2008, In Defense of the Comparative Method, or The End of the Vovin Controversy//Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3, p.139, Moscow, RSUH). One has to climb a Türkic ledge to reconstruct the Pra-Germanic phonology. Is not this an ultimate insult to the “IE” pedigree and philologists who were solemnly lodged on an island, unaware that they are perched on a fringe of the Eurasian peninsula. Like in the geocentric model, Eurasia rotates around Alps.

The Family Tree model keeps inflicting serious damage. With the Family Tree blinds on, any aberration either creates a mental block that leaves it alone, or engages an overdrive not unlike the universally supported science on the Aristotle's geocentric model with its ever growing entangling of the embedded epicycles before the appearance of the heliocentric model in the course of scientific revolution. The phonetics, for example, instead of surveying a list of possible phonetical kins in search of corroborating evidence, keeps developing epicycles to fit into the traditional creationist model the widely acknowledged phenomena of the Germanic and Türkic phonetical parallels. It was not the door that was tightly closed, it was the model that spurns the open doors. Opening the door would not only advance the English and Germanic linguistics, but would also illuminate the non-IE contributors to the “IE” line. A good example of the fruitfulness of such studies is the Bulgar lexicon extracted from Hungarian; it meshes up with other Türkic vernaculars, enriching not only Hungarian and Türkic philology, but also going far beyond into the “IE” and Oriental studies not confined to linguistics alone. Such single-dimensional self-impairment breeds primitive concoctions compatible with miraculous stories that produced simplistic models parodying intricacy and magnificence of the actual evolution.
15

Aside from the Old French impact, in English is visible a blending of three unrelated languages, and some attentive eye would detect that the historical development of English differs from the bulk of the Germanic languages, pointing to a separate, yet related, source. Sufficient indicators point to languages with their own version of lexicon and morphology. The main gap that separates English from German is filled with French borrowings that introduced Latin-derived lexis. The French borrowings, however, have a superficial nature, they did not impact too much the old Old English daily vocabulary. In contrast, unlike English and other Germanic languages German was not affected by the French borrowings.

The commonalities between English and Germanic languages are enduring, for example the difference between the front rounded morpheme u (muse, ü) and back morpheme u (cook, u) are consistently retained going all the way to the pra-pra-language. Graphically, they are frequently camouflaged by the attempts of various writers to present the front rounded u distinctly from the back u: you, iou, ui, ull vs. u, ou, oo, oue, ul; same with the front i vs back i: e, ea, ee, ei, “IE” vs. i, y. In the pra-pra-language the difference was semantic and critical, carried on as far as it was needed, but the creolized English mostly lost that semantic function, as well as the ancient suffixes, and the retention of the once critical differences is purely inertial. Still, the abundance of spellings for the phoneme i, for example, is quite telling, at the dawn of Romanization the differences were significant enough to warrant explicit coding e, ea, ee, ei, ie, in addition to the laconic i, with an emphasis on the semantically distinct special quality of the rendered phoneme. Other languages, encountering the same problem with the front i vs back i, similarly came up with local inventions, like the Cyrillic и vs. ы or ï. Prima facie distinct, these are paradigmatic solutions to a paradigmatic transfer problem. The imprint of the substrate phonemics still lives in the daughter languages.

An unintended consequence of the search for the origin of the English's substrate is a review of the state of the purported “IE etymology” for the English Turkisms, where there is one. Except for the candid “of unknown origin” and “no known cognates beyond Germanic (and at times Celtic)”, the rest is marked by systemic dishonesty, artificiality, or open flimsiness. Where the “IE etymology” of Turkisms appeared to be plausible, a doubt was interpreted in favor of the “IE” version, and such words were not credited as Turkisms. Some trends, like appealing to Lat. prefixes to chop down an original root, may even be formulated as some “IE” linguistic law: all original stems starting with e-, for example, can be wiped out with a single device of “assimilated ex-” - “out”, even in cases when a cognate family clearly attest that e- is a part of the root. The appeal to “onomatopoeic” or “echoic” origin is a routine antic, never supported by a survey of the “echoic” forms across linguistic families. Flimsiness or sleight of hand reigns in not citing inconvenient cognates not only from the eastern languages like Kor. or Mong., but even from within the “IE” languages like the Sl. In some cases, falsification borders on ridiculous, see mare for example. While cognates of mare predominate across Eurasia, the “IE etymology” boldly declares that there are “no known cognates beyond Germanic and Celtic”. Criticisms and disputes on the “IE” etymological methodology are as old as the “IE etymology” itself, and the present review of the substrate layer presents abundant illustrations of its shortcomings.

A majority of the Turkisms belongs exclusively to a class of the Germanic languages, with a sprinkle of random guests into selected neighboring languages. Etymological assessments glide over that exclusivity without specifically noting it and any systemic analysis. Result is a loss of the historical connections, the very objective of the etymological history. With the tool of the faux “reconstructions”, a word is doomed to be sunk into the netherworld of the PIE smoke pool. It is an image of a Tree of Life with apples and watermelons hanging off the same branch. It is an image of a special pleading PIE Babylon Tower and miraculous creation and scattering for a peculiar group of languages. Besides the class of the Germanic languages, there is a distinct class of the Germanic-Slavic strata. While the etymological historicity of the Norman-Anglosaxon blend is perfectly transparent, the Germanic-Slavic blend is blurred in the smoke pool as Germanic-to-Slavic loanwords, albeit a good slice if not a majority of it is rooted in the omitted shared Turkisms. Each side is cooking their own historical broth within proprietary confines of the etheric “proto-language”. Under a guise of loanwords, history is stripped off the historicity, turning its linguistic aspect into a mystic unlit forest.

Scandinavia has a distinct and uncluttered genetic footprint, with salient haplogroups I1, R1b, and R1a. The haplogroups I1 and R1a came from the continent, they probably were already amalgamated and shared a common “Old Europe” language. The haplogroup R1b came as a nomadic wave of Kurgans from the Eastern Europe, they belonged to the Kurgan Pit Grave archeological culture, liable to speak their own distinct Kurgan language. At about 3700 ybp (1700 BC), the newcomer Haplogroup I1 supplanted and joined the genetically related older 8000 ybp-old (6000 BC) Scandinavian haplogroups I2 and I. The haplogroup I1, previously widely scattered across Europe, found a refuge in Scandinavia. The other refuge area was the forested northern area of the Eastern Europe with the Corded Ware Sprachbunds. The Scandinavian blend of I1, I2, I, and R1a makes a good candidate for the Indo-European Scandinavian Sprachbund that later expanded back to the continent. The haplogroup R1b, nowadays spread in the Scandinavia almost equally with the leading haplogroup I1, appeared in the continental Europe 4800-4500 ybp (2800-2500 BC). That makes a cause for the European mix of I1 and R1a, with the newcomer R1b, to come to Scandinavia safe heaven as a compact, in a single movement that could last for centuries, akin to the directional movement of the Bulgar and Slav compact to the Danube Bulgaria. Demographically, the R1b nomadic Kurgans were a minority, the I1 and R1a farmers were a majority. The nomadic Kurgans were the military and ruling force, farmers were the manpower and economic base. These first Kurgans in Scandinavia should not be confused with the later Kurgans around the New Era. 1500 years later, by the Sarmat time, the Scandinavian blend of the I1, R1a, and R1b had probably amalgamated, with only traces of the former statutory stratification.

By the turn of the eras, they formed a distinct ethnicity named Germanic, we have a good idea of the early Germanic languages, and of the dialects within individual languages. At the base of the Germanic languages lay the surviving languages of the “Old Europe”, enriched by a heavy admixture of traceable Turkisms. From the Scandinavia of the 2600-2300 ybp (600-300 BC), Germanic people and languages rolled down to the Alps and Black Sea, to the Gaul in the west, and Vistula in the east, reconstituting the “Old Europe” languages in their newer “IE” hypostasis, and leaving Pomerania with its predominately R1a population an isolated island. The languages of the Scandinavian migrants to the continent constituted a single Germanic phylum, mutually incomprehensible neither with the continental “Old Europe” languages, nor with the European Türkic vernaculars.

With the arrival of the haplogroup R1b, connected with the Celtic Beaker culture spreading from the west, and the Pit Grave culture spreading from the east, nearly entire male farming population in the continental Europe marked by the haplogroups I1, I2, E1b, and R1a had waned, leaving there only the haplogroup R1b for an auspicious period of 4500-3500 ybp (2500-1500 BC). The old female European population endured and even increased. If languages are anchored by women, after 3500 ybp (1500 BC) the “Old European” fraction had to increase, at the expense of the prior Türkic fraction. Return of the Scandinavian-Germanic and Corded Ware refugees repopulating Europe after 3500 ybp (1500 BC) reseeded Europe with the male haplogroups I1, I2, E1b, and R1a, and with the relict reflexes of the “Old Europe” languages.

The Scandinavian languages and haplogroups provide a lab-quality experimental data on the correlation of binary genetic/linguistic components prior to the Scandinavian-Germanic expansion to the continent. Presently, Sweden has R1b 22%, with I1 37% and R1a 16%; Norway - R1b 32%, with I1 32% and R1a 26%; Denmark - R1b 33%, with I1 34% and R1a 15%. The kindreded haplogroup I2, fairly well correlated with the “IE” Slavic populations and ubiquitous in the Old Europe, is currently present only in trace numbers, Sweden 1.5%, Norway 0%, and Denmark 2%. The R1b/(I1+R1a) numbers serve as a ballpark predictors of the Türkic/IE linguistic admixture, about 20-30% of the Scandinavian lexis. The proportion of Turkisms, in agreement with the clinal distribution of R1b as a marker of originally Türkic phylum, has to reduce from the European North to the Mediterranean South, while allowing local spurts to extend at any distance in any direction. The older R1a, sedentary in Europe and nomadic in Asia, the “Old Europe” in the European west and Türkic in the Eurasian east, would play a secondary swing role, depending on the time and source of its presence.

There is no sane explanation on the origin of the “IE” component in the Scandinavian languages other than the people marked by the haplogroup subclades I1 and R1a, and in the Slavic languages other than the people marked by the haplogroup subclade I2. That leads to the Old Europe and its languages, a de-facto “IE” lexical majority in the Scandinavian languages, and de-facto property of the “IE” Slavic languages. The opposite assertion, advanced by the investigators of the Pit Grave kurgans' genetics, on the “IE” R1b and the Türkic I1 and R1a, leads to a nonsense, to the opposite, a Türkic component majority and “IE” component minority in the Scandinavian languages, and a pile of other corollary absurdity. The Scandinavian linguistic lab provides incontestable evidence in favor of the “IE” – I1 and R1a correlation.

This non-thought experiment in the Scandinavian lab identifies the Old Europe of the 8000-4500 ybp (6000-1500 BC) as a transitory station on the “IE” path, a time of creeping agriculture and a demise of the hunter-gatherer economies. The period of 4500-3500 ybp (2500-1500 BC) is a transformative period, connected with massive relocations, realignments, and amalgamations. For a thousand years, or for 40 generations, the fractioned “Old Europe” male fugitives procreated with the local females at dispersed refuges, grew up with their languages, and were forming amalgamated “IE” Sprachbunds. Their return and dispersion 40 generations later was no less eventful. The relatively late in the reverse flow migrations, the first historical records from the first literate sources relay the stories of the Dorian invasion, Achaean invasion, Hittite invasion, Aryan invasion, wars of conquest, etc., emanating from the N. Pontic area, with no less destructive consequences than the Kurgan invasion of Europe in the 4th-3rd mill. BC. In the 1st mill. BC episodes of relocations, realignments, and amalgamations lay the roots of the Anglo-Saxon origins, the origins of numerous Germanic tribes connected with the history of England and English language, and with the history of the “IE” layer in their languages.

It is highly unlikely that a scientific luck will ever encounter a situation duplicate of the massive Scandinavian case, where a historical prism would separate long past events into clearly readable distinct beams of reproducible genetic and linguistic pattern. It is especially fortunate that the Scandinavian lab is a test bed for the very “IE” family, the scholarship, historiography, enigma, and speculations of which easily exceed those of all other linguistic families combined. At the same time, the improved methods of genetic analysis, improvements in the accuracy of the genetic dating, and philological advances may allow analyses of much less clear-cut situations.

In 2004 came out the Hatice Mergen et al., Mitochondrial DNA sequence variation in the Anatolian Peninsula (Turkey) that surprised the world with the results of genetic connection between the British and Turkish mamas. The linguistics, which ordinarily is at a loss with the genetics, unwittingly got a shot in the arm: the genetically closest kins of the Turkish mamas turned out to be the gelding-riding nomadic Central Asian Türkic mamas (no surprise there) and the British mamas (what a surprise!). And where the mama goes, there goes the language [Hatice Mergen, Department of Molecular Biology, Science Faculty, Hacettepe University, 06532 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: mergen@hacettepe.edu.tr].

The male Y-DNA R1a and R1b, ubiquitous among the Türkic papas, do not hurt either, they mark genetic protraction between the Türkic peoples and the populations of the European countries.

Latvian is held to be the most archaic language in the N. Europe, and accordingly it is cited as closest to the pre-IE languages of the N. Europe. It also happens to be the only N. European language that was examined for substrate languages, and viola, one of them turned out to be Türkic. The substrate lexicon, morphology, syntax, phonetics of vowels and consonants, even the agglutinative suffixes, all find their roots in Türkic, and they are yet quite compatible with the modern Turkish, although the Turkish belongs to the Oguz branch, and the Latvian demonstrates features and has historical links pointing to the Ogur branch. The difference must be on the range of Hittite vs. modern Italian, and still the volume of evidence is more than overwhelming to demonstrate intimate genetic connection. A close look at Latvian also allowed discerning that its substrate Türkic lexis substantially differs from the Türkic substrate lexis of the Slavic languages. Latvian and Slavic use numerous different synonyms in their languages, evidently coming from different Türkic phyla. And if the Latvian is archaic, what about its substrate?
16

Close to the 3rd millennium BC, at about 3500 BC, Europe was invaded by the Kurgan wave 2, and soon after that, at about 3000 BC, came the Kurgan wave 3. These Neolithic waves, archeologically associated with the cultures dubbed Battle Ax and Corded Ware, first migrated to the right banks of the river Dnieper, and then farther on to the Central Europe. How numerous was the part of the ancient Türkic tribes and which Türkic tribes passed through the Dnieper area is a moot matter. Most of them amalgamated with the local aborigines, that is amply attested. A part of them moved to the Central Europe, roughly coinciding in time with the Celtic expansion to the Central Europe, wrecking there a havoc known as the Central European “killing fields”. Both invader flows were predominantly marked by R1b haplogroup, the survivals marked by an alphabetical soup of male haplogroups fled to the E. Europe. Of the invaders, only two Türkic tribes, that of the ancient Bulgars and Akathirs, retained their ethnic identity; the Celts were too far remote from their roots, they received a non-ethnic moniker Kelty (y as i in sit), meaning plural “newcomers”. The female-perpetuated creole languages, augmented by diverse admixtures, became the Celtic languages that reached the literate times. The Bulgar-descendent tribes of the Tatars, Chuvashes, and Balkars in their languages have preserved some idiosyncrasies that better resonate with the European Latin, Germanic, and English languages; of all the Türkic languages, some cognate lexemes are attested exclusively in the Chuvash. Many Latin Turkisms can be alternatively attributed to the Celtic or Türkic influence. The ancient Greek Turkisms differ from those of the Italics, they did not have the Celtic influence. The Greek and Latin Turkisms, at times also attested in India, are now classed as innate PIE vocabulary.

The analytical work performed in 2015 determined genetic composition of two archeological cultures, Kurgan Pit Grave and Corded Ware, the first called in Russian Yamnaya, from yama “pit”. The Kurgan folks were predominantly marked by Y-DNA haplogroup subclade R1b-M269 on the male side and mtDNA haplogroup subclades western Eurasian U2e, U5a, T and eastern Eurasian C and A10 on the female side; migrants moved by whole families. The Corded Ware folks were marked by Y-DNA R1a, E-V13, G2a, I2a, I2b, I1, N1c1 on the male side and mtDNA H, K, U5 on the female side. According to M.E. Allentoft et al., 2015, Pit Grave Kurganians were nearly exclusively R1b, Corded Ware were a mix of 3/4 Kurganians and 1/4 locals of the above Y-DNA haplogroups. The steppe migrants replaced ~3/4 of the central Europeans' ancestry. Before 3000 BC the native genomes resembled those of early farmers from the Middle East (G2a) and even earlier European hunter-gatherers (I2b, I1). By 2000 BC the native genomes were more like those of the Pit Grave people. The steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans from about 4,500 to about 3,000 ybp. It can be safely submitted that on the average, the local Sprachbunds amalgamated in the same proportion, the Türkic phylum predominated. Migrations were followed by resurgences of the previous inhabitants between the Late Neolithic and present, the farmer and hunter-gatherer lineages rose again when the Bell Beaker and Unetice groups reduced the Pit Grave lineage to the comparable levels of the present-day Europeans. That had to raise accordingly the proportion of the non-Türkic linguistic component. These results elucidate the spread of kurgan burials in the central and western Europe, and provide support for the concept of the steppe origin of the Türkic substrate of the European Indo-European languages (M.E. Allentoft et al., 2015, W.Haak et al., 2015).

Perusal the body of the words of the “possibly pre-IE Mediterranean language”, of the “uncertain origin” words, and a mass of dubious “IE” and Germanic *asterisked conjectures, gives an impression that most of the “uncertain origin” “IE” *reconstructions are simply fancifully (or unskillfully, or primitively) slightly distorted Türkic stems and derivatives. On the other hand, excepting conjectures that are too imaginative or semantically too far afield, the “IE” conjectures do end up resembling their Türkic siblings: a round peg forced through a square hole comes out squarish. A statistical value of the *reconstructions is nil: they are not independently calibrated, are not corroborated with later discoveries, and their only utility is to remold the past. In most cases, a basic understanding of the morphology of the Türkic languages would greatly alleviate the scholarly puzzlement, too often linguists confuse suffixes with parts of the stem, and stem parts with prefixes. Filtering English vocabulary on the “of unknown origin” and the like readily supplies a listing of substrate candidates, and the base words of 2000 years-old life make it easy to locate the Türkic substrate originals with close phonetics and exact or nearly exact semantics.

The concept of Nostratic was formulated in the early 20th c. as an Ursprache pra-language Family Tree model that originated most of the Eurasian languages, from “IE” to Sino-Caucasian. In its most radical interpretation, the Nostratic concept is reduced to a mega-IE axis. The concept was formulated exclusively on studying the linguistic cognates found in very diverse languages, on the continental geographical scale, and with the implied Family Tree model. It was formulated before the development of the linguistic Wave model, knowledge of the Kurgan waves, understanding of the continental-scale migrations, and methods of genetic tracing and dating. In conceptual dating, and under the Family Tree model, the Nostratic concept envisioned for the Ursprache the times as remote as 30-20,000 ybp. Correcting for the later developments, the Nostratic idea contracts to the linguistic layer disseminated across Eurasia by the Kurgan waves during pre-Kurgan (R1a and R1b haplogroups) and Kurgan periods (R1b haplogroup) that started in the Neolithic and continued till and including the Middle Ages. Some pre-Kurgan Nostratic spread (R1a and R1b haplogroups) started around 10,000 BC, it intensified around 6,000 BC, greatly intensified around 4,000 BC, and reached India and China during 3,000-2,000 BC. The effect of refugees from the Kurgan waves constitutes an innate component of the Kurgan waves' phenomena, with its own linguistic and cultural propagation.

Morphology

Links
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/OTDictionary/OTDictionaryAffixesEn.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/ClausonEDT/Clauson_EDT_Suffixes.htm

“Türkic” languages is a vast family of languages distinct from non-Türkic families by a crisp definition of its properties. Its earliest documented phrase ascends to a 5th c. AD. Runic alphabet in inscriptions may be a millennium older; one day we may be able to date many of stone-type inscriptions. The term “Türkic”, as the language reached us, refers to a linguistic family with languages from mutually comprehensible to mutually incomprehensible, pretty much like many other families, Cf. Gmc. The global term “Türkic” can't be confused with a particular term “Turkish”. “Türkic” in practice is a language frozen in time prior to 13th c. AD and scattered across languages over most of the Eurasian latitude; “Turkish” is a particular branch with its own particular vocabulary and particular history. The difference is no less than between, say, Eng. and Gmc.

Typologically, Türkic languages are SOV-type agglutinative, genderless, they feature sound harmony, exclusively suffixing word formation, extensive use of pre- and post-positions, dependents precede their head, and they form numerous nonfinite verb constructions. A hallmark of Turkism is an inordinate number of derivatives: a single root producing endless generations of offsprings; in medieval India creation of new derivatives became a kind of sport. Nominal stems take on nominal suffixes, and verbal stems take on verbal suffixes. Most stems are polysemantic, with a trail of largely overlapping meanings related to the main notion, with figurative extensions tenuously connected to the main notion, like “break” with figurative “weak” and “melt”. A common development is the use of a single root to create contrasting (e.g. guest vs. host), complimentary (e.g. tick, tack, tuck), and metaphorical (e.g. give, open) notions, it allows great expansion with economical means. Languages form semantic expressions by adding suffixes to the root stem. Like in English, the adjectives are morphologically not clearly distinguished from nouns. The expressive verbal morphology is rich with markers of actionality, possibility, negation, voice, aspect, mood, tense, person, interrogation, attitude and more. Just the Turkish alone, accounting for the vowel harmony alternations, theoretically has over a thousand of grammatical morphemes. Unlike English, which has a canonized list of all English words with a defined total count, the Türkic words can't be counted because new forms are continuously created using a conventional set of suffixes and a conventional practice of their usage, learned with the language and intuitively applied. Theoretically, the Türkic lexis is finite, but nobody knows what is that theoretical number.

On the other hand, the quantity of the Türkic stems is not large, they comfortably fit into single volume linguistic dictionaries. Prefixes are structurally counter indicated, they impact the root and baffle the crisp mechanism of semantic content. Instead of prefixes are used prepositions, audibly identical to prefixes. The accent on the last syllable leaves the root portion undisturbed in any environment, while internalization in English moves the accent to the first syllable. These simple structural conventions secure the distinct endurance of the root system. Words are formed starting with a single morpheme (of which Eng. preserved just one, ö, the word awe), first by agglutinating distinguishing functional morphemes one at a time, then by agglutinating semantical morpheme units (like -lig- “like”), ending up with verbal conjugational morpheme units. Generally, the logical structure of the language allows to trace a word through a linked chain of derivatives to its source, that is a monumental difference between the Türkic and the “IE” languages with their haphazard mix of agglutinative and random (borrowings and amalgamation) word-forming practice that can't be called “procedure” with the absence of such. Unlike the “IE” word-forming practice, the Türkic practice is usually predictable in both directions, with the loanwords standing out; that makes the science of Turkologists incompatibly easier than the tortured science of the Indoeuropeistics.

A common feature of the base roots is their two-dimensional semantics, one immediate, and one implied; both sememes may develop derivatives, with the immediate derivative carrying over the implied meaning (like “do something” vs. “do something together”), and the implied derivatives directly continuing implicated sememe but indirectly implying the base meaning (like “together (do something)”). This bifurcated semantics may puzzle a student who sees only a direct meaning, and erroneously concludes that there is no connection between a base root and its derivative; or the connection may appear to be too far-fetched to be credible; while an understanding of the implied notion puts connection in proper perspective (like “stopover” also implies “bunching together”, and thus “tribe”, “crowd”, “companions”, and the like). Frequently, the subject of the implied semantics is not included in a phrase, and a translator of the phrase puts the crucial implied subject in parentheses for the phrase to make sense. The two-dimensional semantics first appears in the linguistic relicts, the single-syllable stems, and continues undiminished well into the era of technological revolutions marked by lexical expansion into construction, metallurgy, and producing pastoralism, when grammatical developments supplanted notional expressions with morphological means to form precise semantic variety by an assortment of grammatical modifications. The use of agglutinative method (Cf. -iš as cooperative mood marker) made unnecessary the use of implied semantics (Cf. “together” as a derivative of “bunch together”, an implied notion of the word “stopover”). At times, from the distance of ages, the base notion may retreat to a background blanketed by its derivatives; that may result in misguided etymology (Cf. šarp, Eng. “sharp”, with a base notion of “steep incline” essential in the mountainous pasturing, it can be used and interpreted as “rough”, “inaccessible”, “difficult”, “tapered”, even “acerbic (taste)”, etc., with the physical base notion on the plains' pasturing atrophied). In a single-dimension linguistic world, the two-dimensionality of the often metaphorical notional semantics may be an impediment. A tree appears as a bush, with stalk obscured by the crown.

A common phonetic feature of the Türkic languages is a somewhat wild, somewhat organized alternation mirrored, for example, by the strongly pronounced Germanic d/z alternation shared with the Türkic family. The most prominent of them are the m/b and z/d/y alternations. Phonetic alternations from the beginning were probably a consequence of amalgamations, and of consecutive amalgamations thereafter. The m/b bifurcation is most telling, the peculiar coexistence of the m/b alternation within the same communities endured for 7 millennia and has survived into the present times, occasionally within a single family the alternation is not registered by the speakers or listeners themselves. Traces of the m/b divide extend far beyond the Türkic milieu, extending across the eastern and western parts of the Eurasia and crossing barriers between linguistic families, with a heavy imprint within the entire “IE” family. The oldest traces of the m/b alternations are visible in Sumerian, they are also a trait in the Finno-Ugric family including Hungarian. Sumers are believed to have migrated to Mesopotamia between ca 5500 and 4000 BC from the area between Caspian Sea and Hindu Kush and Kopet Dag mountains, about the area of the modern Turkmenistan. They carried an R1b-M269 subclade haplogroup marker (Klyosov A., 2012, 87on). The genetical and archeological datings are largely consistent. Suggestions on a temporal priority of one phoneme over the other are unsupportable. The Sumer migrants were but an offshoot of the R1b migration flow, a sidestream of the much greater demographical situation marked by numerous other R1b subclades.

The English, via Anglo-Saxon, lost most of the Türkic suffixes, and added some to its morphology. The modern Turkish retained most of the suffixes, reactivated some that were out of use, and simplified orthography, collecting some phonetically close phonemes under a common symbol. The following listing of the Turkish suffixes allows to highlight modern English suffixes genetically connected with the modern Turkish suffixes; as a body, they constitute a stand-alone paradigm that inescapably attest to the common genesis, a paradigmatic transfer evidence in concert with all other systemic cases of paradigmatic transfer. One of the most significant Türkic suffixes is –t that forms deverbal nouns. The final –t in Anglo-Saxon and English nouns is a good pointer to locate the underlying verbal stems for the nominal derivatives, Cf. Türkic bert “tax, return” (ber- “to give”), ölüt “'killing” (ölür- “kill”), bütüt “completion” (bütür- “finish, complete”); English port “harbor” (bar- “depart”), unit “part of” (una- “agree”), gift “present” (kiv- “give”). Since the suffix –t in English lost its original function, it became an indelible part of the root: port, unit, gift.

The modern Turkish language is a product of amalgamation of numerous Türkic languages, which in varying degree contributed to the modern Turkish language. The Turkey's ethnic map discriminates 25 constituent ethnicities on top of the titular Oguz component, a number of those ethnicities, including within the Oguz fraction, before the amalgamation had distinct languages up to mutually incomprehensible. As a result, Turkish is but one of the Türkic languages with its own peculiar lexis, removed fairly far from many other sibling Türkic languages and likewise from the OT variegated collection, and it can't be used as a weighted instance of the Türkic phylum. According to some estimates, Turkish is a blend of about 86% Türkic lexis and 14% of admixture lexis; it is fairly far removed from the formalized OT sampling, and its daily lexis is variegated much above the 14%. A careful examination of the lexicons of 42+ Türkic languages (the vague number reflects the current state of affairs, not the actual number) would likely produce forms that are genetically nearer to the historical and current English forms. Comparison of the English and Türkic lexicons is largely limited to the root forms, with not infrequent cases of the Türkic suffixes embedded into the English word stem. English was already heavily creolized when the Anglo-Saxons brought it over to the Albion, but the traces of its substrate are still fossilized in the lexis and morphology, and the agglutinated suffixation is an ingrained and burgeoning part of its morphology.

In addition to exclusively suffixing word formation, Türkic languages widely use prepositions that are indistinguishable from prefixes neither phonetically nor functionally. Türkic languages also widely use postpositions that modify conjugated or declined forms. Written separately, phonetically they are indistinguishable from the prefixes and suffixes. The conditional status of the prepositions and postpositions adds caveats to the doctrinal assertion of the absolute absence of prefixes in the Türkic languages. Some of them made their way to English, retaining their semantic function in a new syntactic environment. These cases belong to the body of paradigmatic transfer evidence.

Grammatically genderless for inanimate objects, or where gender is irrelevant, or where gender is clear from the context, Türkic languages may use suffixes -čïn, -kčïn and -lai to mark female gender; otherwise gender, like the age and other traits, is indicated by determinants. In that, Türkic and English are identical, the other Germanic languages are not too far off with their haphazard treatment of gender. In all cases, gender markers are borrowings from neighboring languages; the Türkic gender markers are borrowings from Mongolian and used by the neighboring eastern Türkic languages.
17

The “IE etymology” tends to follow a path of deriving verbs from nouns. The Türkic linguistic tendency is the opposite, the prime stem is mostly verbal, the noun semantic is a derivative. The difference is of a cardinal nature for understanding the “IE” lexicon of the Türkic origin. Among the Indo-European languages the Türkic verbal-nominal homonymy, the system of roots in Türkic languages where the verbal root also serves as a noun, in a most developed form is represented in English, but albeit in an incomplete form is also known in some other European languages (Sevortyan, 1974, 39). The English and Türkic innately share this morphological feature. English has stand (v.) and stand (n., adj.), sit (v.) and seat (n.), sleep (v.) and sleep (n.), with uncounted others, and continues to productively use this inherited Türkic word-forming vehicle. In the Türkic languages, the productivity of the verbal-nominal homonymy faded by the Middle Ages, but in English this ancient Türkic linguistic backbone experienced its Renaissance before the 13th c., and still keeps developing, illustrating a spiral conversion trend in the linguistic processes.

The “IE” linguistic paradigm is built on attested lexicon, non-attested lexicon, and phonology to explain the linguistic past seen from the perch of the viewer, with little or none attention paid to morphology or syntax. The PIE dictionaries are widely available, they inventory the attested lexicons and suggest non-attested *reconstructed forms, ostensibly in their stripped state, without morphological modifiers, but in fact frequently confusing unperceived suffixes with parts of the stems. The modifiers are structured individually by “IE” linguistic branch, i.e. Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic, etc., but they did not come from the same tree, and even conceptually are not compatible across the “IE” family. Accordingly, there are no PIE morphological dictionaries, nor a PIE morphological inventory. Such a pathetic state, after generations of linguists spent gargantuan efforts on PIE, has a good reason, reflected in the competing models of the linguistic development: the absence of any trace of commonality.

In the usage frequency statistics, morphological elements are buried with the words, making it impossible to assess the extent and the role morphological elements of different provenance play in forming a language. A cursory qualitative assessment readily shows importance of some morphemes: the listing of words beginning with negation element un-, an allophone of the Türkic negation element aŋ/an, far exceeds the number of words with stems starting with un- (undue “not due” vs. unary “single”): of the approximately 320 words beginning with una-, only 5 stems start so; in this case the amplification factor of the single morphological element un- thus exceeds a factor of 60, it enormously enriches English vocabulary, empowers its expressiveness, and enables stinting communication, all without a hint of a due statistical credit.

The overwhelming majority of the Türkic vocabulary is produced internally, from the basic, mostly verbal, stems of the language. Signally, some Old Türkic words bear unmistaken indicators of being borrowings: they are stand-alone entries without extensive nest of derivatives and without a transparent base stem. This class has few words smacking of the European extraction; the path from the Old Europe to the Old Türkic, which is a collection of exclusively eastern lexicons with a shade of the western languages, is unclear. These borrowings are a class of the words separate from the class of the religious borrowings from the Buddhist (Skt., Prakit, Hindi) and Islamic (Arabic, Persian) lingo.

In Türkic linguistic family numbering 42+ languages, stem defines notion, and grammatical constructs are formed by agglutinating suffixes specific for parts of speech. With some exceptions, English lost many suffixes at some pra-English stage; thus the Türkic generic stems became English verbs and nouns without functional markers; in English, they are used at random as verbs, nouns, and verbal or noun adjectives, and then they develop various verbal and noun derivatives. Both in English and Türkic, the suffixation method is extremely productive, it allows to create the same notions with different nuances from a variety of unrelated stems, like cloudy, dimly, murky, shady in English and 20+ forms for greedy in Türkic, greatly enriching the language. In Türkic, the verbal form of the stem is predominant in forming nouns and other derivatives, which in turn may develop, in a spiral fashion, verbs from the derivative nouns and adjectives. With time, some Türkic suffixes waned from active use, remaining active relicts, while the replacement suffixes rose; parallel usage of relict and active suffixes is normal, with different forms at times acquiring differing semantics. In some cases, the English substrate and loanwords stick out because they carry imbedded vestiges of the long-gone Türkic suffixes.

In any language, lexis alone does not make a language. A collection of structural grouping of sound bits aligned into into morphemes and words that constitutes lexis is no different from a pile of components in a scrap pit, be it a ruined cathedral or electronic refuse stripped of precious metals, that is an unidimensional pile. A second dimension is a structure, it made the cathedral before its ruin and a computer before salvaging, it makes a language. The structure of a language makes it a systematic means of communication to convey meaning. At the sound level, closely related dialects may differ wildly one from each other while at the structure level the same wildly differing dialects would be nearly identical. In the accepted classification typology with linear order of precedence, the Türkic and Germanic languages are classed as SOV-type, while English lost its initial SOV structure, and replaced it with a rigid SVO-type, obliterating a significant former structural commonality between English and the domain of the Germanic group. Of the complexity of the Germanic group SOV languages, represented by Dutch, German, and Frisian languages, with their main clauses SVO and embedded clauses SOV, English retained the SVO order of the main clauses. English shares genderless typology with the West Frisian and Türkic, and shares indiscriminate treatment of female gender with the Scandinavian, Frisian, and Türkic. The absence of grammatical gender indicator is not the same as the absence of the gender, it is the absence of the load of the grammatical gender synchronization between parts of speech. The gender is conveyed by other means without any synchronization effort (Cf. Türkic prepositions er, kïz “man, girl” vs. Eng. she-), and only when it is relevant. As a group, Germanic languages have never digested completely the alien gender grammar. Of the Germanic languages, even though the links are present, German is distinguished by weak and erratic link between declension and gender, gender and sex. Agglutination within the Germanic group varies from minimal to heavy. The erratic typology within the Germanic group is consistent with the substrate/adstrate concept.

If a presence of systemic grammatical gender was used in the definition of the “IE” family, the size of the family would be greatly diminished.

It is generally believed, with a support of historical examples, that a phenomenon of a widespread multilingualism (bilingualism in a minimal case) is needed to affect a structural change of the language. Under that premise, a linguistic structural change is a manifestation of the multilingualism, it is an effect of amalgamation. History of English allows to discern interference patterns of recurring amalgamations, with Anglo-Saxon carrying a major doze of Türkic lexical and morphological inheritance, Turkisms from other sources (primarily Frisian) overlay the resultant blend with the Anglo-Saxon component, the Romance layer carried over another load of Turkisms, and each one either directly impacted the structure of the English, or created conditions for a needed change. In such dynamic situation no conclusions are obtainable with static methods of discrete universe for each conglutinate language, internal reconstruction, lexicostatistics, or glottochronology, or they are easily vitiated when drawn with such methods.

A syntactical feature shared by the English and Türkic is the wide use of paired words - idioms, frequently used as compound words: horsetail and horse tail, bluegrass and blue grass, etc. Some words have dozens of such pairs, in English blackback, blackball, Blackbeard, etc., in Türkic qara ačı, qara baš - qarabaš, qara boɣuq, etc. Phonetically, the compounds and paired words are indistinguishable, the spelling is purely conventional. And all languages have polysemantic words; English and Türkic lexicons contain thousands of them; and miraculously, frequently the specific polysemantic meanings survived from the substrate Türkic into the modern English: yer/earth are both land and dirt, tili/talk are both a communication process and a story, etc. This mechanical transfer of polysemantic word from a language to language complete with the word's polysemantic meanings is a main indicator of the genetic connection, in contrast with the loanwords, which are borrowed with a specific semantic meaning when a receiving language adopts a word with only a meaning it needs to fill in. Below are cited numerous examples of polysemantic meanings carried over to English.

An univocal syntactical feature shared by English and Türkic is the use of predicate nouns with marker of belonging instead of accusative case: in Türkic “my uncle” with agglutinated suffix, in English “my uncle” with a pronoun instead of an article; thus “father loves her”, but “she loves her father”, and not “she loves father” or “she loves the father” ~ “ella ama a su padre” (Romance), but “she loves father” ~ “она любит отца” (Slavic). In Türkic example Huar-Ases (Suar-Ases) > Chorasm > Horezm “(land) of River People”; there -m is the Türkic possessive marker, a forerunner of the English “my”.

Another notable univocal feature that until 19th c. was shared by the English and Türkic is the now forgotten English passival reflexive form, where progressive aspect of a verb (Eng. -ing, Tr. -inč) was used in active voice with passive semantics (“breakfast eating” ~ being eaten), equivalent to the reflexive forms apparently ascending to the European Sprachbund vernaculars that existed in the Central Europe before the crucial events of the 3rd mill. BC. Relicts of that form are preserved in Eng., Dan., Sp., It., Lith., Serb., Pol.: pre- or postposition self/sig/se/si/save/se/sie (ascending to the Tr. öz “self”) respectively, and suffix sya in Russ., all meaning “self" and forming reflexive semantics were the objet is the subject. This now lost English form was creolized very late, in the 19th c.; in the Shakespearean time it was still active, and Johnny could be bathing (i.e. bathing himself), house could be building (i.e. building itself ~ to be under construction), breakfast could be eating (i.e. eat itself ~ be consumed), and lovers could be kissing ( (i.e. kissing themselves ~ kissing each other). In Türkic, the passival form is formed with the suffixes -m/-ïm/-im/-um/-üm and nearly universal stem öz “self”, all denoting “me, mine, self”. The öz, grammatically pre- and postposition, is a forerunner of the English possessive -'s, and European variations of pre- and postpositions “self”.

Till the Middle Ages and the input of foreign writers into the Türkic literary languages mostly via religious translations, Türkic languages did not know relative pronouns. In Türkic, suffixation serve the relative function. That inheritance is still prominent in modern English; while the presence of relative pronouns is characteristic, in particular, of the written Standard English, the standard variety has influenced the dialectal English, but had not taken over. The verbal use of relative pronouns is still subdued, with the absence (zero case) of relative pronouns reaching 30%, and a single particle that taking another 40%; the combined 6 relative pronouns share less than 40%, and that in spite of the absence of the suffixation tool available in the Türkic languages.

Another distinct feature shared by Germanic and Türkic languages is rhotacism. Rhotacism is one of the main traits that separate Oguz (-s-) and Ogur (-r-) languages, to a degree that these groups are defined as an s-language versus r-language. This preeminent trait is continued to the Germanic languages, notable, among others, in the Dutch (Y-DNA R1b 70%, R1a 4%) -s plurals and (by rhotacism) Scandinavian (Swedes, Y-DNA R1b 17%, R1a 21%) -r plurals. The ratios of the Y-DNA components point that Y-DNA R1b marker is correlated with the -s- form, and Y-DNA R1a marker is correlated with the -r- form. The same separation appears among the Türkic ethnicities historically connected with the Oguz (Common Türkic) and Ogur (Karluk subgroup, Uigurs, Uzbeks) groups, and is supported by paleogenetic testing.

Both English and Türkic have a preference for closed syllables ending with a consonant morpheme. That proclivity may be reversed passing through a language with an opposite tendency for open syllables ending with a vowel morpheme. The most frequent adaptation of a closed syllable by the alien linguistic inertia is by adding a prosthetic consonant in front of the initial vowel (VC > CVC). The initial vowel may be dropped (Cf. Türkic apat vs. “IE” pat “leg”, Cf. podiatry, peddler, pedal). Because such changes are caused by structural and not phonetic adaptations, such adaptations are unexplainable phonetically, as also are unexplainable the cases of metathesis (e.g. ab > ba etc.). The mere observations are routinely stated as exhaustive explanations: “h is often wrongly prefixed to words, as in Cockney English” (Hall J.R.C., 1916, 142). In Slavic, and shared by some Germanic languages, a prosthetic s- is systemically appended in front of the root, or is appended a prefix s- marking the perfect tense, the two can be easily confused. The systemic nature of prosthetic consonants is suggested by the mass of cases in the present study, these cases as a paradigmatic body extend a conspicuous diagnostic and tracing opportunity for the direction of borrowing and the nature of the guest and host languages. Systemic inattention to the structural and morphological properties of the languages in favor of the lexical content is perilous for etymological screening.

At each stage on their historical path, communities encountered alien communities and formed their unique lingua franca. Linguistic changes reflected initial idiosyncrasies for each unique situation. Each situation predicated its unique results at the terminal point, which marked a belonging to the previous stage, and a beginning of the next stage. It is impossible to account for all the past stages, for all the past players, for the murky linguistic relations during each stage. With so many largely unknown variables, any generalizations have their uncertainty and defined limits, both of which are critical in significance but can’t be defined for the prehistorical and most of the historical periods. None of the phonetic changes are predictable either backward nor forward. Consequently, the most that can be accurately stated etymologically is the vague “usual phonetic changes” and “few vowel variations”. Without a statistical assessment of the entire body of evidence for each variable parameter encapsulated between two terminal points, any assertion is no more than a hypothesis lacking a factual foundation.

A correlation between centum (k) and satem (s) languages in Europe is similar to the situation with the r/s alternation. In most -k- lands (Celtic, Italic, and Germany), R1a is the significant population component. R1a comes close to a minority in most -s- lands, where it may be compatible with the R1b content (Slavic). Comparing France (cent, -s-, R1b 50%, R1a 10%, I 30%) and Germany (hundert, -k-, R1b 50%, R1a 25%, I 25%), the main difference is with the R1a extent, and it correlates with the switch, from R1b -s- and small R1a, to -k- with greater R1a. It appears that relatively greater R1a tends to shift -s- to -k-. That observation is consistent with the earlier dating of the R1a and the earlier origin of the velar fricative in parallel with k- and q-. The corollary of that process may be a conclusion that the vicinities of the Aral-Caspian area, extending to the north to the Urals and in the south to the Mesopotamia, where the k/s furcation is most pronounced, initially were predominantly peopled by the R1a -k- type populations. The modern predominance of the -s- type in that area was caused by later migrations.

The European s/k divide is shared by the Türkic family, with a mirrored symmetry predicated by the demographic events. Within the Türkic milieu, the divide is more like s/h in today’s Romanized form. The -s- form is now predominant across Eurasia, the -h- form is scattered around the fringes, largely coexisting with and being supplanted by the dominant -s- form, except for the Alats/Khalajes who live in the -h- area. The modern spread of literacy and the influence of the titular languages tend to isolate and dilute the relict -h- islands. Still, the divide is very tangible (the Swadesh 100 list’s examples are from Dybo 2013, total 11 examples): “all, entire” Tat. saw, Bashk. haw; “belly” CT ičiksi, Sary-Yig. hijigï; “cold” Tat. sumk, Bashk. himk; “die” Tat. ül-, Khalaj hil-/hel-; “egg” Chuv. smarda, Dolgan himït; “far” Khalaj hiraq, Yig. iraq; “fat” Tat. simez, Bashk. himeδ; “kill” Tat. üter-, Khalaj hilär-; “thou” Tat. sin, Bashk. hin; “warm” Kumyk isi, Khalaj hissi; “water” Tat. su, Uzb. suv, Bashk. hïw. The -h- examples are limited to the Bashk. (5), Khalaj (4), Sary-Yig. (1), and Dolgan (1) languages, a tiny surviving relict of once dominant linguistic subdivision now extending to the European languages. The divide affords diagnostic value for the European linguistic pedigree.

The spotty bits and pieces hint that R1a are Scythians, Huns, Ases/Alans/Massagets, Kangars, and their lesser kins Bulgars, Suvars, As-Tokhar Yuezhi, called Ogur tribes in the modern linguistic nomenclature. The spotty linguistic traces point in the same direction, corroborating genetic indicators. Indications for the R1b marker are still blurrier yet, hinting toward the northern Tele tribes and their descendants Oguzes, Kipchaks, Uigurs, and their lesser kins Tele, Teleuts, Telengits, called Oguz tribes in the modern nomenclature. Except for few isolated cases, all populations were genetically mixed, covering diverse constituents under umbrellas of a leading tribe or a common unifying designation, like the Huns “kins”, Saka “mountaineers”, Alans, Ases “flatlanders”, etc.

An interesting case is the suffix -an, which survived in Türkic languages as an abstract noun suffix forming derivative nouns from concrete nouns. In English, -an survived as abstract suffix forming denoun and deverbal adjectives (terranean, distant), and a spectrum of deverbal nouns (appearance, servant, lubricant). Apparently, its initial function was a universal generic abstract applicable to all word classes, and its functional stratification developed at a geographical-dialectal level; it fossilized as an abstract suffix forming verbal infinitives within the Gmc. group (Cf. A.-Sax., Gothic, etc.), while the Balto-Sl. and Indo-Aryan languages adopted for verbal infinitives the Türkic 3 sing. suffix marker -t/-ti/-d/-di. Depending on the scenario of the stratification, the ingrained division may be timed by the Balto-Sl. and Indo-Aryan separation, by the 2nd mill BC that division already had a systemic nature that has survived to the present. At first, English had inherited the suffix -an as a marker of verbal infinitives, but eventually abandoned it in favor of the preposition marker to, apparently genetically a reflex of the Balto-Sl. suffix marker -t/-ti/-d/-di. This adaptation is consistent with the documented process of the development of English, and points to the demographic pressure of the Balto-Sl.-type vernaculars in the development of English. The end product of adaptation was a result of a play of competing tendencies between the sedentary majority and waves of intruding minorities, the Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Romans, and so on into pre-historic times.
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

The following Table 3 provides a cross-reference between the Türkic and English suffixes; it demonstrates a morphological continuity between Türkic, Latin, and English suffixation, an indelible example of an extremely massive paradigmatic transfer. That transfer is not only consistent, it is predicated by the archeologically and genetically established nomadic waves flooding the European peninsula starting in the middle of 4th mill. BC. The table lists nearly all active and productive English suffixes, allowing to discern the relative extent of the heritage and innovations. The fields that do not have Türkic entries are loan forms and/or innovations. Quite a significant proportion of the English suffixes is shared between Türkic, Germanic, and English languages. Of the 76 English suffixes, 48 or 63% were inherited from the Türkic mother lode, either directly, or via a Lat./Fr. intermediary.

English has abandoned the complexity of agglutination recorded in the Anglo-Saxon speech. Mastering agglutination allows to express relationships and nuances that without agglutination require a descriptive form, but that is a long process, impossible when the lingua franca is created on the run. Among the lost Anglo-Saxon suffixes are -u and -an, -isc, -e, -re, -an (gen.), -a, -ra, -na, -as (pl.), -an, -an_g (negation), -m (poss.); adding these 13 vanished suffixes to the list would make the respective numbers in the Old English 89 and 61, and rise the Türkic suffix component in the Old English to 69%. The comparison illustrates not only the morphological losses, but also the power of heritage and its conservatism.

English retained from the Türkic ancestry the relict paradigmatic suffixes that lost their active function: stay > stanch, staunch with -an (deverbal continuous action) + -ch (deverbal noun/adj.) “stop (water, process)”, “stay, remain (loyal)” respectively.

English also recycled the Türkic prepositions (phonetical and functional prefixes), postpositions, and suffixes into prefixes, retaining their original function either literally or notionally in a new syntactic typology.

The morphological and syntactical trail left by the Türkic languages in English and other Germanic languages is so deep and wide that it is embarrassing to think of the reasons why such obvious spoor was left unexplored for so long by the European linguistic community.

Phonetics

The scholarship of the Türkic languages' phonetics is fairly well established. To a limit. Beyond the limit lie unexplored seas and untouched unknown gulfs. Phonetic interdentality is both unknown and ignored. That provides misleadingly simplified scholarly transcriptions yer or yers in lieu of yerth for the “earth”. The English and other Germanic languages suffer from that unexplored gap, especially so because the probable origin of many Germanic substrate Turkisms is connected with the modern Turkmen language and location called Turkistan in the 19th c., and now called Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Iran. Labiodentality, bilabiadentality, and labialization, palatalization, velar plosiveness, post-palatal velar plosiveness, and voicing of velar plosives, and some more traits are out of view. Beyond the limit lie the Türkic phonetics endowed with “no single phonemic system for modern Türkic languages” (EDTL v.1 51). Transcriptional violations are endemic in Turkology. A jumble of individual ad hoc alphabets was created by individual schools to fit their own phonetic interpretations palatable to their peculiar tongs and ears. The past efforts to Romanize, Sinicize, Arabicize, Cirilicize, Russify Türkic vernaculars adds to the distortion maze. A comprehensive phonemic system would uncover presently obscured phonetic features. Such a system would definitely affect masses of accumulated renditions, uncover substance presently obscured by the poorly fit machinery, and bring new study material to the field.

Three traits dominate Türkic phonetics: division into front (palatal) and back (velar) phonemes, practice of using syllables composed of either front or back phonemes, and practice of composing words of either front or back syllables. In the words, neutral phonemes may complement either front or back phonemes. The result of this simple arrangement, called vowel harmony, is efficient verbal communication with minimized articulation, and efficient written depiction with reduced to no need to indicate trailing vowels. The initial consonant or vowel sets a tenor for the whole word.

The written world that we have inherited approximates the wealth of the spoken language very economically. A written word reduces a spoken world to a some palette with a kit of phonemes that may range from a couple of dozens to few dozens. They usually allow to grasp a meaning of a word, but render specifics of a live speech as a rough sketch. A good example is given by the phoneme n, that in Türkic may be a dental n, palatal n, or a guttural n (ŋ), and can be strengthened to ŋg, ŋğ, ŋk, with further variations. Some phonetic foibles can be rendered by some alphabets and not the others. An element of phonetic ambiguity is always present, especially when rendered by alphabets that formalized a significantly different phonetic system. Any perceived phonetics of the recorded spelling implies a degree of latitude. For the vanished languages, the span of the latitude always rests in a speculative sphere. That makes comparisons of words coming from different times and different languages a sorely imprecise science.

Some peculiarities are connected with the conventions of transcription, with the Romanization of the alphabet, and similar-type peculiarities introduced by the Arabic, Cyrillic, Chinese, and other non-native renditions. Romanization, for example, replaced the interdental unvoiced and voiced fricatives with Roman plosives d and t, Cf. Türkic yer q.v., Gmn. erde, A.-Sax. eorð, Goth. airþa “earth”. The A.-Sax. and Goth. indicate the final consonant fricative, retained in Eng., while the conventional renditions of the Türkic yer do not. That may be accurate for simplified modern pronunciations, but does not reflect the relict and dialectal versions, Cf. simplified spellings for “below”: kodi: (EDT) and qodï, qoδï, qojï, qozï (OTD). Simplification and debasement seriously affect interpretations concerning the r/s/l alternation paradigm, where the arguments on the primacy find tangible support for every scenario. They end up as premises and lead to circular logic conclusions. A fairly clear example of the r/s/l assimilation is set by the sibilant vibrant rz/rs in Polish and Czech that corresponds to either r or s reflexes in contact languages with their own particular phonetic preferences. There, the r may be articulated as r or l, called rhotacism, and s may be articulated z, š, č, and ž, Cf. riz-/ris- in the Türkic rizan/resim and the OHG rizan, and Türkic čiz-, which originated as a stem for “chisel, carve” that later grew to mean “writing”. The r/s/l alternation is shared by numerous languages across linguistic families and across the length of the Eurasia. Numerous independent archeological, biological, and linguistic indicators allow to assess the timing for at least some of the linguistic contacts, providing the r/s/l transitions with timeframe boundaries. The Sl. rz/rs and the r/s split are not two independent puzzles, they are two separate segments of a single development that was probably connected with the pan-European Y-DNA haplogroup I community of the 5th mill. BC. That community initially accommodated the first Kurgan waves, and was reduced and scattered by the following Kurgan waves. In the hideout areas, it amalgamated with diverse locals, stratifying their phonetics into numerous prongs distinguished by peculiar r’s and s’es from the roaring r’s to the mute r’s, and from the whispering and whistling s’es to the thundering shch’s.

All attempts to classify Türkic languages note the Ogur/Oguz divide, with Ogur languages distinct by initial semi-consonant or consonant where Oguz languages start with vowel. The primacy of the Ogur or Oguz version has long been debated, and settled by G. Clauson (1972) with observation that some derivatives have forms with and without anlaut prosthetic phonemes while the stem shared by all languages goes without it. The conclusion is that Oguz languages were older, with a corollary that Oguz-type Tele languages were parental to the Ogur languages. On the other hand, scientific consensus sides with the conclusion of O. Pritsak that Ogur languages predominated in the European part of the Eurasia prior to the 10th c. AD. The tumultuous events of the first 1500 years of our era broke the clear division between Oguz and Ogur languages in the western Eurasia, mixing and amalgamating peoples and languages. That created monumental problems for the linguists, who largely did not see the Ogur component in the Oguz ocean, and ended up classifying the Ogur component as Oguz languages, on the way leaving the Ogur component out of the focus. The conspicuous Oguric properties of the Germanic languages, such as initial prosthetic consonant or truncated suffixes, were dutifully noted and then left without explanation.

Oguric languages are linked with the Aral basin and its western and eastern extensions, south of the forest-steppe belt with its Oguzic languages. Since the Aral basin area was repopulated by the Kurgan Timber Grave nomads from the west and from the east starting at about 1000 BC, the Aral basin's Sprachbund may have evolved by the middle of the 1st mill. BC. Prosthetic consonants present in the few Scythian words attest to their Oguric-type language (e.g. Scythian jilan vs. Oguzic ilan “Snake”), consistent with a tentative Scythian stop-over in the Aral basin on their way from the Altai to the N. Pontic. In the nomadic world, however, it is perilous to presume a static scenario for mobile dynamic populations with their mixes and matches.

The prosthetic initial consonant was noted as typical for the Germanic languages, and it takes a prominent place in English. Cockney is distinguished for adding prosthetic anlaut h- to the English words that exist nicely without it. That is also a noted feature of a group of the Türkic languages, with the prosthetic hard h- appearing in a range of qualities, Romanized as c-, k-, q, and extending to j, y, ch, and even dialectal sh-. An opposite propensity of the historical English phonetics is to drop the initial h-, like turning hlað- “laugh” into lað- “laugh”. These opposing trends are probably associated with the inherited Oguz-Ogur (adding h-) and the Ogur-Oguz (dropping h-) transitions. Taking the initial prosthetic consonant for a part of the root wrecks a havoc with the “IE” etymology, readily supplying homophonous roots with unrelated semantics then somehow imaginatively linked with the principal word and its semantics. Ignoring the dropped initial consonant of the root wrecks a similar havoc with the “IE” etymology. These tendencies are systemic, they are fairly easy diagnosed, and at times they serve to help to find a semantically sound alternate explanation. Frequently, the semantics of the suggested Skt. cognates is so far from the semantics of the principal word that just citing them undercuts, rather than confirms, the “IE” paradigm.

A major alternation that seems not to be connected with the Oguz/Ogur divide is the m-/b- alteration, illustrated by the English pair be and am of the verb “to be”. The m-/b- alteration has very long documented roots, it was very common in Sumerian, where, for example, bal and me are two forms of the verb “to be”. Much later, it is a common Chinese trait. In old and middle Chinese, labials m- and b- were often interchangeable, particularly in transcribing non-Chinese words and names (Chen S. 72). In Türkic daughter and affiliated languages b- may take a range of qualities Romanized as p-, v-, and w-, with further variations, like Pahlavi and Hungarian bh alternating to v-, and Russian b- to v-. According to G. Clauson (1972), b- was a prime Türkic consonant, and in respect to b-, the m- alteration was a later development. However, that judgment was drawn mostly form the eastern and quite late sources, and rested on particular historical presumptions. A phonetic review of the unappreciated linguistic relicts from the Sumerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Huns, including the still unexplored early Indian sources, may modify or alter that exploratory conclusion. Under the “IE” umbrella, in modern and medieval Greek the voiced plosive /b/ was written as digraph μπ, while the late Roman/Byzantine authors regularly used β and not μπ for /b/; the Byzantines articulated β and υ as a /b/, and in Classical Greek β stood for /b/. This most unlikely Greek transition, reportedly in late antiquity, from β to μπ (betacism) parallels the most unlikely process asserted for the Türkic languages as a stipulated observation.

One of the observations in the early days of Turkology was that Türkic languages avoid words with initial liquids in general and initial r- in particular. With time, that observation turned into an accepted dogma. By definition, all Türkic words with initial r- were loanwords. That is mostly true for the fairly recent borrowings. A closer inspection would find out that the words with initial r- are habitually articulated with a prosthetic initial vowel, most frequently with a like of a neutral e-/ə-, but also with a and o-/ö-. A more granular observation helps to discern the initial evolution, which in turn allows to visualize the murky origin of etymologically uncertain lexemes, like erpe:- “cut, cut off” vs. a modern “robe” with assigned most incredible speculated etymology. For obviously very old lexemes, where a pick between a borrowing and an original is a personal opinion, ability to discern a prosthetic morpheme is an indispensable methodical tool.

The immense geographical spread of the Türkic languages inevitably had to develop a series of Türkic Sprachbunds and lingua francas crossing linguistic barriers with uncounted neighbors spread across Eurasia. A single meridional pasturing route extending for a thousand kilometers could have crossed five alien Sprachbund zones, each requiring a doze of bilingualism to keep things smooth and safe. Compounded with periodic reciprocative longitudinal migrations, a doze of commonality and variation was inevitable. That created numerous phonetic versions of the same root, numerous phonetic versions of the same morphological elements, and numerous synonyms for a great number of words. In various degrees they were passed on to the Türkic-substrate and neighboring alien languages. Attempts to systematize the largely stochastic interrelationships between the Türkic languages were many, different schemes tried to use few selected parameters as systemic criteria, but a crisp and clear systematization still escapes all attempts of linguistic classification. During historical period, Scythians carried their language from the Altai to the Aral basin and on to the Near East and Balkans. They were but one group that fell into the limelight of their literate neighbors; other main groups are known from excavations, and many others are not detectable at all. In the next millennium, such examples infringe on the limits of scientific imagination, with Sarmats, Alans, Huns, Kangars, and many others covering awesome distances. In the last millennium, the map was again completely re-drawn. Each stage recombined local and migrant, creating a linguistic picture resembling impressionist paintings, comprehensible from a distance but totally chaotic at a close examination. Few regular correspondences may be asserted and listed, but a great number is doomed to remain unexplained, left “with no close semantic connection (within Türkic languages)”. At such points, etymology switches from a tracing mode to observation mode.

Various traces of the substrate Türkic phonetics still play a salient role in the daughter languages; the deviance of the Germanic languages within the “IE” family was noted and studied at the dawn of philology. It is especially prominent for the rounded vowels, being in a constant conflict with the Latin-derived alphabets which necessitated a slew of roundabout methods to depict them in writing. English inherited a bouquet of spelling renderings reaped from the neighboring donor languages, and developed a number of its own ways to cope, ending up with a maze of semi-rules and a snarl of related exceptions which supports the industry of spelling education and spelling bee competitions. The Slavic languages, with phonetics bearing heavy substrate traces of the inherited Türkic phonetics, overcame the conflict by creating a set of alphabet graphemes to depict rounded vowels, sibilants and other oddities. The maze of adaptations tends to mask lexical similarities, misleading uninitiated and providing ammunition for jaundiced protagonists.

Lexicon

Unlike the Norse peoples, England has not preserved its sagas, unlike the Slavic folklore she did not incorporate Türkic history and folklore in her literary inheritance, and the most outstanding relict of its linguistic substrate remains the name cockney, in Türkic spelled köken - “motherland, native place, ancestral land”. Sticking out through the fluff of the later fantasies, the earliest reference to the Cockney is a “mythical luxurious country, first recorded in 1305”, a clear reference to the “ancestral land”, which turned out to be not that luxurious, since its inhabitants ended up in the distant foggy Albion and speaking a creolized mixture of Türkic, Norse, and Romance.

The “IE etymology” is built on the Ursprache Family Tree model, oblivious to the complex historical processes that were cardinally changing the face of the European peninsula during the last 5 millennia, it is little suitable to describe the dynamic linguistic situation during Neolithic and Metal Ages. Numerous vestiges of the past events either do not find reflection in the “IE” etymology, or are etymologized with most unsuitable phonetical resemblances to force them into the faulty model. The first category leaves about a third of the Germanic lexis classed as “of unknown origin”, the second category artificially creates misleading evidence that contorts the past. Most “IE” etymologies are circular, departing and arriving at unknowns, with some phonetical manipulations in-between. In the practice of the Family Tree model, the asterisked conjectured words dissolve like the seeds of the trees, without a trace. In real experience, some words survive for millennia unchanged, passing from language to language like precious stones, with all facets intact. In numerous instances Türkic words survived practically in their original forms, and in some instances still retain their Türkic suffixes, allowing to expose delusory etymology and provide a credible authentic source. In many instances examination of cognates provides no additional leads, and serves purely a perfunctory function to justify the ends.

The Romance borrowings in English are attested historically, and they do not need to be specifically examined to determine direction of borrowing. The Germanic substrate in English is also attested historically, and does not require such examination. The remaining part of the English lexis needs such examination, and the results are not always obvious. A common criteria in such examination is the distribution of the cognates: a word is considered to belong to a linguistic family if most branches of the family have cognates of the examined word. If a word does not appear in the majority of the branches, it is held to be a loanword from another family. In case of far separated branches, like Germanic and Indo-Iranian, a word should be found in both legs, otherwise it is held to be a loanword from another family. The same criteria is applied for borrowings between branches, a word should appear in most languages of the branch to be considered to belong to that branch, and a branch that has it in a minority of its languages is held as a receiving branch. As a rule, distribution is not examined, numerous “IE” etymologies fail to meet the basic criteria, and the “IE” classification must be dismissed.

Traditional assumptions on the direction of borrowing at times fail such tests. In most cases, a comprehensive listing of cognates clearly defines the direction of the borrowing, and the density of the borrowings between languages, branches, and families is a good indicator of the cultural penetration or influence. The opposite is true oppositely, a selective choice of cognates forms a delusive indicator and leads to special pleading distortion. Other indicators are the semantic meanings. A generic meaning that turns into specific application (e.g. snake vs. cobra), and polysemantic word that retained only a partial meaning indicate that the specific meaning is a loanword. A nearly mechanical transfer of a polysemantic word complete with its multiple discrete meanings indicates assimilation of a paradigm, a genetic connection driven by demographic events with linguistic consequences.

Latin serves as a main protagonist of English, never failed to be cited. Although some words may have existed in Latin long before it became an imperial language, in a temporal historical development Latin is a late newcomer, contemporary with the spread of the Sarmatian languages into the Western Europe, and long after the Scythian migrations into the Northern Europe. The Latin's reach into the depths of the Eurasia had been minimal temporally and spatially. In contrast, the influence of the Kurgan waves on Latin and other European local languages was massive both temporally and spatially. That is attested by numerous Türkic - Latin cognates in lexis and morphology. With such historical background, the direction of borrowing from Latin into Türkic languages must be deemed impossible, while the direction of borrowing from Türkic languages into Latin must be expected. Many Türkic lexemes reached English by two independent paths, one via demographic path generally synchronous with the spread of Turkisms into other Mediterranean and Northern European languages (the R1b path), and the other via late, started at the turn of the eras, cultural influence of Latin on the Northern European languages. The last path is well documented, it coincided with a rise of literacy and the switch to the Latin-based alphabets.
24, 25, 26, 27, 28

In the process of linguistic amalgamation, because any languages have numerous totally unrelated homophonic lexemes, the receptor languages gain homophones from the donor languages, adding semantic meanings to the existing indigenous words. Traces of such amalgamation are found in nearly all languages, and the Türkic languages, due to the nomadic economy that necessitated amalgamation across Eurasia, are especially endowed with polysemantic vocabulary, frequently passed along during following amalgamation cycles, and that includes the English. Numerous homophonic words in English have diverse origin, much of the natural dialectal variability persevered into the printing age, and dictionaries furnish both the allophones from the pre-printing era, and synonyms originated in various languages. Attempts to etymologize them within the ideology of the Family Tree model are overtly artificial and subject to criticism. Practically all following lexical examples have homonyms and innovations in English, they are of little relevance to the present scope.

Restricting semantic latitude filters out homonyms and incredible etymologies. Restrictions need not to be rigid, they should allow for natural transition from a figurative to fossilized semantics where such transition is obvious, at the same time inhibiting an optimistic overpermissiveness. The span and propensity for forming figurative expressions are not mechanically transferable from a language to language, each language or a group of languages finds its own methods of expression and innovation using its own set of grammatical and morphological tools. In contrast with the flexive-type languages, the specifics of the Türkic agglutinative morphology allows phonetically economical production of a wide range of literal and figurative derivatives of the same root extending to the opposite ends of the semantic spectrum. The morphology-enabled semantic jumps are routinely accomplished with minimal phonetical means, allowing liberal reuse of the same root (Cf. English raise vs. rase). The roots qab “vessel” or dür- “stand” are good examples of the width and limits of the semantic latitude.

Random examples of linguistic layers in English and sister languages deeper than the Middle Age cultural borrowings are compiled in the Table 4, with comments appended. A thorough examination of the English lexicon should locate many more; only semantically distinct verbal, noun, or adjective forms are listed, so an expanded listing with complementary forms and derivatives would be 3-5 times more extensive. The specifically Chuvash cognates are explicated following V.Stetsyuk, 2003. Chuvash is variously classed as Oguric and as independent branch.

The only words included in the OTD are those traced in an actual medieval Turkic text of the eastern provenance, in the earlier period they occur as cognate loan-words in foreign languages in forms indicative of early borrowing. The texts indexed in OTD are a fraction of those which once existed, and undoubtedly other words existed but did not happen to occur in the used surviving texts. Some words occur in medieval texts or in modern Turkic languages. A large number of early words are hapax legomena, they occur only once, and have not been found elsewhere; it is impossible to determine whether hapax legomena are correctly transcribed or interpreted. The perfect tense transcription of the verbs tends to be most accurate, but the OTD does not always explicitly delve into alternate transcriptions or interpretations.

The concept of paradigmatic transfer defines borrowing of some entire complex of features. Paradigmacity literally saturate English Turkisms. Lexical paradigmacity is the most visible trait, at times an entire complement of lexemes is transferred from the substrate language to the daughter language. Those are most powerful examples of the genetic connection, and typically they ascend to the most archaic linguistic layers, like cooking food. Cooking may be done by heating on fire, by smoking, by hot ashes or charcoals, and by boiling. Boiling appear as steaming and burling (churning, purling); thus the lexeme for steaming should be a derivative of steam (bu) or burling (qat-, qatïn-, qatna- “purl, purling”); accordingly, we have words like boil (lit. “steamed” fr. bu- “steam” with passive suffix -l- ), bouillon (lit. “steamed” fr. bu- “steam” with passive suffix -l- and abstract noun passive suffix -on) and kitchen (qatïn- “boil, purl, cook”). Analogous processes are cooking with hot ashes or charcoals, the lexeme for “cooking” should be a derivative of ash (kok-) “(cook food) over fire or smoke” (lit. “ash, ash-burn (it)”, “smoke (it)”). Such complex transfers of the entire paradigm vividly demonstrate multi-faceted genetic connection.

The paradigmatic transfer of the entire cooking lexicon corroborates the genetic findings that the Pit Grave Kurgan migrations were not a series of military raids, but a series of cohesive massive relocations of the tribal societies, with the women being instrumental in relocation of the cooking lexicon. The complex nature of relocation is also corroborated by the paradigmatic transfer of the animal-related lexicon, probably largely carried by the male population, especially so in respect to the wild animals. The replacement of the pre-Corded Ware farming population marked by lactose intolerance by the steppe Kurganians marked by lactose tolerance coincides with the period of the Central European “killing fields”. Since the appearance and dissemination of the biological lactose tolerance in a population is a slow process that requires millenniums to build up, the societies that brought over the trait of the lactose tolerance to the Central Europe must have had millenniums of cohesive development with the diary as a staple food necessary for subsistence of the steppe herders. The steppe lexis replanted to the Corded Ware soil attests to the cohesiveness and endurance of the steppe migrant population and their language. The Central Europe was not a sole destination of the Kurgan waves. Reflexes of the same lexicon recorded in the Sumer tablets point to Mesopotamia as another migratory spur, possibly connected with the southern, Maikop area (ca. 3700 BC—3000 BC) of the Kurgan cultures.

Some of the “unknown origin” words showed up as American English, they are dated to the 18th c. (i.e. the first records) or later. On arrival to America, those Brits and their companions used plenty of Türkic (Cf. boss, chunk, derrick, ok, toilet). Some of the American English lexicon points to the nomadic animal herders (Cf. tire). Before surfacing in the New World, the American Türkic had to be lurking in England for nearly two millenniums.

The Türkic orthography in Table 4, taken from different incompatible sources, is mostly adjusted for phonetical clarity: c = j in jet, č = ch in cheap, y (OTD ï, EDT Turkish ı) = i in sit, ü = u in mule, ä, ə (EDT Turkish e indistinguishable fr. e) = a in apple, ö = o in champignon, š = sh in she, ɣ = voiced guttural g (go), ŋ = ng in ping, δ (EDT Turkish d) = voiced interdental th, Germanic and Horezmian þ, usually rendered as t, d, s, or f depending on Roman or Cyrillic rendering.

Table 4. Türkic–English lexical correspondences

	English	Türkic	English	Türkic	English	Türkic			English	Türkic	English	Türkic
1	abode	oba	case (instance)	qaza	essen (Gmn.)	ash			mallet	maltu	skin	saɣrï
2	above	up-	cash	kečä	ether	äsir			mama	mamü	sling	salïŋu
3	abundant (adj.)	abadan (adj.)	cast (hurl) (v.)	kus- (v.)	Europe	ev + opa			mammal	meme	skull	kelle
4	abysm	abamu	cast (form) (v.)	qïsdï (v.)	evacuate (v.)	evük- (v.)			man	men	smile (v., n.)	semeye (v.)
5	access (v., n.)	ačsa:-	castle	kishlak	Eve eve	eve			many	munča (adv.)	so (adv.)	aša (adv.)
6	ache	аčï	casualty	közün-	evict (v.)	evük- (v.)			mantra	maŋra- (v.)	soak (v.)	saɣ- (v.)
7	acid (n., adj.)	аčï- (v.)	cat	četük	evil (adj., n.)	uvul-			marasmus	maraz	soap	sabun
8	acorn	yaɣaq	category	qatïɣ (adj.)	evoke (v.)	evük- (v.)			mare	ma:	sock (beating, v.)	sok- (v.)
9	act (v.)	aqtar- (v.)	cattle	katıl	ewe	eve			massif	basɣuq	sock (stocking)	sok- (v.)
10	ad	öt	cause	köze:-	exhaust	qoxša- (v.)			master	bögü:	socket	sok- (v.)
11	Adam	adam	cavalry	keväl	eye	ög- (v.)			matt (adj.)	mat (adj.)	sodden (adj.))	sod
12	again	aga (adj.)	cave	kovı:	face	yü:z			me (pron.)	min (pron.)	some	kim (morph.)
13	agaze	ög- (v.)	cavern	kovı:	faith	vara			mead	mir	son	song
14	age	aga	cavity	kovı:	false	al- (v.)			mean (v.)	many (mahny)	sooth	čïn
15	agile	ačïl	Celt	kel- (v.)	far (adv., adj., n.)	ıra:-			means	min	sorrel (adj.)	sary (adj.)
16	ago (adj., adv.)	aga (adj.)	cemetery	semäklä- (v.)	fare (v., n.)	faqr(lïq)			mengir	meŋgü	squat (v.)	čat- (v.)
17	aggrieve	aɣrï	chaff	čob	fart	burut- (v.)			mental (adj.)	meŋtä (adj.)	squeeze (v.)	qis- [qys-] (v.)
18	aid	jarï	chagrin	qadɣur	father	ata			menu	meŋ	stair	šatu
19	aim	amač	chalant (adj.)	čalaŋt (adj.)	feel (v., n.)	bil-			mere	mürän	stale (v.)	si:t- (v.)
20	akin (adj.)	yakin (adj.)	challenge (v.)	čalïš- (v.)	feeling	bilin-			message	muštu	stay (v., n.)	üstü- (v.)
21	alimentation	alım	chalk	chol	find (v.)	yind- (v.)			mickle (adj., n.)	mig (n., adj., adv.)	stick (v.)	tik- (v.)
22	alimony	alım	champ (v.)	čap- (v.)	fire (v., n.)	bur-			might	bögü	step (v., n.)	tep- (v.)
23	all (n., adj.)	alqu (n., adj.)	chapman	čıp + man	first	bir			milk	meme	stop	top
24	Alban	аlban (n., adj.)	char (v.)	öčür- (v.)	fissure	öz			mind	ming	suave	šuvlaŋ
25	alms	almak	Charlemagne	Charla-mag	flask	baklaga			mint (v., n.)	manat	subliminal (adj.)	sumlîm (adj.)
26	ambush (v., n.)	buš- (v.)	chastise (v.)	kast- (v.)	folk	bölük			mist	muz	suck (v.)	saɣ- (v.)
27	amen (adj.)	ämin (adj.)	chat (v.)	čat- (v.)	food	apat			mock (v.)	-mak	sundry (adj.)	sandrı:- (v.)
28	amorous	amran-	chattel	čatïl	foot	but			model	-mak	sure (adj.)	sürek (adj.)
29	-an (pl.)	-an (morph.)	chatter (v., n.)	čatu:r (v.)	frog	baga			Mohn (Gmn.) “poppy”	mäkän	surrender (v.)	süründi- (v.)
30	analogue	anlayu (adv.)	cheap (adj.)	čıp (adj.)	full (adj.)	yӧlä-			moisture	mayi	susurrate (v.)	šar šar (v., n., adj.)
31	and (conj.)	anta:	check	chek	gabble (v.)	gap- (v.)			monastery	manastar	suture	sač
32	anvil	andal	cheek	čaak	gadding	qad			money	manat	swear (v.)	vara- (n.)
33	anger (v.)	özak (adj.)	cherub	čebär	gaffe	ɣafillïq			moose	mus	sweep (v.)	süpür- (v.)
34	anguish	özak (adj.)	chew (v.)	kev-	gaggle (v.)	qaɣ quɣ- (v.)			mother	mamü	swell	siwel
35	antler	anten	child	koldaš	gain	gänč			mount (v.)	mün- (v.)	swill	ašbar
36	any (adj., adv., pron.)	ne:	chill (v., n.)	čil	gamut (adv.)	qamit (adv.)			mountain	mün- (v.)	tab	tap- (v.)
37	apian	arï	chintz	čit	garden	karta			mouse	muš	tablet	tü:b
38	apt	apt	chip	čïp	gaze (v.)	giz- (v.)			much	munča (adv.)	taco	toqüč
39	arch	arca	chirp (v., n.)	čïlra (v., n.)	gene	gen- (v.)			munch (v.)	meŋ	tack (v., n.)	tak- (v.)
40	archaic (adj.)	arca	chisel (v.)	čiz- (v.)	gentle (adj.)	yinč- (adj.)			muscle	muš	tad	tat
41	ard	or	chitchat (v., n.)	čit čat (v.)	genu	yinčür- (v.)			murky (adj.)	mürki (adj.)	tag	toqu
42	ardent	arzu (n.)	chop (v., n.)	čop- (v.)	get (v.)	qay- (v.)			my	-m	take (v., n.)	teg-
43	are (v.)	-ar (v., n.)	chunk	sïŋuq	gibber (v.)	gep- (v.)			nag (v., n.)	öyäz	tale	tili- (v., n.)
44	argue (v.)	arqu- (v.)	chute	čüm- (v.)	gift	kiv- (v.)			nascence	ña:š	talk (v., n.)	tili- (v., n.)
45	arrogant (adj.)	orı:	circle	sürkülä (v.)	gird (v.)	qur- (v.)			needle	ine	tall (adj.)	tal
46	Arthur	artur- (v.)	clan	oglan/ulan	girl	kyr			nose	ñü:z	tally (v., n.)	tili- (v., n.)
47	as (adv.)	aδïn (adv.)	clinch (v.)	qïlinč (v.)	gist	göz			not (interj.)	ne (part.)	tambourine	tambur
48	As	Yazï	cloud	bulut	give	kiv- (v.)			oat	ot	tap (v., n.)	tap- (n.)
49	ashlar	aslïq-	coach (v.)	köch (v.)	glue (v., n.)	yelïm			oath	ötä- (v.)	tap (v.)	tap- (v.)
50	asp	äväs	coagulate (v.)	qoyul- (v.)	gluten	yelïm			obturate (v.)	tiy- (v.)	tar (v.)	ter- (v.)
51	ass	eš(äk)	coal	kül/köl	glut	oglït- (v.)			ocean	ӧkän	tariff	tarïɣ
52	asquint	qïŋïr (n., adj.)	coat	gömlek	gnat	öyäz			ofett (OE)	apat	tart (adj.)	tarqa (n.)
53	assess	asiɣ	cob	kev-	gnaw	öyäz			ogle (v.)	ög- (v.)	tasse (Gmn.)	tas/taz
54	assign (v.)	asïɣ	cock (latch)	kök	go (v.)	git			ok (interj.)	ok (interj.)	taste (v., n.)	tat- (v.)
55	astute (adj.)	asurtɣuq (adj.)	cock (rooster)	kök	goat	käči			old (adj.)	ol- (adj.)	tasty	tati (adj.)
56	at (prep.)	at- (v.)	cockney	köken	God	kut			omen	aman (adj.)	tavern	tavar
57	attach (v.)	atkan- (v.)	coffin	kovı:	gold	al(tun)			omni- (pref.)	omqï	tell (v.)	tili (v., n.)
58	Augean	aqür	cold	xaltarä	good	kut			on (prep.)	on- (v.)	tend	taya
59	aught	ot (adj.)	collect (v.)	kölar (v.)	goose	qaz			once	ön (adv.)	terrain	ter- (v.)
60	augur (v.)	ay- (v.)	colon	kolon	gore (v.)	göres- (v.)			one	öŋ	testament	tutsuğ
61	aurora	yar-	color	kula	Gorgon	qörq-			onus	önüs (adj.)	testicles	tasaq
62	awe (v.)	ö- (v.)	colossal (adj.)	qolusuz	grave	kör			orate (v.)	orı: (n.)	that	šu (pron.)
63	awhile (adv.)	äwwäl (adv.)	comb (v., n.)	kem-(v.)	gravy	kurun			ore	öre:	theriacum	tiryak
64	axle	i:k	come	qam- (v.)	greave	kurun			ortho- (adj. prefix)	örti- (v.)	thick	sik
65	baby	bebi	con (v.)	qun- (v.)	grey (adj.)	ğır (adj.)			other	ötürü (adj.)	thief	tef
66	bad (adj.)	bäd (adj.)	con- (pref.)	kon- (n., adj.)	grind (v.)	qïr-			otter	ätär	think (v.)	saq-
67	bag	bag	confer (v.)	ber- (v.)	groom	görüm(čï)			ought	ötä	this	šu (pron.)
68	baize	bez	coney, cony	kuyan	guard	qur- (v.)			over	up-	thread	telu- (v., n.)
69	bake (v.)	baka:č (n.)			guess (v., n.)	us- (v., n.)			owe (v.)	oye- (v.)	thrive (v.)	tir- (v.)
70	bald	bül (adj.)	cook	kok- (v.)	guest	göster			owl	aba(qulaq)	throne	tören
71	bale (v., n.)	bele- (v.)	copious (adj.)	köp (adj.)	gut	kut			own (v.)	oye- (v.)	tick (v., n.)	tiki
72	band (v., n.)	ba- (v.)	cork	kairy	habitat	oba			ox	öküz	tick	tik- (v.)
73	bane	< pata	corset	qursa	hack (v.)	kes- (v.)			ooze (v.)	ӧz (v.)	tie (v., n.)	taŋ- (v.)
74	barge (v.)	bart (adv.)	cost	kı:z	hador (OE)	xatär			pan (n., v.)	ban	till (v.)	til- (v.)
75	barge (n.)	barq	count	köni	hah	qatur (v.)			papa	baba/babai	till (adv.)	teg (adv.)
76	bark (v.)	ver	courage	kür (adj.)	hag	karga			pat	pata (v.)	time	timin (adv.)
77	bark	barq	court	qur- (v.)	hard (adj.)	qart (adj.)			peace	barısh	tire (v.)	tur- (v.)
78	barley ~ Türkic	arpa, urba	cousin	qazïn	hare	horan			penny	peneg	tire (n.)	teyir
79	barn	ambar	cove	kovı:	hash	ash			period	ö:d	tit	tiši:
80	baron	baryn	cow	coy	haze	häzl			phlegm	balgam	tit for tat (phr.)	tite tit (phr.)
81	bastard	bas + tard	cowl	kalpak	heap	kip			pole (n., v.)	bal- (v.)	to (prep.)	tu- (v.)
82	bash (v.)	baš (v.)	coy (adj.)	köy- (v.)	heart	chäre			port	bar- (v.)	toe	toy
83	bat (v.)	pata (v.)	crime	krmšuhn (v.)	hall	qalïq			pot	patır	toilet	tölet
84	bath (v.)	bat (v.)	crop	körpä:	Heimat (Gmn.)	xajmatläx			pour (v.)	pür	toll	tol
85	battle	pata- (v.)	crock	kurun	Helen	ellen- (v.)			prior (adj.)	ür	tomb	tumlu
86	bazaar	baz	crow	karga	hell	qalïq			puppy	papak	too	de (adv.)
87	be (v.)	buol- (v.)	crunch (v.)	qurt (v.)	herb	arpa:			purge (v.)	pür- (v.)	tool	tolɣa- (v.)
88	bear (v.)	ber- (v.)	crust	kairy	herd	kert			purl (v.)	bu:r- (v.)	tooth	tiš
89	bear	böri	cry	qïqïr- (v.)	hernia	urra			purse	bursaŋ	top	töpü
90	been (v.)	buol- (v.)	cuddle (v.)	koy- (v.)	hey (interj.)	ay (interj.)			push (v.)	puš- (v.)	topple	topul
91	beetle	bit	cue	kü	hide (v.)	qoy- (v.)			pussy (n., v.)	päsi (n.)	tor	tärä
92	Belgi (adj.)	Belgü (adj.)	cull (v.)	čul- (v.)	hide (n.)	qujqa			put (v.)	put- (v.)	torah	tör
93	bellow (v.)	belä- (v.)	culture	kültür- (v.)	hilarious (adj.)	güleryüz (adj.)			pyre	bur- (v.)	toss (v.)	toš- (v.)
94	belt	bel	cup	kap	hit (v., n.)	it- (v.)			quake	bez- (v.)	total	tutuš
95	berm	bürma	curb (n., v.)	kır	hole (n.)	ol- (v.)			quality	qïlïɣ	touch (v., n.)	toqï (v.)
96	bestow	bestle-	cure (fix, v.)	kur- (v.)	homeland	xajmatläx			quantity	köni	tower	türma
97	bet (v., n.)	büt- (v.)	cure (food, v.)	kuri:- (v.)	hooligan	qïčür- (v.)			quarrel	qaršï	trash (v., n.)	tarıš
98	big (adj., adv.)	big	curd	ko:r	hoopoe	üpüp			quaver	bez- (v.)	tree	terek
99	bill (v., n.)	bil- (v.)	curt (adj.)	qïrt (adj.)	horse	arɣun			queen	yeŋä	tremble (v.)	četre (v.)
100	bill	bilä- (v.)	curve	qarvï (adj.)	host	göster			question	kušku	trust	dörs (t)
101	bitch	bi	curse	qur- (v.)	house	quš			queue	kü	truth	dürüst
102	black	belä- (v.)	curtain	qur- (v.)	how	qalï			quilt	kübil	tsk	a click
103	blade	baldu	cut	kes- (v.)	howl (v.)	yel			quim	em	tuber	tü:b
104	blend	bulɣa- (v.)	cytren (OE)	xitren	hurl	ur- (v.)			quit (v.)	ket-	tuck (v.)	takın- (v.)
105	board	batɣa	dad	dedä	Goth. holon, skaþjan	ur- (v.)			quite (emph.)	ked (emph.)	tumulus	tumlu
106	bode (v.)	bodi	dam	da:m	hut	quš			rate	ruzi- (v.)	turkey	turuhtan
107	bodega	butïq	damp (adj.)	dymly (adj.)	I (arch. ic)	ič (es)			ration (v.)	ruzi- (v.)	turf	ter- (v.)
108	body	bod	dash (v., n.)	taš- (v.)	ideal (adj.)	edil (adj.)			regal (adj.)	arïɣ (adj.)	turn (v.)	tön (v.)
109	bog	bog	dash (n.)	taš- (n.)	idle	ytla			robe	rop	twat	tat
110	bogus (adj.)	bögüš (adj.)	day	dün	idyl (adj.)	edil (adj.)			-s (pl.)	-z (morph.)	twist (v., n.)	tevir-
111	boil	bula- (v.)	dawn	tang (taŋ)	ignite (v.)	yaq- (v.)			-'s (poss.)	-si (morph.)	udder	ud
112	bold	palt	dear (adj.)	terim (adv.)	ilk	ilk			sack	sak	uh	yah (interj.)
113	bong	böŋ	deem (v.)	demek (v.)	in (prep.)	in (n.)			sag (v.)	sök- (v.)	ulan	oglan/ulan
114	boot	bot	deep	dip	inch (n., v.)	ınča (adj.)			saga	savag- (v.)	ululate (v.)	ulï- (v.)
115	booze (v.)	buz (v.)	deliver (v.)	döle- (v.)	inn (n.)	i:n (n.)			sagacity	sag	un-	an- (morph.)
116	bore (v.)	bur- (v.)	delve (v.)	del- (v.)	-ish	čа/čä			sage	sag	unite (v.)	una- (v.)
117	borrow (v.)	borğ	dementia	dumur	itch (v., n.)	кichi (v.)			sail (v.)	salla (v.)	under (adv.)	aŋıttır- (v.)
118	Boris	böri	derma	deri	itinerate (v.)	ïd- (v.)			salary	salɣa (v.)	undies	andarak
119	boss	boš (adj.)	derrick	terek	jabber (v.)	gap- (v.)			saldo	salɣa (v.)	until (Prep., Conj.)	anta
120	botch (v.)	bud- (v.)	descend (v.)	düšen (v.)	jack (v., adj.)	cak- (v.)			sale	sal- (v.)	us (pronoun)	ös (pronoun)
121	bother (v.)	busa:-	diadem	didim	jag	čak(k)			saliva	liš	use (v., n.)	tusu (v., n.)
122	bouillon	bula- (v.)	dick	dık- (v.)	jaggery	yaɣïz (adj.)			sallow (adj.)	sary (adj.)	usher (v.)	üšer (v.)
123	bound (adj.)	baglandi (adj.)	dike	dık- (v.)	jam	jem			sane	san- (v.)	vacate (v.)	evük- (v.)
124	boutique	butïq	din	tоŋ	jar	jart			sanity	san- (v.)	vacuum	evük- (v.)
125	bow	boq- (v.)	dingdong	daŋ doŋ	jar (v.)	jar- (v.)			sanitary (adj.)	esan (adj.)	valerian	pultäran
126	box	boɣ	dip	dip	jaw	jaŋaq			sapient (adj.)	savan (adj.)	vampire	ubyr
127	boy	bo:y	divide (v.)	dil-	jeer (v.)	jer- (v.)			sapphire	sepahir	vat	but
128	brain	beini	division	dil-	jelly	yelïm			sari	sarïl (v.)	Vesen (Gmn.) “bran”	pečen
129	breath	bu:r	divvy (v.)	dil-	jerk (v.)	jul (v.)			sash	saču:	voe	uvy (interj.)
130	brother	birader	do	tu-	jig (v.)	jïq (v.)			satisfy (v.)	satsa- (v.)	vouch (v.)	buč- (v.)
131	bruise (v., n.)	bürt, bert	dog	dayğa:n	jig (n.)	jig			satyr	satir	voucher	vučuŋ
132	brute	börü	doll	döl	jog (v.)	jag (v.)			savant	savčï (v.)	wake	vak
133	bucket	but	don (v.)	ton- (v., n.)	joke	elük			savory	saɣur (v.)	ware	tavar
134	bud	buqüq	drag (v.)	tar- (v.)	jolly (adj.)	yol			savvy	savan (adj.)	was	var- (v.)
135	bulge (v., n.)	beleg (n.)	dumb (adj.)	dumur	journey	jorï (v.)			say (v.)	söy- (v.)	watch (v.)	aɣtur- (v.)
136	bull (edict)	bel	dune	dun	judge	ayg- (v.)			scare	qor	wax	avus
137	bull (animal)	buqa	dung	tuŋ- (v.)	juice	jü			scatter (v.)	ta:r- (v.)	we (pron.)	ös (pron.)
138	bunch (v., n.)	bunča (adv.)	durable	dür- (v.)	junk	ček			schabracke (Gmn.)	cheprak	Wermut (Gmn.)	armuti
139	bundle (v., n.)	bandur- (v.)	duration	dür- (v.)	jut (v.)	jalt (adj.)			sconce	quč-	whelp	bala:p
140	burg	balïq	duress	dür- (v.)	keen (adj., v., n.)	qïn- (v.)			sea	si	while (n., v., conj.)	äwwäl (adv.)
141	burl	burnï	dust	doz	keep (v., n.)	kap-			seat	čıj- (v.)	whip	yip
142	bursary	bursaŋ	dye	dawa	Kent	keŋit- (v.)			secede	ses- (v.)	wife	ebi
143	bust	basta	ea (OE)	aq- (v.)	key	kirit			second	eki	wig	yü:g
144	butt	büt	earl	yarlïqa- (v.)	kick (v., n.)	kik- (v.)			secret	soqru	wiggle (v., n.)	ügril- (v.)
145	cab	qab/qap	early (adv.)	ertä- (adv.)	kill (v.)	öl- (v.)			sector	chektür	will (v., n.)	bil- (v.)
146	cabbage	qabaq	earn (v.)	ar- (v.)	kilter	kel- (v.)			see	süz- (v.)	wise	vidya
147	cackle (v.)	kakla- (v.)	Earth	Yer	kin	kin/kun/kün			select	seč- (v.)	wlita (face, obs.)	bet
148	cadre	kadaš	eat (v.)	ye- (v.)	kind (adj.)	keŋ (adj.)			sell (v.)	sal- (v.)	wolf	börü
149	caginess	qïjïm	eave	ev	king	kengu			sepia	sepi- (v.)	woo (v.)	bü
150	cairn	kayır	eke	eken (v.)	kitchen	qatna-			seize (v.)	sız- (v.)	world	аbïl
151	cake	kek	elbow	el	knack	qan- (v.)			seizure	sïzğur- (v.)	wormwood	armuti
152	call	qol	eligible (adj.)	elïg- (v., n.)	know (v.)	köni (v.)			sever (v.)	sevrä- (v.)	worse (adj.)	uvy (interj.)
153	calm (v., n., adj.)	kam- (v.)	elite	elga- (v.)	laber (OE) “thistle”	läbär			sew (v.)	suk- (v.)	would (v.)	'yu
154	callous (adj., v.)	qal (adj., v.)	elite	elit- (v.)	lamb	-la:n			shade	čadïn	wrinkle (n., v.)	burki:
155	calumny	čulvu	elk	elik	lame (adj.)	ulam (adj.)			shake	silk- (v.)	write (v.)	'rizan (v.)
156	can (jug)	kanata	ell	el	land	elen < el			sharp (adj.)	šarp (adj.)	'd (would)	yu
157	can (v.)	qan (v.)	elm	ilm	language	luɣat			shatter (v.)	ta:r- (v.)	yacht	yaɣ- (v.)
158	candle	kandil	en- (prefix, prepos.)	en- (v., prepos.)	laugh	gül- (v.)			she (pron.)	šu (shu) (pron.)	yah (interj.)	yah (interj.)
159	cap	kap	endure	endür- (v.)	leader	elit-			sheep	sıp	yard	qur- (v.)
160	capture (v., n.)	hapset	enge (adj.) (OE)	özak (adj.)	leak	liš			shield	čyt (chyt)	yeah	yah (interj.)
161	car	köl- (v.)	engine	ïjïn-	leather	eldiri			shilling	sheleg	yell (v.)	yel (v.)
162	caragana	qaraqan	enigma	tanığma	less (adv.)	es- (adv.)			shit (v., n.)	šıč-	yep	yah (interj.)
163	care	qorq	-er	er (morph.)	lie (v.)	yalgan (v.)			shock (v., n.)	šok- (v.)	yes	yah (OFris.)
164	carnival	kerme	Erbse (Gmn.)	arpa	loaf	lavāš			short (adj.)	qïrt (adj.)	yet (adv.)	yet- (v.)
165	carpus	qarï	Erik	erk	luck	аlïč			shove (v.)	sav- (v.)	yield (n., v.)	yılkı:
166	carve (v.)	kert- (v.)	equal (adj.)	egil (adj.)	lull (v.)	ulï- (v.)			sick (adj.) (ill)	sık- (v)	you (pron.)	-üŋ (pron.)
167	case (box)	kečä			lullaby	balu baju			sick (v., n.) (vomit)	sök- (v.)	young	yangi:
168					might	bögü:			sicker (v.)	sarq- (v.)	Yule	yol
169					make (v.)	-mak			sin	cin (jin)	youth (n., adj.)	yaš (adj.)
170									sinew	siŋir	yuck (excl.)	yek (n., adj.)
171									sing (v.)	siŋ- (v.)	yummy (adj.)	yemiš (adj.)
									sink (v.)	siŋ- (v.)
									sip (v.)	syp (v.)
									sit (v.)	čıj- (v.)

Σ = 803 -40 +46

Etymological notes

Numerous Türkic roots are extremely productive, they engendered multiple series of derivatives. A selection of a keyword for productive stems is somewhat arbitrary, and likewise the selection of the contrasting derivatives is arbitrary, only to demonstrate contrasting semantics, Cf. cup, cap, cab, cabbage. Categorical breakdown is much conditional, since all words carry more than one meaning, applied in different contexts and frequently metaphorically, like the “daily bread” may not at all refer to either daily nor bread. It would be naïve to search for exact correspondence between any two figurative constructions. The abstract categories of Social, Religious, and Life tend to overlap in more than one dimension. Every category as a whole constitutes a paradigmatic transfer, an ensemble of thematic vocabulary transferred from the Türkic linguistic group to English; it is an indelible evidence of common genetic origin. Every effort has been made to make each entry of Etymological notes self-sufficient without a need to visit other entries, references are given only when the needed explanations are very extensive; that caused repetitive information scattered throughout the Etymological notes section, especially so when the entries are etymologically connected. When applicable, for reference, the Swadesh List number, Frequency rating and percentages are shown in parentheses: (Sw3, F37, 0.57%).

Tatsiz türk bolmaz bašsïz börk bolmaz
No Türks without aliens as no hats without head
Нет Тюрок без иноземцев, а шапки — без головы
(МК II 281)

Some common linguistic terms:
allophone - various acoustically different forms of the same words or phonemes in systemically related languages irrespective of the source language, e.g. “no, not”, Türkic ne, ni, Lat. non, A.-Sax. na, no, Welsh nid, Hu. nem, Gujarati na, nathi, Kor. ani, Jap. janai; allophone is a type of correlator, linguistically a word in mutual, complementary, or reciprocal relation
anlaut - first sound of a word or syllable
auslaut - last sound of a word or syllable
cognate - same words in different languages, presumably directly or indirectly descending from the same ancestor root
inlaut - middle sound of a word or syllable
lexicon - a set of words in the language
lexis - all meaningful word forms and grammatical functions of the language
morphology - practice of forming words
syntax - arrangement of words in sentences
synonym - different interchangeable words in the same language
translation - communication in another language of the meaning in a source language

Preliminary Note. In the context of this work, “cognate” is a word cited in the reference sources nearly exclusively limited to the “IE etymology” and thus exceedingly presumptive for the content of this work. The “cognate's” doctrinal precondition “descending from the same ancestor language” is a special pleading limitation. It burdens any study with an imposed doctrinal concept of a Family Tree model's single parental language. There is no evidence that a single “ancestor language” ever existed for any language. When they were first documented, all Germanic languages were amalgamated languages with a substrate and an adstrate, and treating them as single-sourced offshoots is methodologically faulty. Since the objective of this work is to establish ancestral connection, the term “cognate” is used provisionally subject to a critical review and examination. It may refer to any semantically and phonetically suitable candidate, and improperly to unsuitable candidates. The sibling words from different languages may stray quite far apart both semantically and phonetically. The term “allophone” describes the acoustically varied sibling forms equidistant from the same word of the long-gone vernaculars that used them in the prehistoric times, long before they were ever recorded. A typical Türkic word may have from as little as few to as many as as a dozen allophonic forms, some acoustically quite distant. A typical Etymological note lists “IE” cognates as a subset of allophones, complemented with a set of other allophones, e.g. for “big” the Gmc. cognates micel, bugge, and the non-Gmc. allophonic forms big/mig, bi:g/mi:g, ben, bog, min, mi:n, müg, pin.

For clarity, prefixes and suffixes may be parsed with brackets to show the stem.

1. General (few salient words supposedly present in any language) (32)

1.1
and (conj.) “plus, also, too” (Sw204, F6 1.82%) ~ Türkic anta: (locative-ablative pronoun, adverb) “there, then”, “that, from there, from that”. Semantically, the Türkic anta is a locative synonym of the verb bul-, bol- “be”, a precursor of the Eng. be (Cf. Eng. heterogeneous be and is), and a notion “also”, expressed with available lexis. Ultimately, a derivative of an emphatic an “there, now, here” that serves as auxiliary adverb + directional suffix -da/-ta. The form anta: is one of the allophones of antaq, where the suffix -taq/-teq/-tiq is a derivative of a most popular and very universal verb teq- “touch, relate” expressing physical or analytical connection. The anlaut vowel wobbles between a-, o- and u-, the second consonant wobbles between -t- and -d-. Distribution of the words an (ana) and anta: is truly Eurasian, from Fennic to OPers. and Indo-European, and to Manchu/Tungus and Korean. The innovation of the semantic extension is peculiar to the Gmc. branch. The A.-Sax. and, ant, ont, unt originally meant “thereupon, next”, essentially versions of “there, then”, semantically extended to mean “and, but”. The A.-Sax. form, in turn, is speculated to originate from a “PG” *unda, a transparent allophonic form of the Türkic anta. With the same credibility the origin can be ascended to the Proto-Fennic or Proto-Manchu. Cognates: A.-Sax. and, ant-, ont-, unt- “thereupon, next, and”, OSax. endi, OFris. anda, ONorse enn, OHG enti, Goth. anda “along”, MDu ende, Gmn. und “and”; Ir. ann, Gaelic ann, Welsh yna, all “there”; OLith. anta “on to”; Hett. anta “there, to that”, andan “to there, in this, in that”; LAv., OPers. ana “this”, and “here”; Buryat ene “this”; other linguistic families are noted in EDTL v. 3 147, 149, 173, 456. Distribution covers entire Eurasian Steppe Belt with widely dispersed fringes. There is no need for the faux “PG proto-word” *unda “?” or “PIE” *en “in”. Under an PIE model, the ubiquitous Türkic suffix -ta/-da stands saliently inscrutable. The ken of the semantics for Türkic and Gmc. words, translated by a generous complement of semantic siblings, is essentially focused on the notion “next, following, also”. The antipode of “here” vs. “there” and “this” vs. “that” created semantic extensions signifying “opposition, against”, and “in front of, before, end” found in Gk. anta (αντα), anti (αντι) anten (αντεν); Lat. ante (prep., adv.), in derivative compounds starting with ante- (Cf. antechamber) and anti- (Cf. antibiotic); Skt. anta “end, border, boundary”; Hitt. hanti “opposite”. The southern vernaculars display an emphasis on “there” and “that” side. Phonetic and semantic similitude leaves no room to doubt a common and relatively recent genetic connection of the Gmc. and Türkic twins, that is amplified by the preserved original Gmc. meaning of the word. The Türkic version has an ablative shade conveyed by the suffix -ta, due to the expressed presence of the ablative syntax and morphology in Türkic languages. The Gmc. languages metamorphosed to shed the ablative morphology, and absorbed the remainder of the suffix into the root. Across Eurasia, a majority of the cognates have retained the ablative suffix -ta, and some may have retained its function. The “IE etymology” suffers a major bout of incoherence, ascending and separately from an unattested “PIE root” *en “in”, and ante- separately from an unattested “PIE root” *anti- “opposite, against”. The first “root” happened to reflect the attested Türkic root an-, an oblique case of and heterogeneous with bul-, bol- “be” with no relation to the etymology and semantics of in (prep.) “toward the inside”, which happened to be the a retained Türkic noun in “bottom, descent”, see in. The second is minimally adulterated Türkic anta retained with intact and truncated ablative suffix -ta. Truncation may be specifically attributed to the Sarmat vernaculars. The southern traces attest to the presence of the formed word before the Indo-Aryan-type migrations of the 2nd mill. BC. The absence of the formed word, and the consistent presence of the root an- in the Celtic languages attest to the existence of the root word in the 5th mill BC prior to the Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration. Taken together the quartet, the anta with the prepositions/postpositions in and on, and the directional suffix -ta, presents a salient case of paradigmatic transfer, attesting to a common origin from a Türkic linguistic milieu. The unattested “PG” and “PIE” words, naturally, had never existed. Notably, the word and is a major contributor to the English daily language, alone producing about 2% of the English ordinary lexicon. See be, at, in, on 1, on 2, till, to.

1.2
big (adj., adv.) “large” (Sw27, F201, 0.08%) ~ Türkic biŋ (bïŋ, miŋ, minŋ, mïŋ) (n., adj., adv.) “big”, “much, big number, huge amount, intensity”, büyü “enlarged”. An “IE etymology” rates it a routine “of unknown origin”, “of obscure origin, possibly from a Scandinavian source”. A literary example for the allophonic boŋ cites identical form in the Norse: Khakass boŋ kiši: “big man”, Norse bugge “great (man)”, the o/u in Türkic languages are interchangeable. A synonymous “great”, the A.-Sax. great(ae), ascends to the Türkic gür “thick, dense, abundant, luxuriant” with about identical semantics. A synonymous “large”, the Lat. largus, also “of unknown origin”, ascends to a Türkic ular(-di, -g, -ɣ, etc.) “enlarge” fr. ula “join, unite, attach”. In Türkic, “big” also means “thousand”, like the Sl. “dark” and “fog” (Sl. tma (тьма) and tuman (туман) respectively) are semantic extensions of the Türkic tümän “ten thousand”. The Türkic big has numerous allophonic forms, most important is m/b alternation, biŋ/miŋ, the other forms are miŋ, mi:g, mi:ŋ, müŋ, beŋ, bi:ŋ, boŋ, pin, etc. The form biŋ/bi:ŋ is recorded in Ottoman, Türkü (Türkic Kaganate, pre-Uigur period), Uigur and OKirgiz. The form mig is recorded in Khakass, Horezmian, Chagatai, and Koman, encountered in English Turkisms. Which particular tribe(s) left their trace in English is impossible to suggest: outside of OKirgiz and Khakass, the three major entities were huge polities covering hundreds of ethnic tribes. Cognates: A.-Sax. micel (mikel) “great”, Norse bugge “great (man)”; Rum. bimbaše, bombašir “big (boss), major” (n > m); Bulg. bimbašyja, bumbašir ditto, Serb. bimbaša ditto; Alb. bimbaš ditto; Osset. min, ming “big”; Gk. bimpasis (μπιμπασης) “major (big boss), bimpas”; Mong. mingaan, mingãan, mıngan “big”; Mongor. minhän “big”; references to Caucasian languages: Balkar, Karachai, Kabardin, Shaps, Abaz., Ubykh; reference to Ch. language. Distribution traces the Türkic trails, across Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific. No “IE” etymology, but still funny suggestions of origins from “dwell”, “PG” *bewwuz “crop, barley”. The A.-Sax. micel (mikel) consists of mic-/mik- (~ mig/mi:g) + Türkic adj., adv. suffix -al/-el (-la/lä), “rare” in the eastern languages. The form comes from a linguistically separate source, possibly related to Khakass or Horezmian. Notably, both OKirgiz and Khakass refer to the same Enisean Kirgiz people at different stages of their history. An m/b alternation mic- > big bears some diagnostic trait. A triad “big”, “great”, “large” presents a case of paradigmatic transfer, attesting to a genetic origin from Türkic sources. See bunch, mickle, might.

1.3
black (adj., v., n.) “pitch-dark” (Sw176, F751, 0.01%) ~ Türkic belä-, bele-, bula-, bulɣа- “smear, mar, soil, dirty”. A polysemantic primary verbal root bul- forms 9 notions, a verb belä- “smear” is a derivative of a secondary notion “mix”. The achromatic notion “smear” extends from extreme light to extreme dark, which leads to the opposite ends of a grey spectrum, Cf. Tr. bulut “cloud” (i.e. lit. “grey, smeared”), see cloud. A black shade is on one extremity and a white shade (e.g. bald, blanch, blank, bleach, bleak, blear, blaze, pale, etc.) is on the other end. The bifurcation was numerously noted within the “IE” philology but never properly understood nor intelligently explained. A noun/adj. notion beläk “black” and its dialectal siblings are formed with a deverbal noun suffix -k/-q. The root vowel takes form of -u-, -e-, -ï-, -i-, and -o-, creating a two-dimensional semantic/phonetic spectrum of randomly connected derivatives, Cf. bald, bleach, blitz, blur, etc. E. Sevortyan asserts a predating antiquity of the base root bul (EDTL, 1978, 252-3). Cognates: A.-Sax. blac, blaec “black, dark”, “ink”, “bright, shining, glittering, flashing”, and “pale, pallid, wan”, blaecce “black matter”, blaecfexede “black-haired”, blaechorn (e) “ink-horn”, OE blæc “dark”, ONorse blakkr “dark”, OHG blah “black”, Sw. bläck “ink”, Du. blaken “to burn” (charred black?); Lat. flagrare “to blaze, glow, burn” (?) (< fiamma “flame”, red tongues of fire); Rus. bulyndatsya булындаться) “blemish, mar”, balmosh (балмош) “mixed up, tangle”, Serb. bulandisati “maroon”, Pol. bulany ditto; Osset. bulğaq “brush, jumble”; Kalm. bulngir, bulngr “dirty, unclean, muddy, mud, sediment”; Tung. bula- “swamp, bog”. Distribution spans Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific, with a Gmc. isle in Europe. An “IE” notion of “burn” is etymologically unrelated to the notion “black”, i.e. burned meat made black and the like. Suggested “PIE proto-word” *bhleg- “burn, gleam, shine, flash”, *bhel- “blaze, bright” are beyond contempt. The unattested fictitious PG and PIE *blakaz “burned” and *bhleg- “burn” are no more than mechanical spoofs of the attested Türkic root belä- and its Gmc. cognates without a hint on a morphological role of the suffixes -kaz and -eg. The contrasting content of Sl. beliy (белый) “white” vs. Eng. black, amplified by a host of conforming derivatives, is noted by OED: “In ME. it is often doubtful whether... (it) means 'black' or 'pale'...”. A synonymous A.-Sax. sweart/swart/sweard “swarthy, black, dark”, swearttan “become, make black”, and wan/wann “dark, dusky, lurid”, wannian “become, turn dark-colored, black” attest to the amalgamated nature of the A.-Sax. language, where the old European sweart and wan were supplanted by the Türkic belä-. The replacement attests to a local demographic predominance of the Türkic lexis. In contrast, the old European A.-Sax. term hwit for the “white” had survived, attesting to a demographic balance contrary the situation with sweart. The form belä- and the notion “smear” carry a diagnostic weight, they are colloquial: belä- Tr., Uz., “smear” Kir., Kip., Kaz., Karakalpak, Tat., Uig., Tuv. “mix”. They point to an easterly origin extending in the west to the Itil (Volga). Such a scenario definitely expands the amalgamation period into remote pre-historical times. Notably, the word entered European languages not as a color or shade, but as a notion of a “mar” or “smear” leading to them, as an innovation peculiar to the Gmc. phylum with some random and distinctly different reflex found in the Italic Lat. That sets the date to prior to the Italic exodus from the E. Europe ca. 1500 BC, and excludes the Celtic knowledge of the word at the time of their circum-Mediterranean route from the E. Europe ca. 5th mill. BC. That is corroborated by the Celtic forms dubh/du (Ir., Welsh, Gaelic) for the word “black”, a cognate of the Türkic dawa:/dava “dye”, see dye. A phonetic and semantic concordance, the peculiarity of the contrasting derivatives, the peculiarity of the exclusively Gmc. European provenance, the absence of credible etymological alternatives, and indirect attestation of the Celtic examples provide convincing and vaguely datable evidence of a Türkic origin. See bald, bleach, blitz, blur, cloud, dye.

1.4
child (n.) “youth, minor” (Sw39, F497, 0.04%) ~ Türkic koldaš, qoldaš (n.) “comrade, friend, fellow”. The word koldaš is a noun describing persons associated with in some way, fr. ko:l “arm, upper arm”, it means “comrade”, lit. “one with whom one links arms”, and applies to the court pages and servants from noble families. The terms for front legs and their parts in Türkic and Eng. are identical for animals and humans, unlike e.g. Rus. or Tung.-Manchu. According to M. Kashgari I 461, “the word (koldaš) is used only between servants of notables”; i.e. it is a word from a category of “upper class word”, like, for example a “bestow” give. Cf. Rus. eidetic term deti boyarskie (дети боярские) “Boyar's children” vs. Sl. otrok (отрок) and rebenok (ребенок) “youth, child”, see tad. The deti underwent identical social shift in meaning and application, expanding from a specific to a generic noun. A devaluation of the term and its adoption across a society is alike in both cases. Cognates: A.-Sax. cild, childe, pl. cildru (with k-) “youth of gentle birth”, Dan. kuld “children of the same marriage”, OSw. kulder “litter”; Pers. qolčaq “bracer” (< Tr.); Mong. qolturi-, qolturqai “handicapped arm”, qol- “armpit (< qoluŋ(gusu) “armpit stench”, < Tr.), Khalk. holtoroh “handicapped arm”; Tungus-Manchu xoldo “side (left, right)”; references to Balkan Sl. languages. Distribution for the base “arm” spans the width of Eurasia, derivative “child” spans Steppe Belt with an isle in the European NW. The “IE etymology” asserts that it does not know any “certain cognates outside Germanic”. In a circular logic it then deduces child fr. A.-Sax. cild, childe “fetus, infant”, dropping crucial “gentle birth”. Then it appeals to unrelated Goth. kilþei “womb”, inkilþo “pregnant”, while the A.-Sax. native “womb” is hama, fahame, cildhama, fea-hama, feorh-hama related to haeman “intercourse, cohabit, marry”, vs. Goth. kilþei, but Cf. Goth. derisive kalkjo “harlot”. The OE interpretation “fetus, infant” in the context of the social function is an open manipulation. The “IE” etymology's reference to the girls is also out of kilter. It conflicts with the known institute of the male pages and service boys: female companions were next to invisible, and in contrast the page boys, dubbed as bodyguards, courtiers, etc., were groomed to be army commanders and a ruling elite. An ascent to the root gen- is tempting but conflicts with the attested historical sequence and is unattainable phonetically, see gene. The social nature of the terms koldaš and child, the repeated emphasis of independent sources separated by a half-continent distance, on their noble origin and identical function, the accent on the noble descent of its carriers makes incredible a thesis that the term is a derivative of the words like “womb”: everyone comes from the womb, but very few are distinguished by nobility. The same with the genesis nature of gen-. None of the cognates offer an “IE” origin, the word cild (with k-) and its allophones are lucid loanwords within the “IE” family, their origin came from elsewhere. The search for etymology of the word child is marked by parochialism, it inevitably had to produce flimsy results palatable only to the believers. One language that penetrated all corners of the Eurasia has not been explored, probably because of a subliminal combination of self-supremacy vs. insignificance typical for confined mentality. A diligent search would definitely have produced less tenuous results. This is not a question of expanding the search filed, it is a question of following precepts of scientific research. The phonetic contraction of -aš for an assimilated word, the fluidity of the vowel -i-/-o-/-u-, and the alternation k-/ch- are routine. The actual semantic drift is well documented. The word child illustrates a wider aspect, a tackling of etymology should expect not entirely predictable ingenuity, it calls for a cast beyond mechanical manipulations in a search for nearest phonetic and semantic siblings. At the ridges of blending cultures, interaction of the linguistic nature and environmental nurture creates lexical innovations. See gene, give, tad.

1.5
dawn (n.) “sunrise” ~ Türkic daŋ, dang, taŋ, čaŋ (n.), taŋla:-, daŋla:- (v.) “dawn”. Sunrise had a primary role in Türkic societies, it was a morning prayer and a new day. It carried a daily flavor of awe. A.-Sax. had an extensively developed lexicon for “dawn”, attesting to an old age of internalization. Cognates: A.-Sax. dagian (v.) “dawn”, dagung, daegred “dawn, daybreak”, daegredwoma “dawn”, daegredleoma “light of dawn”, ONorse dagan “dawning”, Dan., Sw. dagning (v.) “dawn”, Gmn. tagen (v.) “dawn”; Ch. dan, dang (旦) “sunrise, morning”. Distribution extends from Atlantic to Pacific. Both an “IE” family and a PG are innocent of originating the word. No references to Tungus-Mong. cognates. Whether Türkic inherited the word from Ch., or Ch. inherited it from a Türkic Zhou is a mute question. For a 3-phoneme word the coincidence may statistically be not overly impressive, but in “IE” etymological context it is ominous. It moves any claim to “IE” or Gmc. origin to a category of lunacy, and sends any and all related “reconstructions” to a dust bin of the “IE” theory. The only reasonable link connecting Gmc. and Sino-Tibetan languages is an overreaching mobility of the Türkic languages. Aside from a Forrer's unstated surmisal about Türkic being a substrate component of the Gmc. branch of the “IE” family, that would need an unprejudiced stamina to absorb. Considering that SE Asia had its own motley path of peopling totally isolated from that of a Middle Eastern path, that lexical continuity should have inspired some inquisitive thinking. There was a total absence of biological genetic connections between the Old Europe I Y-DNA, Chinese O2, and Türkic Kurgans' R1a/b. The Türkic dün ~ Eng. day ascend to the same stem tang/taŋ/toɣ “dawn”, the pair constitutes a case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to a well established demographic convergence, linguistic amalgamation, and to an origin from or via a Türkic phylum. See day.

1.6
day (n.) “daytime, 24-hour interval” (Sw178, F183, 0.11%) ~ Türkic taŋ, daŋ, toɣ- (n.) “dawn, sunrise”, dün “yesterday”. Two allophones, toɣ- and taŋ/daŋ “dawn”, molded the European Gmc., Balto-Sl., and Romance forms. Day and dawn are two siblings of the same root, see dawn. The European forms for the “day” ascend to the concrete noun “dawn” and its notion of coming or having daylight. Cognates: A.-Sax. dæg “day”, OSw., MDu., Du. dag, OFris. dei, OHG tag, Gmn. Tag, ONorse dagr, Goth. dags; Balt. (Latv.) diena > Slavic den; Lat. dies; Ch. dan, dang (旦) “sunrise, morning”. Distribution extends from Atlantic to Pacific. Like in a case with “dawn”, both an “IE” family and a PG are innocent of originating the word. No references to northern Far Eastern cognates. Whether Türkic inherited the word from Ch., or Ch. inherited it from a Türkic Zhou is a mute question, but numerous prongs of the “Scythian” nomads moved to the Far East. For a 3-phoneme word the coincidence may statistically be not overly impressive, but in “IE” etymological context it is ominous. It moves any claim to “IE” or Gmc. origin to a category of lunacy, and sends any and all related “reconstructions” to a dust bin of the “IE” theory. The only reasonable link connecting Gmc. and Sino-Tibetan languages is an overreaching mobility of the Türkic languages. Aside from a Forrer's unstated surmisal about Türkic being a substrate component of the Gmc. branch of the “IE” family, that would need an unprejudiced stamina to absorb. Considering that SE Asia had its own motley path of peopling totally isolated from that of a Middle Eastern path, that lexical continuity should have inspired some inquisitive thinking. There was a total absence of biological genetic connections between Old Europe I Y-DNA, Chinese O2, and Türkic Kurgans' R1a/b. Transition from Türkic toɣ- to Gmc. dæg, dag, tag, etc. is transparent, likewise is a transition from Türkic taŋ/daŋ to Balto-Sl. diena, den, etc. The Romance, Eng., OFris. forms follow either the -n-/-y- or -g > -y > zero alternation, routine for the Türkic languages. A transition of the Türkic labial vowels to diphthongs in the Baltic languages is systemic. The transition ü => “IE” is one such systemic transition, with subsequent reduction of diphthongs in Slavic languages, which is one of the diagnostic parameters for the direction of the linguistic substrate process: Türkic > Baltic > Slavic. Dialectal transition of the Türkic consonants to semi-consonant -y- is well documented, hence the Kipchak 13th c. form tayn, and the -y ending instead of consonant in numerous languages, including English, Cf. ig, iy “illness, disease”, dag, day. Another form for day in Türkic is kün, a word for sun, which is still active. The semantics of sun is preserved in Turkic “south”, “midday”; reflexes of the Türkic kün with dialectal k/d alternation are preserved in Skt. dah “to burn”, Balt. (Lith.) dagas “hot season”, OPrus. dagis “summer”. The presence of the Skt. cognate, and the presence of both still active forms in Türkic indicates that the split into kün/dün versions happened before an eastward march of the Aryan agriculturists crossing the N. Pontic steppe ca. 2000 BC. The closest to the NE European forms is the form dün meaning “yesterday” in Az., Osm., and Tkm. (düyn) languages located in the southern end of the Sarmat area, and in the Central Asian Tuvan language that may have re-borrowed a Mong. form borrowed from the eastern Huns at the turn of the eras. The pair “dawn” - “day” constitutes a case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to a well established demographic convergence, linguistic amalgamation, and to an origin from or via a Türkic phylum. See dawn.

1.7
Earth (n.) “earth, Earth” (Sw N/A, F987, 0.01%) ~ Türkic er, yer (n.) “earth, place”, erdä, yerdä “on earth, in place”. The Türkic er “man” must be an archaic semantic relative of the er “earth”, or vice-versa, like a “man” and his “place”. A spectrum of phonetic allophones is scattered among Türkic languages: yer, yar, jer, djer, cher, chir, dier, sar, ser, tier, ker, they offer plenty of choices for the daughter forms, Cf. Ir. cre, uir. A Sum. yer attests to an origin predating 4th mill. BC. At one time, around 4,000 ybp, the word er “earth” spread truly international, it is native to the Old Semitic, Sumerian, Germanic, Tungus, and all Türkic languages, covering a space from Mediterranean to Korea. The later Semitic cuneiform records put it in female gender with a suffix -at, pointing to a primeval notion of a “man” being a “woman”. An anlaut consonant probably was not a later prosthesis, but represents an original archaic form of the Ogur languages. With consonants g- and d-, and semi-consonants j- and y-, ger/der/jer/yer, it was also recorded in the Scythian Oguric form Gerra “the land of our ancestors”. The Oguz branch lost the anlaut consonant: Oguz and Gk. er. Cognates: A.-Sax. ear, eard, eorð, eorðe, heorð “earth”, Gmn. erde, from the Türkic root er (yer) which produced Gmn. noun ertho, and ultimately Gmn. erde, Du. aarde, Dan. and Sw. jord, and English earth; Ir. cre, uir, Welsh ddaear/daear “earth”, erw “field”; Lat. terra; Gk. er, era, eraze “on the ground”; Skt. thira; Hu. szer(е) (/sere/); Basque lurra; Arm. erkir (երկիր) “earth”; Arab., Maltese art, ard; Sum. yer “earth”, Akkad. yersat; Pers. yer, arz, arazi (pl.) “earth, lands”; Kurdish yer; Kuchaean (“Tocharian B”) yare “gravel”; Tungus, Manchu, Even yerka, jerke “earth, world, universe”; Cuv. sar; Telengut ser “earth”. Distribution on Eurasian scale, with spills to Europe and far East. A myopic “IE etymology” is funny, it limits its scholarly horizon to “IE cognates” and offers a 3rd mill BC faux “proto-word” for an attested 4th mill BC ancestor. The Common Gmc. form Erde is peculiar, supposedly -de is a female gender marker under an incompatible typology, and the marker was preserved after another creolizing metamorphose to an analytic typology, becoming a tautological die Erde with a female form of an article and an archaic gender marker suffix and aka eorðe. Rather, the -de is a Türkic locative suffix appropriate for a reference to a place, q.v.. The anlaut consonant common to the European reflexes in Welsh, Basque, and Lat. probably reflects an early form brought over to the European Iberia 4800 ybp by the circum-Mediterranean Celtic Kurgan migrants from the Pontic steppes. By that time, Kurgan waves had ingrained in Europe their continental allophones. The Skt. reflex comes later from the Pontic steppes to India ca. 3600 ybp. Another migration path from the Pontic steppes was direct to the Balkans and C. Europe connected with the Kurgan migrations. The forms with the anlaut t-/d- ascend to the Türkic ter “pasture land”. The duo of er “earth” and er “man” constitutes a case of paradigmatic transfer, indelibly attesting to a genetic origin from a Türkic linguistic milieu (A. Dybo 2013, 219). See -er, ore, terrain, turf.

Numerals – Preliminary Note. The “IE” ordinals vs. cardinals for numerals one and two are suppletive. The duality does not have an accepted explanation. The origin of the ordinals for the pair is deliberately excluded from the “IE” base vocabulary, and any suggested etymologies are distinctly unrealistic. At the same time, the nearest cognates for one and two are geographically close neighbors of the Athens and Rome, they are the Türkic bir “one” and ikki “two”. It would be both prudent and wise to succumb to reality and explore linguistic situation as it comes rather than as it ought to be.

1.8
first (adj., n., adv.) “ordinal of one, initial, beginning, preceding” (Sw N/A, F171, 0.09%) ~ Türkic bir (n.) “one”; bir, birinč “first”. Suffix -inč consists of a selective suffix -in, and -č corresponds to the Eng. ordinal suffix -th, Cf. tenth. An older Türkic suffix -inti ~ -inch uses suffix -in and ordinal marker -ti that corresponds to the suffix -th, Cf. ekinti “second”. In different languages -ti/-č is reflected with forms -th, -st, -t, -sht. A cardinal “one” originated with a Türkic ӧŋ “first, smallest whole number, front, beginning”. Of 44 European languages, 32 (73%) use allophones of the bir, matching a level of the European 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. The other 12 languages use their own 7 native words. Cognates: A.-Sax. aerest, fyrst “first, in front of”, for “before”, OSax. fuirst, OFris. ferist, ONorse fyrstr, Dan. første, Du. vorst, OHG furist, all “first”, MDu vorste “prince”, Gmn. fürst “prince”; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) pirmas, (Latv.) pìrmais, Sl. pervyi (первый) “first”, also Cf. teper (теперь) “now”, Serb. birzeman “once”, birden, birlija “unity”, Bolg. birebir “unilateral”; Lat. primus “first”, prae “before”, It., Sp. primo; Gk. protos (πρωτος) “first”, pro, paros “in the past”; Pers. bir “one”; Skt. pura “at first, in the past”, Av. paro “in the past”; Heb. (Yid.) ersht (ערשט), Heb. reshith “first”; Malay pertama “first”; Hu. első and Afrikaans eerste (elided initial b-/p-/f-). Distribution uniformly lines up as appendages to the length of the Eurasian Steppe Belt, covering a space from the European Atlantic to the Kamchatka Peninsula on the Pacific. “IE” languages have a spectrum of genetically unconnected stems for cardinal “one” (Cf. one and ek), but the ordinal “first” is fairly universal. A motley origin of the cardinal “one” forced “IE” theoreticians to exclude “one” from a small complement of the “PIE proto-words” that constitute a PIE theoretical “base vocabulary”. European forms for the notion “first”, other than those derived from the Türkic bir, tend to derive not from the native cardinal “one”, but from the native words for outset, beginning, and the like, attesting that the native Sprachbunds did not have a word for “first” (Cf. Basque bat “one”, lehen “first”). A paucity of synonyms for the secondary notion “before” attests to a great lacuna in expressing that notion. In addition to first and bir, both Türkic and Eng. have numerous synonyms to express “first”, in both cases the main metaphor is head (Cf. headmaster). Both languages use the word ilk for a prototype, with modest semantic difference. “IE etymology” ascends the “IE” cluster for the ordinal “first” from a preposition per with a basic meanings of “forward, through”. That is an artificial non-viable construct in inverted sequence that derives a base word from its derivative. That negates the “IE” thicket of pretentiously ancestral fore, the “PG” *fur, *fura, *furi “before”, *frestaz, *fristiz, *fresta “date, appointed time”, “PIE” *per-, *pero-, *pres- “forward, beyond, around, forth, over”, *prae- “in front of, before”, *pre-isto- ditto. A base cardinal “one” had to appear first, in that mental enchilada it is sorely missing. A common attested Türkic bir with areal articulations as for, fyr, pr-, etc. turns fantasy into reality. The ordinal “first” was used as pre- and post-positions (Cf. A.-Sax. forwost “first, leader, head”) that have developed into prefixes in languages with typology that allowed a contamination of the roots with prefixes, i.e. did not rely on the primacy of the root in a derivative. The vowel-initial forms aer “ere”, Heb. ersht (ערשט) and reshith (metathesized version) etc. elided an initial consonant. A decent fr. the Semitic ahad, awwal must be excluded. Except for few metaphoric expressions, practically all “IE” forms for the notion “before” ultimately ascend to the Türkic cardinal “one”. European languages have developed numerous derivatives and applications using cognates of bir “one”, attesting to a long history of internalization, further amplified by the innovations of the prefixes pr-, pre-, pri-, and the like. As a result of Indo-Europeanization, first of the European languages, and then of the internationalization of the European vocabularies, these words occupy a prominent place in the dictionaries of many languages of the world. The degree of internalization by the time of the initial written records attest to exceedingly deep roots. The phonetic and semantic differences attest to numerous and independent paths. The shared words between the European and Asian “IE” fractions attest to the presence of the source word prior to the ca. 2000 BC Indo-Aryan migration from the Eastern Europe to Asia. The absence of the cognates in the Celtic languages dates the emergence or spread of the Türkic form by the time later than the Celtic departure from the Eastern Europe to Iberia ca. 5th-4th mill. BC. These terminal dates point to dissemination of the word during Kurgan migrations of the 4th-3rd mill. BC. That also allows a provisional dating for the -ti/-č transition, becoming a dating indicator for the Türkic/Germanic separation, since the Gmc. fraction retained the Türkic -ti form as -th and -st, and the Gk. retained the form protos with the original suffix -t. Dissemination realistically explains the suppletion of the “IE” ordinals vs. cardinals, solving the insurmountable puzzle of the “IE” linguistics and connections between the Türkic and “IE” cardinals. The paradigmatic transfer of the complex first, second, and ilk, and of the integral morphological elements unimpeachably attests to their Türkic origin. See ilk, Numerals – Preliminary Note, prior, second.

1.9
land (n.) “ground, grounds” (Sw N/A, F1458, 0.01%) ~ Türkic elen (n.) “certain land, possession, its people”, ellä-, illä- (v.) “unite, confederate”. Incoherence and incredulity of the “IE” etymology is barely masked by excessive chatter. An ultimate origin comes from a base notion el/il “tribe, people” and its overlay “master, ours, rule (v.)” from a base notion el “arm”. Form ıl- (with ı-) “descend” points to a notion “descent from progenitors”. The forms el and il have diverged into phonetically and semantically overlapping ethnic lines, attesting to primeval origins. Chains of the earliest notions “tribe” > “confederation” > “people, land” > “country” > “state”, and “peace” > “concordance” > “tranquility” defines “land” in a context of the notion “people” as an attribute of “country” and “state”. The notions “country” and “people” are interchangeable. The root el/il is generic and polysemantic, it forms an array of notions each equipped with its array of meanings from “tribe” to “quiet”, etc. Subdividing overlapping el/il (n.) into separate lines el and il mars the issue: articulations are local. Flavors of the base notions are carried by a vast array of derivatives. The elen is an inflexion of el/il (n.) “land, country, realm, people” to convey a relation. A wealth of attested phrases reflect elen = “land”: elin arturu “conferred land” (artur “give, confer”, see Arthur), bodunuŋ elin törüsin “ruled people of the land” (törü “law”, see torah), elin etti, beklädi, tüzdi, törüsin “prepared, strengthen country, people”, elin saqladï “saved country, people”, elin qoδtï “left the land”, etc. (EDT 58, 109, 111, 169, 171, 172, 389, 487, 570, 602, 665). An attested verbal form iləndi-/ilindi:/ilinti- “landed, entrenched, hooked, ruled (a beachhead, land)” is a second, largely interchangeable form ilən = elen = “land”. Of 44 European languages, 13 (30%) use their own 16 different terms, 11 (25%) use Balto-Sl. zem- “low”, and 20 (46%) use off-Türkic terms tera “valley, lowland” and elen “land” approximating a level of the European 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe, see terra. An unaccented anlaut vowel e-/i- elided at early Gmc. internalizations, Cf. Gk. Ellada, Ellas, Ellin. Cognates: A.-Sax. land, lond “earth, land, soil”, inland “demesne”, landwela “possessions” (+ 5 dozens more), WFris. lan “land”, ODu. lant, Du., Norse, Sw., Icl., Gmn., Goth. land “land, country”; OIr. lann “heath”, land, Scots laund “land” (+ fearann), MWelsh llan “open space”, Welsh “enclosure”, Breton lann “heath”; OCS ledo (лѧдо), ledina “heath”, Cz. lada “fallow land”; Fr. lande “land”; Gk. Hellada (Ελλαδα), Hellas “Greece”, ellinikos (ελληνικος) “Hellenic” (< Tr. el; +Tr. elläš- (v.) “accordant, peaceful”), Hellene “Greek, ethnic or of Greece country” (< el); Alb. lëndinë “heath, grassland”; Mong. el “peace”, else- “peaceful”, elči “envoy, peacemaker”, ulus “people”, elde- “handiwork” (< el), ili-, iləh, ele-, ile- “canoodle, caress, stroke, rub (< handiwork)”, Kalm. el “peace, concordance, tribesman, familiar”, Evenk ılel “people, public”; Tungus elgemnı “leader” (< el), elke “quiet” (~ “peaceful”), elket “cautious”, Manchu elhe “familiar” (~ “peaceful”), Nanai elžini “leader” (< el); Kor. elluda, eruda, (v.) “lead”. Distribution is ubiquitous from Atlantic to Pacific, a Gmc. isle is a European NW fringe. An “IE etymology” for “land” does not exist. On one hand it rightly “suspects a substratum word in Gmc.”, but on another hand drowns in uncouth origins. The letter are faux and unrelated PG *landja- (“?”), PIE *lendh- (2) “hip, kidney”, attested A.-Sax. hland, hlond “urine, lant (aged urine)” ~ PWG *hland < PG *hlanda “urine” < PIE *klan- “liquid, wet ground”, and some more of the likewise pearls. The Eng. “land” has eidetic forms in all other Gmc. languages. The Gmc. form “land” is eidetic to the Türkic form. The El/il in “Île-de-France” is traditionally held as “Island-of-France”; but for a landlocked territory with a river in its center splitting it into two half-pies the “island” does not make sense, a “France land” is more suitable. The Gk. terms are “IE” rated as “words of unknown origin”, but they make perfect sense in Türkic, and are supported by an ancient Türkic-Gk. symbiosis (Herodotus IV 108, 109, 120); this list of 800 Eng. words numbers 500+ Gk. cognates. The form Ellas is a reflex of the verb elle:- “peaceably incorporate into the el realm”, a deverbal noun for the Greek settlers in the N. Pontic Scythian lands, Cf. Herodotus q.v.: “Gelons were Greeks from long ago, they speak partly in Scythian, and partly in Hellenic”, they belonged to the populace called Budini, see body. For the “land”, Greeks had their own term, they did not have to borrow it. The elision of the anlaut vowel e- and the presence of the auslaut suffix -d are morphologically explainable effects, Cf. bilge:d-, Kashgari II, 340. The anlaut vowel e- may have been an early Oguz peculiarity in articulation of the initial liquids, in contrast with the Ogur articulation that either did not add an initial e- or covered it with a consonant. A targeted study of Ogur linguistics has not been yet initiated. See Arthur, body, terra, torah.

1.10
man (n.) “person, human, male” (Sw37, F128, 0.15%) ~ Türkic man (n.) “man, men, mature sheep”, man- (v.) “go, move”, manlai “forehead, scout, front line of army”, mãn(ã) (Chuv.) “adult” . An “IE etymology” offers a “probably” inexplicable primordial “man”. Ultimately fr. a Türkic pronoun root men/min “I, me” and a postpositive pers. marker in nominal and participle compound predicates. Although the form man, maŋ has developed a vast semantic array, the ones connected with aspects of a notion “man” - size, strength, maturity - are present in all applications. Türkic has a quartet of terms for “man”, with different distribution levels and semantic shades: adam (casual), er (muscular), man (stranger), and kiši (neut.). As a “man”, a noun man is attested in the Caspian-Aral basin, Cf. Azeri bir man “a man”, man gəldi “man (has) arrived” (~ kel- “come”, see Celt) vs. bən gəldim “I arrived” vs. Turkish adam geldi (adam “man”, see Adam). That is consistent with numerous other Horezmian (Turanian, Turkmenistan) Türkic-English parallels. As an instrumental noun suffix, -man can form both animate and inanimate derivatives. Of 44 European languages, 15 (34%) use allophones of “man”, 2 (5%, Ir. and Hu.) use allophones of er, thus 17 (39%) use off-Türkic roots, approaching a level of the European 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. 9 (20%) languages use allophones of Romance hom-, 7 (16%) use Sl. chelo- “face”, 2 groups of 2 (9%) languages use their own different words, and 7 (16%) others use their own 7 different words. Cognates: A.-Sax. man “man”, meh, mec (pron.) “me (1 pers. sg.)”, min, mine (pron.) “my, mine”, OSax. man “man”, Fris. man, ONorse maðr, OHG, Sw., Du. man, Dan. mand, Goth. manna, Icl. maðr, maður, menn (pl.), Gmn. mann, “man”; OCS myaj (мѫжь) “man, husband”, Sl. muž, muj (муж), mujik (мужик) (dim.) ditto, moy “mine”, mï “us”; Lith. žmogus “man”, žmones (pl.) “people”; Arm. mard (մարդ) “man”; Kurd. mer “man”; Pers. man “I, myself”, Taj. mard “man”, Pahlavi ma:n “us”; Sogd. man “me, myself”; Fin. mies, Est. mees “man”; Gujarati mena (પુરુષ) “man”; Skt., Av. manus, manu- (मनु, मानस) “man, human”; Evenk., Negid., Ulch., Udegei bi “I, myself”, bu “us”; Ch. ben (本) “I, myself, personally” (m/b alternation, ~ Türkic ben/men “I”), another one of the peculiar Eng.-Türkic-Ch. coincidences. In addition to the above non-exhaustive listing, languages have developed derivative lines, some of them most extensive, Cf. Eng. manful, manly, manhandle, manhole, one-upmanship, + many more. Distribution extends from Atlantic to Pacific, way beyond a Gmc. reach. No etymological “IE etymology”. In addition to “probably”, it runs in myopic circles with a faux “PG proto-word” *mann- and “PIE proto-word” *man- or *mon- “man”. Either one is not too enlightening etymologically. With a straight face it also cites an expert historian Tacitus with his folk Мannus - a progenitor of the Germans and Manis (Μάνης) - a progenitor of the Phrygians. In his time (ca. 100 AD) Tacitus have not known of a legendary progenitor of progenitors, a synonymous Adam “man”, and could not have enlighten his audience on the Genesis story. The entire case of myopic etymology is due to be gracefully retracted. A.-Sax. had 13 ways to express “man”, of which at least 4 were metaphorical extensions (healer, match, herdsman, producer), 4 were Türkic cognates (beorn ~ ber- “bearer”, carl ~ kür “courageous, manly”, man ~ men “man”, weor, wer ~ er “man”), and 6 belonged to the European native languages (guma, gome Cf. Italic homo, human, leod Cf. Gmc. liut “people”, maecga “match, companion”, rinc “rink”, secg “segge”, waep “male”). The breakdown illustrates an amalgamated nature of the A.-Sax. language inherited by Eng. In Eng., like a postposition in Türkic, man also serves as an suffix of a noun, as in workman, serviceman, with some peculiarities. For example in Türkic agglutinative languages alternation man/men indicating plurality is impossible, it is an Eng. innovation. The Sl. mujik was formed with a Türkic diminutive suffix -k reflecting a subordinate status of the object. Since the notion “man” also dubbed as a “warrior”, numerous dictionary words expressing “warrior” also dubbed as “man”. Compounds of the type object + man are standard in both Türkic and English, Cf. A.-Sax. ancorman, chapman, hierdeman, and the Tr. ataman “leader”, lit “father-man”, dušman “enemy”, hetman (getman) “title”, müsülman “Moslem”, etc. In all these instances, the suffix -man is definitely not “I, me”. A standing “IE” objection is that the “man” and “I, me” are semantically incongruent, but the actual practice of the “IE etymology” more than regularly allows much wider and often incongruent semantic fields than this (e.g. see -like q.v., references “body”, corpse”, etc.). Distribution of the Türkic part -man is clinal, the western areas tend to form concrete agent derivatives, while the eastern areas tend to retain archaic generic function. The split points to some tumultuous events of the late 3rd mill. BC that split the Eastern European farming population, drove some of it southeastward, and some of it westward. Nowadays those migrations are traceable by genetic dating. The synonymous trio adam, man, er “man” constitute a case of paradigmatic transfer, indelibly attesting to an origin from a Türkic phylum. See Adam, -er, Celt, -like.

1.11
no (nah, nay, neither, nope, nor, not, -n't) (negation part., interj., adv., adj.) “not” (Sw16, F18 Σ3.37%) ~ Türkic ne, ni, no, nü, nor, aŋ “negative, negation (emphasis)”, ne:ŋ “not any, at all”, ne:če: “nothing”, (part., adv., adj., n.). A homophonic ne, genetically connected with the negation ne, dubs as a base for interrogative lexemes. Taken as two semantic lines of a common ne, the negating ne is direct “no” (ne jatmaz “not located”, ne uδïmaz “not sleeping”) and emphatic “not this, not that” (~ “neither...nor”). The interrogative ne is “what, how”, negative “how come”, and the like. The negative ne has developed a system based on combinations with reliable indicators and as syntactic phrases, but is frozen at incipiency. It parallels numerous other negation lexemes and morphemes (e.g. -ma- etc.), some of them reflected in Eng.: del- “delete”, den- “deny”, Cf. synonymous Lat. negare “deny” (< Tr. ne), Fr.: pa, pas- “not”, Cf. pas comme, ne pas “not like, not” (pas < Tr. -ma-, b/m/p alternation). The Türkic negation forms probably are developments of primeval indiscriminate front vowels a:, o:, and u:. It was noted that rounded and back vowels are unsuitable for expressive negation (Clauson EDT 3). The Türkic negation part. ne, ni, no gained a wide circulation in Europe: of 44 European languages it was adopted by 35 (80%) languages. A runner up 2-language Fennic group takes 5%, and the other 7 (16%) languages use their own terms. With their long roots ascending to the first Kurgan waves of the pre-Corded Ware times, a share of the off-Türkic allophones more than matches a 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. Syntaxes and morphology of the European languages freed the Türkic negation from a rigid syntax, allowing it to blossom with grammatical functions and semantics. The English no is used as noun, adjective, adverb, and interjection. Cognates: A.-Sax. na, no (adv.) “no, never, not at all”, nan “none, not any”, na... na “neither...nor”, OSax. nigen “not any”, OFris. nan, nen “no, none, not any”, Saterland Frisian naan, neen ditto, NFris. nian ditto, WFris. gjin ditto, OFris., ONorse, OHG ne “no”, Goth. ni, Sw. annu (?), Gmn. nein, Icl. nr; Ir. uimh, no, Scots nae “no, not any, none”, Welsh nid, or dim (?); Latv, Lith. ne; Sl. net (нет) “no”, Rus. nechego, nichto (нечего, ничто) “nothing”; Romance no, Lat. non, nihil “no, not”; Gk. den (δεν) (Cf. Welsh dim) (?); Hu. nem, meg; Pers. nah; Gujarati na, nathi; Kor. ani (아니) “no”; Jap. janai “no”; a mark (?) denotes aberration. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific. A majority of the “IE” languages use a Türkic form, affirming a Corded Ware melting pot as a cradle of the “IE” languages. Other than that, there is no common “IE” “no”. Attempts to privatize in favor of some parochial interests an attested Türkic word are not sustainable. Or attempts to portray it as a European loanword to an opposite end of the world. To save a face, such fictions should be tactfully retracted: a faux “PG proto-word” *ne and “PIE proto-word” *ne, “PG” *aiwi- and “PIE” *aiw- “vital force, life, long life, eternity”, PWG *nain, “PG” *nainaz “not any”, “not one” supposedly leading to ne, no. It goes in circular logics no < na < no +a “ever”, and uses unattested PGmc. and PIE “reconstructions” to come up with natural allophonic variations. At the end, it is reverting to the old basic Türkic stem ne. The “IE” etymological fantasies can't be called etymology. For “not”, the Eng., like the Türkic, has numerous allophones and spellings. In the usage frequency rating, these allophones occupy a very prominent place (Table 1a): no (F18, 0.81%), not (F23, 0.74%), neither (F948, 0.01%), nope (F1496, 0.01%), -n’t (1.8%) for a total of 3.37% usage frequency, or about every 30th word of the daily Eng. language. Frequency listing table summarily shows them under a less frequent, but more concise entry not. The Gk. and Welsh den, dim are false cognates ascending to a Türkic tan-, ton-, tun-, den- “deny”. The Sw. annu is a false cognate, it ascends to a Türkic aŋ (“no”, interjection), with a non-nasal velar version an used in speech in some Türkic languages and found in records that don't discriminate nasal and non-nasal -n- (e.g. A.-Sax. Latinized records). Türkic uses regular aŋ and superlative aŋ aŋ for emphatic negation. The Türkic aŋ is a precursor for the Eng. un-, A.-Sax. an- and un-, Gk. and Lat. ana- (e.g. anaerobic), etc., see un-. One case sprouts a typical Gmc. prosthetic anlaut g-; expect occasional cases of metathesis or phonetic shift. The Celtic forms attest to a presence of ne- in the N. Pontic prior to the Celtic departure of 5th-4th mill. BC on their circum-Mediterranean voyage, millenniums before the Corded Ware time. A widely distributed Far Eastern anlaut j- prompted early scholars to suggest a common origin of the pan-Eurasian and Far Eastern “no”. Notably, a consensus Swadesh List carries “no”, but excludes “yes”. Although both are originally Türkic, only one is held as “IE”. The other is a foster child. A paradigmatic transfer of the no-yes couple serves as an indelible attestation of a genetic origin from a Türkic linguistic milieu. See deny, un-, yeah.

1.12
one (n., adj., pron.) “smallest whole number” (Sw 22, F63, Σ0.49%) ~ Türkic ӧŋ “one, first, smallest whole number, front, beginning”. Ultimately a derivative of a notion ӧn- “pierce out, grow (of a plant)” with 17 semantic clusters. The root ӧŋ is very productive, with ca. 19 derivative semantic clusters. The notion “one” is a derivative of a notion “first”, as in “first shoots”. A presence of two synonymic forms, undifferentiated cardinal/ordinal ӧŋ and bir, points to an amalgamation period ending with a winner bir (cardinal, ordinal), while the ӧŋ remained a polysemantic relict, and an underlying ašnu remained as “initial, early”. European statistics for “one” is similar to a percentile for the “first”, 89% vs. 73% of the European languages. In both cases, they are international words spread across relevant languages and territories. Such uniformity comes only with a “guest” word, a cultural borrowing from an external source. The origins, archetypes, and etymologies for both came from a Türkic phylum, a node of cultural transmission. Only a few European languages had and retained their native terms that managed to survive to the present. Fictitious etymology notwithstanding, there is no Pan-European or a common “IE” term that arouse on an European soil. A cognate listing is partial to a particular borrower contingent, random other cognates are cited, and analysis is parochial. Cognates: A.-Sax. an, aen, ana, on, anan, anne, aenne “one, each, every one, all, single, alone, sole, only....”, OFris., NFris. an, Saterland Fris. aan, WFris. ien, Dan. en, een, Du. een, Sw. en, ett, ONorse einn, Norw. Nynorsk ein, Icl. einn, Goth. ains, LGmn. een, Gmn. ein, eins; OIr. aon, Ir. ceann, Scots ae, ane, wan, yin, Welsh un; Sl. ena, jedan, adzin (адзін), eden (еден), odin (один); OLat. oinos, Lat. unus “one”, (coni)ungere “unite”; Gk. enas (ενας); Udi paenia (root -en-) “face, facade (side)”; Chuv. um “that in front”, umal (um-al < öŋ-al); Mong. öŋge “front”, öngge “complexion”, ӧmïne, emüne “in front”, ešin “beginning” (š ~ n?); Sum. aš (> ašnu?); Drav. ondu; all “one” unless noted. The notions are seamless: one stands in front, front is face, face is complexion, complexion is color, etc. Distribution: From Albion to Pacific. Phonetic and semantic differences attest to numerous and independent paths. In a numerical line-up, a base cardinal “one” had to appear first, but it is sorely missing there. “IE” languages have a spectrum of genetically unconnected stems for cardinal “one” (Cf. one and ek). A European distribution points to an existence of the term in the Corded Ware milieu, when diverse populations fled away from the Central European “killing fields”, causing demic displacements, dispersions and amalgamations that boosted cultural exchange. A conflict between the “IE” fractions of an-, on-, un- and the Asian ek-, ik- (Hindi, Finnish, Estonian...) attest to an absence of the “IE” word in Asia at ca. 2000 BC Indo-Aryan migration from the Eastern Europe to Asia. Thus the terminal dates point to dissemination of the word during Kurgan westward migrations of the 4th-3rd mill. BC. Dissemination realistically explains the suppletion of the “IE” ordinals vs. cardinals, solving an insurmountable puzzle of the “IE” linguistics and connections between the Türkic and “IE” cardinals. A motley origin of the cardinal “one” forced “IE” theoreticians to exclude “one” from a Swadesh complement of the “PIE proto-words” that constitute a PIE theoretical “base vocabulary”. A paucity of synonyms for the notion “before, in front” is a great lacuna in expressing that notion. The parochial Gmc. and Altaic lenses provide a perverted primitive picture with bogus etymologies. Neither of above the two schemes bear scrutiny. A bold ignorance of the scholars is of epic proportions. A Gmc. “IE” etymology is totally bogus, built on unattested claims and a circular logics. It asserts a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *ainaz and a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *ain “one”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *oi-no- “one, unique” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *oynos “single, one”. None of the fabrications are needed, a wealth of the attested material is not only overwhelming, it has a depth, it contains ethnical, geographical, and historical backgrounds, and provides insight into primeval philological development and dissemination. The Celtic lexis points to an existence of the word in the Eastern Europe prior to a Celtic departure on their circum-Mediterranean migration. The A.-Sax. forms hint to a marital compact between those two tribal groups, a traditional Türkic marital arrangement best known from the As-Tokhar confederation that lasted for millenniums. The cardinal “one” was used as pre- and post-positions (Cf. A.-Sax. ancor, ancora “hermit, one-loner”, se ana, he ana “she, he one”). They have developed into prefixes in languages with typology that allowed compounds and a contamination of the roots with prefixes, i.e. did not rely on a primacy of a root. Many “IE” forms for the notion “before, in front” ultimately ascend to the Türkic forms for “one”. As a result of Indo-Europeanization, at first of the European languages, and then of the internationalization of the European vocabularies, these words occupy a prominent place in the dictionaries of many languages of the world. The existence of the terms by the time of the earliest written records attests to exceedingly deep roots; the Gmc. forms are a lacquer layer on the surface. A paradigmatic transfer of the complex one, first, second, and ilk, and of the integral morphological elements unimpeachably attests to their Türkic origin. See first, ilk, second, Numerals – Preliminary Note, prior, second.

1.13
same (adj., pron., n.) “similar, comparable” (Sw N/A, F276, 0.05%) ~ Türkic siŋa:r, syŋar, syğnar, sïyar (i = y = ï) “identical, [very] similar, like”. A notion “similar” is ultimately a derivative of a notion syŋar “one of a pair, one of two” that harbors 6+ semantic clusters. Relevant clusters refer to kins of various relatedness and to various similarities, outward and generic. The base term syŋar is a derivative of a sïn “appearance, form, figure” or a notion “side (of smth.)”. Phonetic alternations m ↔ n, ŋ, ğn, y, etc., a ↔ i, ï, y, etc., and a loss of extra final consonant are regular phonetic adaptations. Its Türkic cousin is ilk “a kind of person, like”. Its A.-Sax. spelling ilca, ilcy, illca “just as” ascends to its Türkic origin, see ilk. A corollary of siŋar is som, soma “appearance, form, image, outlines”, semantically they partially overlap. Areal distribution of the form som is generally limited to eastern languages (Alt., Khakass, Toba, etc.), suggesting its archaic origin and possibly a precursor of siŋ-. A cousin some “(something) few, little, petty, unspecified, unknown” possibly formed via linguistic evolution, as guessed by a rambling “IE” etymology. In that case the meaning “some” ascend directly to the base “same”, but see some, so. There is no common “IE” or European “same”. 44 European languages use 23 different words, a largest consumer with 8 (18%) languages uses European versions of sam- of the Türkic syŋar “same”. Cognates: A.-Sax. sama, same “as”, samhwylc “same (family)” (hiwna, hi(g)na “members”), Fris. selde “same”, OSax., OHG, Goth. sama, ONorse same, sumr, samr “same”, Norw. (Bokmal) samme “same”, (Nynorsk) same “same”, Dan. samme “same”, Du. samen “same, together”, zamelen “collect” (?), Sw. samma, Icl. sama, Lux. selwecht, gläich “same, like”, OHG. samo, samant, Gmn. samt “together, with”, zusammen “together”, selbe, selbig “self” (?), Goth. samana “together”; OIr. som, Ir. caanna, Scots samin “same, like” + “together”; Rus. samyj (самый) “most” (?), Bosn., Croat, Serb. isti “same” (ӧ → i, without suffix -(a)m, with suffix -ti) (?), Maced. istite (истите) (?), Bolg. sysch (същ) “same” (< syn); OGk. homos (ομος) “same”; Maltese istess “same” (?); Fin., Est. sama; Hu. azonos “same”; Skt. sam, sama (सम) “similar” (vs. “together” (?)), Av. hama “similar, same”; Pers. ham (هم) “also, same”; Mari syn “look, shape, image”; Mong. šinži “mark, feature”; Ch. xiang (相) “mutual (~ pair)”; all “same” unless noted. Not all cited cognates are really applicable, a mark (?) denotes aberration. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific. Distribution is furcated into western sin- vs. eastern som-, though migrations made a divide amorphous. A European distribution of the “same” and “some” follows close patterns: 32% vs. 36% languages use their unique native terms, followed by groups from 5 - 6 to 2 languages, with largest spread of 10 (native, Sl., 22%) vs. 8 (< Tr., “guest”, 18%). An “IE etymology” is a parody, it suggests Gmc. origins and “PG/IE proto-words”. Those are a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *samaz “same” and faux “PIE proto-forms” *samos, *somHos “same”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *sem- “one, as one, together with”. The chimeric quasi-etymological constructs lack etymology, sources, historical and geographical footing, time clock, and a source language. No “IE” connection whatsoever, the proposed “PG” and “PIE” “restored proto-words” are reverse engineered mechanistic phantoms. In light of the attested Türkic originals and traceable pedigrees no super-patriotic assertions are needed. Forms of same and its twin sister some are spread far and wide, crossing linguistic borders across Eurasia. By heritage, contact or osmosis, the primeval word kept spreading across millennia. Its presence in the Celtic languages attests to its existence in the Türkic phylum of the N. Pontic, prior to the Celtic Kurgans' departure from the Eastern Europe on a circum-Mediterranean voyage to Iberia ca. 5th-4th mill. BC. Its presence in a minute fraction of the Gmc. languages attests to a guest status in the few hosting languages, Cf. Tr. alkudın siŋar “(on) all sides” (al “all”, siŋar “similar, like, side”, EDT 841). Until an Indo-Arian migration is disproved or otherwise re-written, Skt. form sam may be a “guest” from a Corded Ware period, or acquired roughly coevally with classical Sanskrit between 400 BC and 300 CE, or a Türkic trace in the Himalayas area. Av. term developed during a 3rd or 4th century AD, or is an acquisition associated with the lore that Buddhism originated from the Saka Scythians. By then the language had been extinct for many centuries, and only remained in the Avesta canon. The claimed false Sl. cognates point to an absence in the Eastern Europe at the time of the Sl. Old Europe (aka coded WHG) language: all Sl. languages came up with their own expressions. Fin., Mari, and Mong. coexisted with Türkic ethnoses; so did Ch. when ca. 16th c. BC they fell to the Zhou “Scythians” who brought writing over to the future China. Demographically, the flow of farmers was eastward, to the Kurgan's lands. Linguistically, the demic flow was from the Kurgans westward. A palpable supplanting of a small speck of the native European lexicons with the “guest” terms provide vivid picture of areal amalgamation and co-existence. The Türkic pronoun syŋar is an attested reality. A paradigmatic transfer of the forms, semantic contents, derivatives, and idioms with the base lexemes attests to their origins from a Türkic milieu. See all, ilk, so.

1.13
second (adj., n., adv.) “ordinal of two” (Sw N/A, F347, 0.04%) ~ Türkic eki, iki (n.) “two”; eki, ekinti, ekkinč “second”, ikkiz “twins”. Ultimately eki “two” is a derivative of a verb qos-, qös- “add, join (two)”, noun qos, qös “pair”, Cf. kijin “after, later (of “1”)”. An A.-Sax. word for numeral “second” was aefterlic, lit. “following (one)”. Such definition of “second” is traceable in most languages. The ONorse forms positively bridge the Türkic eki/iki with a raster of the Gmc. forms (ikki > ykkar, igqar > unhar (unchar) > unker > unk), and lead to understanding of the Lat. and OFr. -ek- versions. A single consonant k/q was probably a root of a primeval notion of movement from one thing to another, Cf. Sl. k: k tebe (к тебе) “toward (you)” (to = Tr. -ta). The older Türkic suffix -inti (-inch) consists of selective suffix -in and ordinal marker -ti, Cf. ekinti “second”. The last corresponds to the Eng. ordinal suffix -th, Cf. tenth; -ti probably originated articulation -č. Its other Türkic form is -inč, the -č corresponds to the Eng. ordinal suffix -th. In different languages -ti/-č is reflected with the forms -th, -st, -t, -sht. A.-Sax. cognates of eki were used for a complementary notion “dual”. Transition from aefterlic “following” to the second is connected with the Norman conquest and is unrelated to the form unc “two”. Romance derivatives are formed with a prosthetic/prefix s- (se-) typical for the European zone, Cf. secludo “off-claudo” (“shut off”). It probably denoted a perfect tense verbal form as compared with infinitive, morphologically se- + -k- (-kw under “IE reconstructions”), Cf. Sl. delat - sdelat (делать - сделать) “make (of clay)- made (of clay)”, Lat. sequi, secundus, and corresponding Gmc. forms. Besides derivatives of eki “two”, Türkic has 22 more words to express the notion “join, unite”, attesting to the innate societal role of cooperation, in a stark contrast with a vile image cultivated on the western end of the Eurasia. Ultimately, the form eki was reintroduced into Eng. disguised as second. Among 44 European languages, the Sl.-Türkic drug- “other” (< Tr. dürli “other”) is used by 9 (20%) languages, Romance-Türkic “second” is used by 8 (18%) languages, forms of duo- (< Tr. dürli) is used by 6 (14%) languages, Gmc.-Türkic anden (< Tr. andai “that, other”, pointing to a distant object) is used by 5 (11%) languages, Gmc.-Türkic tweede, an allophone of duo-, q.v., (< Tr. dürli) is used by 5 (11%) languages, Fennic toinen “that” is used by 3 (7%) languages, Balto-Sl. vtor- “further” (< Tr. dürli) is used by 3 (7%) languages. The remaining 5 languages use 5 their own native words. The Türkic roots are shared by 31 (70%) of the European languages, abundantly compatible with a 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. There is no common European or “IE” “second”. Cognates: A.-Sax. unc (with k-), uncer, uncet (with k-) “two (of us)”, OSax. unc (with k-), uncero (with k-) “two (of us)”, OHG unch (with h-), unchar (with h-) “two (of us)”, ONorse okkr, ykkr, okkar, ykkar “two (of us)”, Goth. igqar “(of you) two”; OFr. second, secont, Lat. sequi “follow”, secundus “following”; Hu. kettö “two”, ikker “twins”, köt- “tie”; Kuchean (aka Tokhar B, Tuhsi) ikam “two”, Agnean (aka Tokhar А, Tuhsi) wiki “20”; Mong. ikire “twins”, ekis, ikes “placenta”, Kalm. ikr “twins”, Evenk igire “twins”; Kor. pegim “next, second, following”, Cf. čeim “first”. Distribution: truly Eurasian, from sea to shining sea. “IE etymology” is non-existent, it appeals to freshly cooked “PIE proto-root” *sekw- “follow” and “PIE participal proto-compound” *sekw-ondo-. Of those are credible only the attested local suffix ondo- and the notion “follow, further, that, other”. The form ikkiz, like its European calque twins, contains an archaic Türkic dual plural marker -s/-z, applicable to objects that come in pairs, like eyes (göz), horns (buynuz), twins (ikkiz). In English, the archaic Türkic dual plural suffix became a generic plural suffix -s, see -s. Besides Türkic, the dual plural suffix -s is used in Greek; it is absent in the European languages. A contrast between Gmc. and Romance forms attests that the Gmc. forms lived in an agglutinative Sprachbund, where words started with roots uncontaminated by prefixes. They carried roots well into the turn of the eras period of Romanized Indo-Europeization, while the Lat. and OFr. forms evolved and were internalized in a polysynthetic Sprachbund with vigorous preference to prefixation. The Balto-Sl. vtor- and Gk. hateros (ατερος) “following, different” attest to a presence of the word in the Corded Ware period. It is split-present both in the NW Europe and in the Hindustan peninsula, carried there in the 2nd mill. BC by the Indo-Aryan migrant farmers, Cf. Skt. vitaram, Av. vitara- “further” fr. Skt. vi “apart”. The Celtic forms Ir. dara, Scots darna (~ tor-) may even carry the dating to the 6th-5th mill. BC Eastern Europe before the Celtic departure on their circum-Mediterranean anabasis. Archeological evidence, genetic dating, and lexical evidence of absence of some but presence of other words in the Asian Indo-European languages signal nuanced linguistic transformations. They allow tracing of demographic flows and timing of demographic splits. A paradigmatic transfer of the complex first, second, and ilk, and of the integral morphological elements, emphatically attest to their origin from a Türkic lexicon. See first, Numerals – Preliminary Note, -s.

1.14
sex (n.) “copulation” (Sw N/A, F640, 0.02%) ~ Türkic sik (n.) “copulation, fuck” (of male only, with a female), sikiš (n.) “sex, copulation” (mutual). The term flagrantly carries a standard European etymological stipulation “of uncertain origin”, but with a nod to a related homonym “gender”. Ultimately fr. a noun root sik “penis” and its prime functions, a derivative of the verb sik-/siy- “urinate”, see sit. The verb sik- is a variation on a theme “water, liquid” expressed with a most common noun syllable su and its allophones su:, so, si, suv and the like. A prosthetic consonant -v- (suv) with allophones -w-, -d-, -δ-, -g-, -γ-, -k- apparently emerged to link with vocalic suffixes and fossilized as a part of the root, forming suv, su:v, suw, sug “water, liquid” and the like. The suffix -g-/-γ-/-k- corresponds to a result of action, in the case of sik “urinate, urine”, “penis”, and on to “mating, copulation”, “sex”, and “gender” (“gender” as jins, jenes, cins, cinsiyet, cinsellik, Scotts gne, etc.). Every European language has its native synonyms for “copulate”. The A.-Sax. came with numerous synonyms, some of them were iape/yape, sard, fucke (~ Ar. facara), swive. A singular European presence of the form “sex” attests to its “of uncertain” non-IE origin. Cognates: A.-Sax. sard “fuck, copulate”; Lat. sexus “gender”; Mong. sige- “urinate”; Manchu sike “urine”, site- “urinate”. In-between Lat. and Mong. fit ca. 80 Türkic languages. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific. The form sard echoes the Türkic forms sid and sidik “urine” (Alat/Haladj, Tabgach/Tofalar, Saryg Yugur, Khakass). The Khakass connection is most prominent among the Eng. Turkisms. The s/h alternation is well established for the Aral-Caspian basin. Starting from a 1st mill. BC, the southeastern Kurganians repopulated an Aral-Caspian basin; the s/h alternation there can be only dated to a post-Corded Ware period. The Far Eastern connection is reliable, it retained the prime semantics of “urinate”. A synonymous A.-Sax. iape/yape, with cognates Skt. yabhati, Sl. ebat (ебать) “copulate”, a derivative of the Türkic noun eb/em/am “vulva, female” and a cognate of ewe, Eve, provides another attestation of the Türkic – A.-Sax. connection. A connection between sik and fuck is tenuous, predicated on s/h/f alternation: OE (15th c.) fukkit, Gmc. fokken, fanden, faen, ficken, fiksje, and the like, “fuck, copulate”. A transition h/f is dubious, even with all Gmc. weakness for an initial f-. The term “sex” flagrantly carries the standard European etymological stipulation “of uncertain origin”. Any “IE” efforts to fabricate a local connection for sex are pathetic, neither “division”, nor “to sever”, nor “cut up” fit the bill to any sane degree. Whether sex was inherited or passed via Lat., an ubiquitous sexual septet of sex, dick, cock, pussy, quim, ewe, and cynd/cunt provides ample evidence for paradigmatic transfers from a Türkic milieu. See ewe, cock, dick, kin, pussy, quim, sit.

1.15
some (adv., adj.) “unspecified, unknown” (Sw N/A, F93, 0.76%) ~ Türkic ӧsüm, ӧsǝm (relative indefinite pron., conj.) “(something) few, little, petty, unspecified, unknown”. Ultimately a deverbal noun derivative fr. a verb ӧš-/os-/aša- (emph. adv.) “(degree) excessively, very” fr. a base notion “to grow”, formed with a suffix -(a)m/-äm to denote a degree as an abstract noun, or result or object, Cf. gleam “glitter, Helios” fr. Türkic yal- “shine”; seam “sew” fr. Türkic sok-, suq- “sew”, also Cf. ošadïɣï, ošatïɣï “similar, corresponding” related to “same”, see same. A semantic derivative of ӧ5-/os- is a pron. ӧša- “that”, “that one (mentioned)”, “as, like, similar, resembling, compatible”, “this way”, “so, thus, such”. The ӧš-/os- with suffixed demonstrative pronoun -o formed a type of ӧša/osa with alternating -a, -o, -ï which in turn led to a loss of the initial vowel, ӧša/osa > šo-, so-, and to a rendering swa. That metamorphose had been described still in 1920 (Deny J., Grammaire de la langue turque (dialecte osmanli), §311, §1041. Paris, 1920). Corollaries: 1. In applications, the emphatic ӧš-/oš- tended to fuse with demonstrative pronouns bu and ol: ošbu (is) “this”, ošol (passive -l) “that”. The oš- and ošbu are protagonists for the A.-Sax. swa “so” with š and b pronounced s and w respectively, peculiar to the E. European and Gmc. articulations. The basic form ӧš-/os- > A.-Sax. swa elided indigestible ӧ-/o carrying a rich throve of meanings from their Türkic ancestors. The prosthetic g- (gleam) and h- (Helios) point to Oguzic articulation with an initial consonant/semi-consonant. A prosthetic initial h- is peculiar to Aral-Caspian area, now carried by Bashkir vernaculars. 2. A Türkic adverb a:z/az “few, scanty, little, rare” is semantically and phonetically a reflex of ӧš-/os-, and may have a shared ancestry. It is held as an independent lexeme. Treated as two forms of an allophonic verb a:z/a:r- with s/r split, its basic notion is “macerate, slimmer”, which produces derivational “few”, i.e. it is synonymous with “some”. The form ar of a:z/a:r- also produced an Eng. conj. “or”, see or. Either etymology is sufficiently substantiated via attested ӧsüm or attested a:z as azam, semantically equivalent to “some” without appealing to any faux “proto-roots”. 3. A personal pron. ӧz “self, own” that parallels ӧš- and a:z. Its function as a personal pronoun “self” echoes the demonstrative pronouns of the ӧš- “that”, “that one”, “same” and “some”. The lines ӧš- and az were found to be the most ancient. Only their pale traces remain in Europe. 4. An interrogative relative pronoun kim under k/s alternation would also fit the bill: sim (adv.) “what, degree”. In any case, an “IE” stipulation that “some” is a form of “same” is not needed. Among 44 European languages, a Türkic root ne-, neke- predominates with 16 (36%) languages, followed by Romance algu- “some” 7 (16%) and Türkic ka-, ka:- “some, how, which? what?” 4 (9%), and then by Türkic ӧš- “some” 3 (7%) and Balt. da- 3 (7%) languages. The remaining 12 languages use 10 their own different native words. Originally Türkic roots are shared by 23 (52%) of the European languages, matching a 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. sam, sum “some”, OSax., OFris., OHG sum, ONorse sumr, Goth. sums, Du. sommige, Sw. somliga, Icl. sumir. Distribution: Is confined to a small fraction of the Gmc. languages, attesting to a guest status in the hosting languages, all of which have their own native synonyms. Within Gmc. languages it may be dialectal, or survived only in derivatives or compounds. No “IE” connection, the proposed “PG” and “PIE” “restored proto-words” are doctrinal phantoms. In contrast, the Türkic pronoun ӧsüm is an attested reality. The properties of exclusivity provide an exceptional ethnological diagnostic value independent of biological genetic tracings. Within a framework of a relatively late Corded Ware period, it was a late acquisition, probably no earlier than the second mill. BC. At the same time, the phonetic and functional parallelism within the cluster os/ӧz/az/ar/kim is striking, it suggests a primeval common origin. That would point to the word's belonging to a very early period of linguistic evolution, and would help to explain the indiscriminative nature of the A.-Sax. internalization. The swa was a latecomer to A.-Sax./English, it took eons for it to supplant the native hwilc ubiquitous for the A.-Sax. See as, same, so.

1.16
terra, terrain (n.) “grounds, ground for training horses” ~ Türkic tera, terä (yeri) “valley”, teriŋ, tirän (n.) “valley, lowland”, ter- (v.) “pasture”. A prime notion is ultimately connected with terä “lowland valleys of mountainous terrain”, a derivative of a verb ter- “graze”, from a noun-verb ter/ter- “toil, collect, scoop”, “scoop” ~ “graze”. A paired idiom terä yeri, in Eng. terra earth “valley land, place, land” reflects one of several flavors of the idiom, see earth. With various suffixes of grammatical modifications (verbal, nominal, adj., possessive, etc.) semantics shifts, hops, and expands. A homonym of tera, terä is deri, tere, ter “leather, skin” that stands for “surface”, making them likely cognates, see derma, leather. The largely synonymous terra and earth came to Europe via different channels, one ended up on a path leading to Lat. or Romance languages, the other leading to the Gmc. languages. Thus, of the paired terä yeri, the terä was internalized by the Romance group, and yeri was internalized by the Gmc. languages; the terra came to Eng. via Lat. The Old Europe languages retained versions of their native term zem-. Of 44 European languages, 14 (32%) use allophones of Türkic ter- and 8 (18%) use allophones of Türkic > Lat./Romance terra, for a combined 22 (50%) languages, matching a level of 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. 13 (30%) languages use allophones of the Old Europe Sl. zem-, and the remaining 10 (20%) languages use their native 9 different words. There is no common “IE” term; instead stands a nearly Pan-European Türkic ter. Cognates: A.-Sax. ðorp, ðrop “farm”, ðerscan “thresh”, OFris thorp, Fris. terp “farm”, ONorse ðorp “farm”, MDu, Du. dorp “farm”, OHG, Gmn. dorf “village”, Goth. þaurp “field”; OCS trezati (трѣзати) “pluck” (~ graze), Rus. trava (трава) “grass”, trepat (трепать) “thresh”, Slov. trzati “graze, pluck”; Eng. place names ending in -thorp, -thrup. No references to Distribution: Eurasian Steppe Belt plus 3 out of 10 Indo-European branches. No references to any cognates outside of Lat., Gmc. confines, no listed Far Eastern connections, a perennial consequence of intentionally primitive myopic horizons. Nowadays an international word found across the globe, Cf. Jap. tera, terein (テラ、テレイン), Hu. terra, terep. An assertion of an “IE etymology” of an origin fr. a faux “PIE proto-word” *ters- “dry” (but Pers. xofki “dry, dry land”, Sl. suh-, sush (сухой) “dry”) is way beyond incredible, on a level of a wild goose chase like terry or terse. Compared with semantics of “valley” or “lowland” pastures, an appellation “dry” is delirious. An appeal to a faux “PIE root” *treb- “dwelling” is bogus, its supposed underlying “tavern” is a derivative of a Türkic tavar “goods”, see tavern, ware. All machinations are offensive to science. The non-grammatized verb ter- must ascend to pre-domestication times, when hunter-gatherers' prime concern was pasturing animals. It spread far and wide, becoming a focus of daily life in a pastoral economy and a most productive stem. Interchangeability of back and middle vowels a-e-o-u > tar-ter-tor-tur forms allophones and homophones. Semantic fields derived from “valley” ~ “pasture” developed into “land” (terra, territory, terrain), “dry land”, “flat land”, “land tract”, “valley”, “soil-tilling”, “hard labor”, “stop-over”, “stay over”, “dwelling” (Cf. tower), “tarry”, “earthwork”, and to “estate”, “village”, and so on. Many derivatives have reflexes in “IE” languages. Taken as a group, these “IE” derivatives do not find a common etiological stem, they wander like tipsy sailors on a way back to a ship. The word had reached three European branches by three independent allochronic paths reflected in different developmental scenes. Some derivatives came directly from the source language, usually rated as “of uncertain origin”. Others came via Lat. or French, and thus dead-end at Lat. etymology. Some more are supplied with unattested “IE reconstructions” of dubious relevance. The English cluster includes numerous words with the tVr stem: tarry, terra, terrace, terracotta (earthenware), terrace. terrain, terrene, terrestrial, territory, tower, turf (“surface of grassland”, hence Turfan “pastureland”). The Ir. and Scots Celts left Eastern Europe before domestication of eutherians, invention of pastures, and of the term ter. The Welsh apparently migrated after such domestication. The word terrain carried over a non-adjectival suffix -an (Cf. adjectival Indian, riparian) of its ancestors teriŋ, tirän and their ilk. The complex of phonetic, semantic, and morphological coherence vividly attests to an origin from a Türkic milieu and of a certain epoch. See derma, earth, leather, tavern, turf, ware.

1.17
time (n.), timely (adv.) (Sw N/A, F75, 0.27%) ~ Türkic timin, demin (adv.) “time, moment, now, outright”. Ultimately an instrumental case of an adv. tem/tim “just, recently” with few more meanings, including homophonic “help” with its derivatives. The word belongs to an oldest lexicon (EDTL 187). Türkic has numerous words to refer to an abstract continuous time, but except qolu none of them have an element of time measurement: öd, öδ period, moment (see period); öδla choose, appoint moment, period; öδläk time period, time (generic); čer season, period; čerig, čerlik suitable moment; oɣur period < timely; qačan, qaju when; qolu ten second period; rüzgar epoch; tïδïn moment in time; turum аrа during (period, month, hour); tuš period, all time; vaqt defined period; zamana epoch, fate. It appears that a notion of certain time expressed by Türkic timin developed into an adverb timely, and then expanded to the notions of time duration (hours) and moment (10 o'clock) time (n.), and of a time flow time (n.). Cognates: A.-Sax. tima “limited space of time”, -tid in compounds, Fris. tiid “time”, Dan. tid “time”, time “hour”, Dut. tijd “time”, ONorse timi “time, proper time”, Norw. time “time, hour”, tid “time”, Sw. timme “an hour”, tid “time”, Faroese tími “hour, time”, Icl. timi “time, season”, Alemannic Gmn. zimen, zimmän “time, time of the year, opportune time”, Gmn. zeit “time”, Yid. tsayt (צייַט) “time”; Scots tym, tyme “time”; Fr. temps, Lat. tempus “time”; Pers. dǝm “moment” (< Tr. dǝm ditto); Mong. dem “timely (help etc.)”. Distribution: staple in the Steppe Belt spilling to adjacent fringes. The “IE” family does not have a common stem for “time”. That makes all allophones of the form time guests from a non-IE family, with peculiar distribution among few Gmc. and Romance groups. There is no need for “reconstructed” ersatzes. No concocted “PG proto-form” *timon- or *timo or a faux “PIE proto-form” *dehimo or *dimon- or *dehy- “divide” is needed, the claimed fictions are eidetic with an attested Türkic timin. The incoherent “IE etymology” suggests unattested “IE root” *da- “cut up, divide”, an origin from a “tide”, a faux “PIE” *tempos “stretch” > “time” or a faux “PIE” *temh- “to cut”. The IE-locked queries are ludicrous, a wild goose chaise in search for a problem. Türkic is a good example on an antiquity of the notion of time, it had developed 11 discrete references to time, and probably some others did not enter a dictionary. A.-Sax. host had at least 3 phonetic forms (tima, tiema, tyma) plus a contracted form -tid in compounds, and at least 8 derivative forms. The semantics and phonetics of timely, time, and timin suggest down-to-earth etymology without any long-haul fishing expeditions and phantom conjectures. The time has no relation to cutting or tides leading to a word that existed in any human society from the days immemorial. A case of paradigmatic transfer of two time-related words, the timin “time” and öd “period”, attests inescapably to a genetic origin from a Türkic lexicon. See period.

1.18
woman (n.) “female” (Sw36, F263, 0.07%) ~ Türkic ebe, eve, eme, ebi, ama, ämä (n.) “wife, mama”, ebi-, ebe-, eve- (v.) “engender, birth-giving”. Standing European etymological rating is as “of uncertain origin”. A noun is recorded in a wide range of fairly close forms. Ultimately it is derived from or has produced a stem eb/em “female genitalia” and its derivative emig “nipple, teat”, see tit. A component wo-, wi- in the compound “woman” (A.-Sax. pl. wi-: wimmen) relays a notion “female” and its siblings, see wife. Since woman is a neologistic compound, except for the part wo- it does not belong to a category of “basic words”. It endured a chain of correlated transformations, ebi- > wefi- > wif, where ebi- is one of allophonic forms, wefi- has added a prosthetic anlaut consonant, and wif is a fossilized A.-Sax. form for a “woman, female, wife, lady”. The part men > man > -man “adult human” ascends to a notion “I, me”, see man. A Gmc. genderless man “person” fossilized with A.-Sax. extended semantics of “person (male or fem.), mankind, brave man, hero, vassal, servant”. The word ebe belongs to an earliest period of the humanity, preceding an appearance of family-based society/relations. It is shared by genetically distinct lines, e.g. Mongolian (Y-DNA Hg. C ca. 40kya), European (I ca. 48kya, H ca. 48kya), Finno-Ugrian (N ca. 44kya), Manchu-Tungus (O1/2 ca. 40kya), Altaian (R1a/b ca. 24kya), i.e. migrations ascending to the Out-of-Africa times. Semantically, the term evolved from an earliest notion aba “senior, dominant” to gender undifferentiated aba “senior relatives” to gender undifferentiated aba “grandparents, father, mother” to gender differentiated aba, ebe “father, mother, uncle, aunt, etc.” The notions reflect the social structures of the times. Only spotty attestations of the earliest semantics have survived to modernity in some linguistic islets; intermediate traces are well attested; and the later appellations are well documented. The term reached literate times in two gender-differentiated lines, a male aba and a female ebe, each in a variety of allophones, 31+ and 15+ respectively. In the 2nd-1st mill. BC the aba “senior, father, etc.” was supplanted by a newcomer ata “father” which gained wide circulation across Eurasia (Cf. Lat. atta, Hunnic Attila, Turkish Ataturk) without impacting ebi “senior female”. There also were Türkic transitions from matriarchate to patriarchate (ca. 5th c. AD ±2 cc.), which impacted correlation of the terms. Continued amalgamations of newly confederated ethnicities impacted areal terminology. A.-Sax. had a rich native vocabulary for “woman”: -estre “fem. suffix”, heo, bitch, cilfor, cwene/cwine/cwyne, maeg, gemaeg, -oge (< ebe?), ðir, quean < Goth kwino “prostitute”, spinelhealf “female line (of descent)”, plus the “travelling term” ebi-/wif. Of 44 European languages, 27 (61%) use allophones of the Türkic ebe/eme and Eng. ewe, matching a level of the 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. The remaining 17 (39%) languages use their own 15 different native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root. Cognates: A.-Sax. eowu “female sheep”, eow “sheep”, Eng. ewe “female sheep”, Eve “pra-mother” (< Tr. “mother, engender”; Biblical “pra-mother”), WFris. ei “ewe, female sheep”, Du. ooi “ewe”, vrouwmens “wife”, a neologistic compound lit. “free-woman person”, Gmn. aue “ewe, female sheep”; OIr. oi “ewe”; Lat. ovis “ewe”; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) avìs “ewe”, (Rus.) ovtsa (овца) “ewe”; Fin. еmä “mother (of animal)”, Est. ema, Hu. eme “ewe, bitch (animal)”; Kuchean (aka Tokhar B, Tuhsi) auw “ewe”; Nenets (Urak) newe, niemea “mother”, (Tavgi, Nganasan) name “mother”, (Selkup) аmу, еu “mother”, ima, еmа “woman, old woman”, (Koibal) nemyka “old woman”; Lapp. (Saami) ibme, ime “uncle's wife (mother's, father's side)”; Ostiak (Khanty) imi “husband's mother, husband's older sister, mother's older sister, wife of father's older brother”; Mong. eme, ǝm “woman, wife”, emege, ǝmeg “old woman, granny”; Kor. emeži, eomma (엄마) “mommy”. Distribution: Terminological parallels across linguistic borders and geographies were numerously observed, noted, and attempted to be explained. Although semantics may be area specific, the spread spans across an Eurasian width. For a phenomenon “of uncertain origin” any claim of a “reconstructed proto-word” is a quasi-scholastic absurd. There was no need to invent faux “PG” *awiz “ewe” nor a faux “PIE” *howis “ewe”. By the PG time, the word already belonged to a very hoary antiquity, its origins and period are fairly clear. The W. Eurasian turbulence of the 3rd-2nd mill. BC, the two-way migrations connected with the period of the Central European “killing fields”, the demic displacements, dispersions and amalgamations drove intensive cultural exchange known only in a fuzzy outline. A mass of social and technological traits was disseminated extending from Iberia in the west to the Far East in the east. A Türkic-Scythian-Kurgan tradition related to the notion woman was a single combat between a prospective bride and a groom, with a bride as a jeŋ- “win” prize (i.e. a “trophy”), as opposed to a statutory (ebe- “wife”) and a favorite (sevig “beloved”). The A.-Sax. cwen, Eng. quinn, Goth qens, qeins, qineins, qino “wife, woman” ascend to that ancient tradition, eons before an invention of the family names. In a chain of innovations, the A.-Sax. wifmann “woman, female servant” (m., 8th c.) metamorphosed to wimman, wiman “woman-man” (fem.), i.e. exclusively a “female (adult)”. A.-Sax. used 10 ways to express “woman, wife”, of which 5 were T ürkic cognates (bryd “bride, wife, consort” < be:r- “bear/carry, give”; wif “wife, woman” ~ eve- engender”; bert “given”; awe “married woman” < eve- “engender”, Cf. ewe; cwen “woman, wife, consort; queen” ~ yeŋä/jenä “wife”; gemaeg “wife, woman” i.e. “of major, close (relative)” ~ ögü:/mögü: (m/b alternation) “might”); two belonged to the European vernaculars (famne “woman, maid, virgin, bride” Cf. Lat. femina “female”, but ides “woman, wife”), and at least 3 were metaphorical extensions (freo, frowe “free”, haemedwif “married woman”, meowle Goth. mawilo, Cf. maw “mouth”). A complete epithet complex, starting with the primeval aba and in a wealth of social reflexes has survived only in a body of the Türkic languages, attesting to a dissemination via a Türkic philological node. See Eve, ewe, man, tit, wife.

1.19
yeah (ay, aye, huh, uh, uh-huh, yah, yea, yeah, yes, yep, yup) (interj.) “affirmative, affirmative response” (Sw N/A, F47 Σ0.89%) ~ Türkic yah, ye, yeh, de (interj.) “affirmative, affirmative response”. There is no common “IE” “yes”, and no faux “PIE” ersatz. In Europe, Gmc. and Sl. are the groups that follow a Türkic trail. Of 44 European languages, Gmc. (ja etc.) leads with 18 (41%), and Sl. (da etc.) with 8 (18%) languages, for a combined total of 26 (59%), matching a level of the 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. The other 18 languages march to their own tunes with 9 distinct native words. Like Türkic, English has numerous allophones and various spellings. In a usage frequency rating, Eng. allophones occupy a very prominent place (Table 1a): yeah (F47, 0.46%), yes (F89, 0.21%), uh (F130, 0.14%), huh (F199, 0.08%), yep (F1223, 0.01%), for a total of 0.89% usage frequency, or about every 100th word in a daily language. Table 1a summarily show them under a less frequent, but more formal entry yes. Cognates: A.-Sax. ge, gea, gese, gise, gyse, ise “yes” (g- ~ ž-, y-) , Eng., Dan., Norse, Sw., Gmn., Slov., Welsh, Yid., Latv., Fin., Est., etc. ya “yes”, Serb., Croat, Russ., Ukr. da “yes” (< Tr. de); Pers. ye “or”; Gujarati ya (જ) “yes”; Ar. ya: “oh!”; Kalm. dzä, dzǝ “OK, good”. The listing is sorely incomplete since “IE etymology” does not poke its head beyond the “IE” dome, albeit studies do note strong parallelism of the “IE” and non-IE vocabularies. Other European forms: Fin. kyllä, Hu. igen, Basque bai; Lat. imo, Fr. oui, Sp., It. si, Port. sim; Slovak ano, Lith. taip, Gk. ινα, και, εaν, αλλa, δε (ina, kai, ean, alla, de), etc. Distribution: is Eurasian-wide across linguistic borders. “IE etymology” offers a preposterous origin (for the Eng. “yes” only, not for the “IE” “yes”) from a compound of “so” + “to be” > gea, ge + si > yea, a desperately bizarre and unrealistic dream. With a complex of attested Türkic forms there is no need to invent new “PG proto-words”. For the Sl. allophone da and the Gk. allophone δε (de) it offers an auslaut part of random Gr. words ending in -δη (-dι) < Tr. 3rd pers. past. tense suff. There is a handful of other, not any less bizarre suggestions beyond a point of absurdity. A consensus Swadesh List notably carries the “no”, but excludes the “yes”. The A.-Sax. forms, the Sl. cognate da, and its Gk. version δε (de) with an anlaut consonant betrays a Türkic Oguric origin. Ditto the forms with an anlaut semi-consonant y-, j-, dz- (Cf. Hunnic Ogur titles in Chinese 2nd c. BC rendition Chjuki-Prince ~ Türkic jükü (Hunnic Ogur)/ükü (Oguz) “wise”; Ükü Bek; Luli-Prince ~ Türkic luli (Hunnic Ogur)/ulu/ulug/uluγ (Oguz) “great”, i.e. Ulu(g) Bek, etc.). The forms with an anlaut vowel either elided their anlaut consonant or supplanted it with an Oguzic articulation. The attested allophone ya is a form of the attested Türkic yah “yes” (OTD 252). Although both are originally Türkic, only one is rated “IE”. The other is a neglected foster child; go guess. For the English - Türkic pair yeah - yah, the semantic and phonetic equivalence are absolute, for the other allophones a common Türkic origin is perfectly clear. See no, un-.

1.20
1.1 Personal and demonstrative pronouns (I, me, my, she, us, we, you, dual plurals, and demonstratives)
Interrogative, Reflexive, Reciprocal, Indefinite, and Relative pronouns are outside of this section

Table 5. Türkic–English pronominal correspondences
the Germanic-Türkic cognates are highlighted in bold;
the Türkic ikki “two, dual” is seen in Goth., ONorse dual okkar/ugkara and the field of their allophones
the Türkic Oguz b is rendered v and w in Germanic languages;
the Türkic Oguz z, s is rendered þ, ð in Germanic languages;
the Türkic Oguz conjugations are for illustration only, to show nuances lost in conversion
the Türkic sen/sin apparently used to be polysemantic, applicable to the 2nd and 3rd person.  

lst Person
SINGULAR
Conjugation	English	OE	Türkic		Gothic	A.-Sax.	OSax.	OFris.	OHG	ONorse	Notes
Nom.	I	ik (ic)	ič (ich), es		ik	ic (ik)	ic	it	ik (ihha)	ek
Gen.	me	min	miniŋ, minüŋ		meina	min	min	min	min	min
Dat.	me	me	miŋä		mis	me	mi	mi	mir	mer
Accus.	me	mek, me	mini, minig		mik	mec, me	mic, mi	mi	mih	mik
Accu. Init.	–	–	minigdin, miniŋtin		–	–	–	–	–	–
Accu. Loc.	–	–	miniŋdä		–	–	–	–	–	–
Loc.	–	–	mintä		–	–	–	–	–	–
Loc. Init.	–	–	mindin, mindän, miniŋdin, mintin		–	–	–	–	–	–
Instr.	–	–	minin, minniŋ		–	–	–	–	–	–
Poss.	–	–	minin		–	–	–	–	–	–
Neg.	–	–	minigsiz, minsiz,		–	–	–	–	–	–
DUAL
Nom.	–	wit	biz (ikki)		vit	wit	wit	–	*wiz	vit
Gen.	–	uncer	biziŋ (ikkiiŋ)		ugkara	uncer	uncero	–	unchar	okkar
Dat.	–	unc	bizkä (ikkikä)		ugkis	unc	unc	–	*unch	okkr
Accus.	–	unc	bizni (ikkini)		ugkis	uncit, unc	unc	–	*unch	okkr
PLURAL
Nom.	we	git	biz		veis (weis)	we	wi, we	wi	wir	ver
Gen.	us	incer	biziŋ	ös/öz	unsara	user (ure)	user	user	uncar	Var (vor)
Dat.	us	inc	bizkä	ös/öz	unsis, uns	us	us	us	uns	oss
Accus.	us	inc	bizni	ös/öz	unsis, uns	Usic, us	us	us	unsih	oss
2nd Person
SINGULAR
Nom.	thou	þu (thu)	sen		þu (thu)	þu (thu)	thu	thu	du	þu (thu )
Gen.	thou	þin (thin)	seniŋ, seniŋdä, seniŋdin		Þeina	þin	thin	thin	din	þin
Dat.	thou	þe (the)	saŋa, saŋar, seŋär		þis	þe	thi	thi	dir	þer
Accus.	thou	þek (thek), þe (the)	seni, sini		þik	Þec, Þe	thic, thi	thi	dih	þik
Respectful	you	eow	-üŋ (-jung)		jus	eow	iu	iuwe	iu, iuwih	yor
DUAL
Nom.	–	–	ikki	ös/öz	*jut	git, gyt	git	–	*jiz, iz	it, þit
Gen.	–	–	ikkiiŋ	ös/öz	igqara	incer	*incero	–	*inchar	ykkar
Dat.	–	–	ikkikä	ös/öz	igqis	inc	inc	–	*inch	ykkr
Accus.	–	–	ikkini	ös/öz	igqis	incit, inc	inc	–	*inch	ykkr
PLURAL
Nom.	ye		biz	senlar	jus	ge	gi, ge	i, gi	ier, ir	er, þer
Gen.	ye		biziŋ	seniŋ + pl. aff.	izvara	eower	iwar	iuwer	iwar	yðar
Dat.	eow		bizkä	saŋa, saŋar, seŋär + pl. aff.	izvis	eow	iu	iu, io	iu	yðr
Accus.	eow		bizni	seni, sini + pl. aff.	izvis	eowic, eow	iu	iu, io	iwih	yðr
Plural	eow	eow			jus	eow	iu	iuwe	iu, iuwih	yor
3rd Person
SINGULAR
Nom.	he, she		ol		is, sa	he m. heo f. hit n.	–	–	–	–
Gen.	him, her		anuŋ		seina	–	–	sin	sin	sin	sen/sin?
Dat.	him, her		aŋа		sis	him	(sig, sih, sic)	–	–	ser	sen/sin?
Accus.	him, her		anï, anïŋ		sik	–	(sig, sih, sic)	–	sih	sik	sen/sin?
DUAL -None-
PLURAL of he, heo, hit /// pron. 3 pers.
Nom.	they		olar		–	he m. heo f. hit n.	–	–	–	–
Gen.	them		anuŋlar		scina	–	–	–	–	sin	sen/sin?
Dat.	them		aŋаlar		sis	him, heom, eom, inc,	(sig, sih, sic)	–	–	ser	sen/sin?
Accus.	them		olarnï , olarda		sik	–	(sig, sih, sic)	–	sih	sik	sen/sin?
Immediate impression shows a time and geography-dependent vanishing cline from basic to complicated. The most basic Türkic pronominals, learned in a childhood or early personal contacts, are internalized with minor changes. The rarer complicated forms are internalized with a loss of grammar and accuracy. The rarest most complicated forms are not mastered at all. Internalization is reduced with geographic distance. Internalizations among oldest ancestors, Goths, ONorse, and A.-Sax., had retained grammatical elements of the the dual form. In Türkic it originally was reserved only for the paired objects, like eyes and river banks; in English it grew to a plural -ss. Those folks also became famous for the most consequential adventures of the Goths, Alans, Vikings, and Northmen. Their aftermath pursues us into the present, including a devastating impact on the Eastern European Khazaria, and the discovery of Iceland, Greenland, and America.

1.21
he (pronoun) “male personal” (Sw3, F37, Σ1.41%) ~ Türkic hu, šu (shu) (pronoun) “this, that”. The Eng. he is a result of sequential diversification and specialization of the universal undifferentiated basic polysemantic šu to the allophonic se, he, and on to he and she. The attested h- allophones heo, hio of the seo are the Aral-Caspian area reflexes ho/hu of the common Türkic šo, so, šu. By the 13th c. the form se “he” faded, supplanted by he, while the forms seo, sio “she” stabilized as she “she”. The transition from the A.-Sax. form se to he attests to а significant demographic presence of the Aral-Caspian element in the pre-13th c. society. The genderless forms se and he continued to coexist till they were forced into а dominant gender-sensitive grammar, which induced speciation. In a male-dominates society, likely he tended to become gendered, while se remained genderless, akin to “it”, and applied to chattel, females, and other property. There was no “shift” of he from the female to male, in both instances the shift was from genderless to gendered. The Türkic šu is genderless, it comes in flavors šo, so and šu, with a Sprachbund-originated allophonic articulation ho and hu. Türkic has at least 6 basic ways to express the demonstrative, as opposed to the conjunctional, “that”: o/ol, so/šo/šu/sol/šol/šul, leš, te/ti/tu/tet/tes, an/ïn/un, and gol; of that lineup, the šu is but one particular form (Dybo A., EDTL v. 9 497-8). Romance languages had inherited leš, an ethnically diagnostic trait recorded in Chuv., arguably of archaic Bulgar. The A.-Sax. forms of the šu are masc. se, and fem. seo, the se, seo incorporated into A.-Sax. with the entire semantic bouquet of its Türkic sibling: personal, demonstrative, and relative pronoun, see so, this, that. The A.-Sax. neut. personal pronoun ðat, ðaet “it, that” is a part of the A.-Sax. triplet se, seo, ðaet. It originated fr. a Türkic form Romanized as tet, etymologically unrelated to the form šu. It is a derivative of a verb te- “tell, state” used for the neut. pronoun “it”, as a conjunction “that, so that, in order that, after that, then, thence”. It developed into an article the (Sw N/A, F7, 2.92%). Cognates: A.-Sax. he, heom, hea, heora, hi, hie, hyra, se “he” (nominal, dative, accusative, etc., forms), the nom. he and se are allophones, OSax., OFris., MDu. he, hi, Du. hy, OHG he. The ethnic diagnostic bifurcation points to an amalgamation of the vernaculars closer to the CT (so/šo/šu) with the vernaculars closer to the Aral-Caspian area (he, hea, hi, hie). Distribution: smeared across Eurasia, but the relevant form so, šo, šu is used by a fraction of vernaculars, 7 out of 13 vernaculars listed (EDTL v.s.). A European fraction is limited to languages enumerated above. Under an “IE” paradigm, ðaet etymologically is erroneously confused with the origin of the unrelated personal pronouns se and seo. The “IE etymology” offers a “PG proto-word” *hi- and a “PIE proto-word” *ki-/*ko- “this, here” supported by the attested Hitt. (16th c. BC) ki “this”, Gk. sou (σου) “you”, ekeinos “that person”, Balto-Sl. (Lith.) šis, (OCS) si “this”. The attested Hitt. ki and Gk. -kei- happened to be allophones of the attested Türkic (Chuv.) ko “this” and the OT nominal suffix -oq, with numerous cognates in the Far Eastern languages (Dybo A., q.v., 493). The Balto-Sl. ši/si and the Gk. sou happened to be allophones of the attested Türkic form sï “this”, an allophone of the same Türkic šu (q.v.). Neither Hittites nor Greeks nor Balto-Slavics are suspected to have originated in the Far East. There is no need to invent PG and PIE “proto-words”. The total overlap of the conjured “PG/PIE proto-words” with the attested Türkic lexicon carry a ghostlike character, like a shade glued to the Türkic soles. The carryover of the personal pronouns I, we, he, she is an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to a common genetic connection in demographic and linguistic aspects. The two derivatives of šu, he (0.57%), and she (0.42%), and 3 derivatives of te-/tet/tes the (2.92%), that (1.57%), and this (0.95%)” are a most popular group in English, contributing combined 6.43% frequency usage, that brings a total frequency usage of Turkisms in English to reach over 50% with some to spare. See she, so, this, that.

1.22
I (pronoun) “1st pers. sing.” (Sw1, F2, Σ5.34%) ~ Türkic ič, es (pronoun) “I, 1st pers. sing.” (OTD 201, “3. auxiliary postposition I”), self, a semantic extension of the ič “inner, viscera”. A base meaning of ič is “inside, inner, core” > “self (myself)” > “I”. Homophonic with ič “drink” (< “drink in”). The pronoun ič is declined as any other noun: ičinte: beg “I (was a bek)”, balık ičiŋe “I (entered town)”. The Gmc. Ich, Ih “I”, English I “I” and the attested in Türkic runic script Khazar (ik) Ik “I” are allophonic forms of the form ič “inner”. The same ligaturedepicts a particle ok/ök, a preceding word defines the vowel. In Türkic syntax, attached to personal and demonstrative pronouns, the ok/ök is synonymous with the pronoun, e.g. (ben) ök “I, me”. Used in an alien syntax as a separate word, it directly interprets and forms a notion “I” as a most frequent word. Without vowel indicated, it is up to a reader to articulate it as i-, o-, or ö-. In practice, the three articulations conflate to a single accepted Sprachbund version. The word had a pronounced areal distribution, never used in the south-east, and long ago waned in the south-west, leaving it to circulate exclusively in the north-west (EDT, 76). As an emphatic particle particle, it forms the word OK (o'kei), see OK. The form ič is Common Türkic (Oguz), the phonetic renditions of the Khazar “I” (likely Ogur) waver between -k and -x (kh): Ik/Ix/Ikh/Ih/Ich. The modern English form (12th c.) is a contraction of the A.-Sax. ic, 1st pers. sing. nominative pronoun. There is a semantic grey area between “I” and “me” that points to their interchangeability. The English form is ultimately derived from the Türkic allophonic form ič via Gmc. ih without voicing and aspiration. Cognates: A.-Sax. ik (spelled ic), OFris. ik, ONorse ek, Norw. eg, Dan., Norw. jeg, OHG ih, Gmn. ich, Goth. ik, Icl. eg; Ir. agam, me ag “I mine, me I”, Welsh wyf; Balt.-Sl. (Lith.) aš, (Latv.) es, (Sl.) ja; Lat. ego, Fr. Je; Gk. ego (εγω), ekho (εχω) “I, me”; Fin. itse “me, self” (initially “soul”; Archaic Bulg. ičurgu, ičirgu “inner”; Mong. ečine “secretly”, Tungus ečesin “turn inside”, Gold. ečen-, ečien- “ache inside”; Skt. ah(am) “I, me”; Hitt. uk “I, me”. Except for a more remote Welsh form, all cognates are immediate allophones of the Türkic ič (Gmc., Celtic, Gk., Skt., Hitt.) or es (Lith., Latv, Sl., Fin., Tungus). Distribution: across Eurasia; spans Eurasia in a wide ark from Atlantic to Mongolia; more consistent across Europe than across Eurasia. The “IE etymology” ascends the “IE” forms for “I” to an unattested faux “PIE proto-word” *eg-, without addressing its source and etymology, and disregarding the crucial Türkic ič and Türkic connection. That kind of etymology has no use. The Türkic word “me” (min, men, bin, ben) is an objective form of “I”, it appears to have been in circulation before the appearance of the word ič as “I”. The Irish compound form is peculiar, it literally combines the semantics of “inner” with the semantics of “me”. A dictionary should list them separately and as a compound. The Irish agglutinative agam is a compound of ag “I” synonymous or homophonous with “inner” and possessive suffix -m standing for “mine”, forming a notion “I” from the compound “mine inner” distinct from the “inner”. The Ir. analytic compound me ag serves the same function, it combines the objective form me of “I” with the discriminant “inner”, creating the notion of “I” from “me inner”. Irish has preserved frozen archaic forms in agglutinative and analytic syntax versions from the time when, without a definition “me”, “mine”, the ič still denoted “inner”. They attest to the existence of the components me and ag in the 6th-5th mill. BC, prior to the Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration. They allow a peek into the Kurgan culture's prehistoric vernaculars in the N. Pontic area spoken by the Y-DNA R1b-marked people. The Skt. and Hitt. examples attest to a presence of the word in a period of 2000 - 1500 BC in locations separated by a half of a continent. Chances of their independent invention are as would be between Du. and Jap. for the allophones for “tea”. Considering Indo-Arian migration, the Skt. form is predictable, it reflects a typical s/h alternation in the Aral-Caspian basin. It could ascend to either ič or es, but it can't reflect a later Pers. phonology since that is a parallel prong of the 2nd mill. BC Indo-Aryan migration. Most of the European forms ascend to the form ič, but the archaic Lith. and Latv. forms differ, pointing to an origin fr. the Türkic phonetic form es. In agglutinative languages like Türkic and Sanskrit, the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd pers. is indicated by modifying roots with corresponding suffixes, and the use of the 1st pers. sing. pronoun is minimal. In Türkic, the objective form of the personal pronoun is morphologically an individual lexeme and a suffix marker, used individually or in combination depending on the syntax of the sentence. With a switch to the syntax of the flexive languages arises a need to separate the agglutinated pronoun suffixes into individual lexemes. The Hitt., Gk., and CT forms are nearly identical. The I, me, and a host of other roots, pronouns, and derivatives are members of a massive class of pronouns carried to the A.-Sax. and on to English as a hefty case of paradigmatic transfer, attesting to their origin in the Türkic phylum. See me, OK.

1.23
me (pronoun) “1st pers. sing. accu.” (Sw N/A, F10, 1.18%) ~ Türkic min, ben, men, mən (pronoun) “me”. Ultimately fr. 1st pers. sing. pronoun bi- “I, me” with a possessive suffix -n. Male/fem. gender may differ by a vowel. With the b-/m- alternation, me/be, min/bin, and men/ben belong to the same cluster, and the Türkic and others' men/ben is as good for “I” as it is for “me”. There is a semantic grey area between “I” and “me” and their interchangeability in both languages. Türkic min “I, me” is regular, ik “I” is a metaphoric extension. In English, both forms I and me have equal standing. Dative agglutination is preserved in meseems, methinks. European languages are strikingly uniform in their lexicons, of 44 European languages, 37 (84%) and 35 (80%) use allophones of Türkic men/me “me” and ik/I “I” respectively. Accounting for transposed phonetics and semantics (“me” for “I” and “I” for “me”) increases further the Türkic component to 95% and 86% respectively. The remaining languages use their own native terms, 2 (5%) “me” and 4 (9%) “I” respectively. The predominance of “me” is predicated by its universal spread in Türkic languages, unlike an areal spread of ik “I”. The universal spread of “me” shows that: 1) European languages did not have their own related lexical apparatus; 2) or that any of their native lexemes were supplanted by alien “guests”; 3) all European languages are a product of amalgamation; 4) related amalgamation ascends to a single domineering source. Out of 44 European languages only 2, Hungarian and Maltese, use their own terms. They surely are recent (post-AD) additions to the European pool. It is natural that they came with their own vocabularies. Cognates: A.-Sax. oblique cases of I me (dative), me, mec, meh (acc.), OSax. mi “me”, OFris. mi/mir, Saterland Fris. mie, MDu. mi, Du. mij, ON, Goth. mik, Icl. mer “me”, OHG mih, Gmn. mi, mich, mir “me”; OIr., Scots me, Welsh mi “me”; Latv. manis (gen.), man (dat.), mani (acc.) “me”; OCS mene, Sl. menya (acc.) “me”; Lat. me, mihi “me”; Gk. eme, me (εμε, με) “me”; Skt. ma-, mama, man (मा), Av. mam “I, me”; Pers. män, Taj. man “I, me”; Parth. man (sing.), ma:n (pl) “I, me”; Sogd. mn, män “I, me”; Hitt. ammuk “me”; Mong. bi “I, me”, mön (deictic demonstrative pron.), Bur. bi “I, me”; Manchu bi “I, me”, Tung. (Evenk., Even., Oroch., etc.) bi “I, me” (bu pl. “us, we”); Sum. me, (Emesal) ma(-e), me-a, me-e “I, me”, -me (1st pl. poss. suffix) “our”. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific. Distribution covers nearly entire Eurasia in all directions across linguistic borders. The “IE etymology” ascends the “IE” forms for “me” to an unattested faux PG *miz, *mes, *meke and a faux PIE *me-, *hme “me”, without addressing source, morphological indicators, and etymology, and disregarding the crucial Türkic sources me/be, min/bin and historically attested connection with Türkic Kurganians. The fallacious conjecture can't stand. It is eidetic with the attested Türkic lexemes and solely parrots the widespread original. There is no need to invent PG and PIE “proto-words”. The “IE” trial balloons do not hold any water and only propagate disinformation. Neither Gmc. nor Gk. can claim credit for educating the rest of the Eurasia with their vocabularies. The Balt. (Latv.) forms match the modern Turkmen (Oguz) forms of the personal pronouns “I” men: “me” menin (gen.), mena (dat.) “me”, meni (acc.). The Celtic forms attest a presence of the form me before the Celts departed on their circum-Mediterranean voyage in the 6th-5th mill. BC. The Sum. me confirms a presence of the form me in the 4th mill. BC Mesopotamia. I and me are two members of a massive class of personal pronouns carried to the A.-Sax. and on to English as paradigmatic transfer case, directly attesting their origin from a Türkic phylum. See I, my, un, us.

1.24
my (1st pers. sg. possessive pronoun) “possessive of me” (Sw N/A, F20, 0.87%) ~ Türkic suffix -m, -im, -ïm, -um, üm (1st pers. sg. possessive pronoun) “of me, mine”. Its phonetics comes in only 5 forms, while a 1st pers. pl. numbers 15+ forms. A 2nd pers. pronoun uses -ŋ/-n for the -m, and a 3rd pers. pronoun uses -i/-in for the -m. Suffix -m is likely a contracted form of the reflexive suffix -min “me”. That, in turn, is a derivative of bi “me” (b/m alternation) with a marker -r (bir) for single, an -n (bin/min) for dual, and -z/-s for plural (biz), see first. The Türkic suffix -m moved up to become an Eng. prefix: аčïm (achym) > my ache (my ayk). That process is ubiquitous in Europe, where 41 (93%) of 44 languages use versions of -m for my. Gmc. has preserved the best the original Türkic forms. The Eng. form my is a contracted form of the Gmc. mine that has survived in the Eng. form mine. Cognates: OFris., OSax., Sw., OHG min, MDu., Du. mijn, Gmn. mein, ONorse minn, Goth. meins “my, mine”; Ir., Gael. mo, Welsh 'm, fy (~ by?) “my, mine”; OPruss. mais, maian, Rus., Sl. moy, muy “mine”, menya (меня) “me”; Lat. mea, meus “my, mine”, Rum. mele “my, mine”; Gk. mou (μου) “my, mine”, Hu. -szom “mine”; Kurd. min “mine”; Tatar minem “mine”; Mong. miniy “mine”; Ch. wo de (我的) “mine” (m/b > w); Jap. wa (私の) “mine” (m/b > w). Welsh and Hu. retained my as an agglutinated grammatical suffix; the form mVn is shared by Gmc., Sl., Kurd., Tatar and Mong. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific, covering nearly entire Eurasia in all directions across linguistic borders. The spread points to an inheritance from very early times, possibly ascending to an age of Y-DNA haplogroup C (50,000 YBP) before its numerous downstream mutations. A targeted study may trace its timing and carriers. An “IE etymology” ascends the “IE” forms for “my, mine” to an unattested faux PG *minaz “my, mine” and a faux PIE *meynos, moyos “my, mine” without addressing source, morphological indicators, etymology, and disregarding crucial Türkic sources min/bin and historically attested connection with the Türkic Kurganians. The fallacious conjecture is rather ridiculous and can't stand: the earliest recorded cognate is a Sum. predecessor me “me” attested from the 4th mill. BC. An idea that some “IE's” independently invented a Türkic word is beyond contempt. The Celtic Ir., Scots, and Welsh forms attest to a presence of the form -m, mo before the Celts departed in the 6th-5th mill. BC on their circum-Mediterranean voyage. The continuity of the complex me and my, mine complete with morphological elements constitutes a case of paradigmatic transfer indelibly attesting to a genetic origin from a Türkic phylum. See first, me, un, us.

1.25
she (pronoun) “3rd pers. sing. fem. personal” (Sw N/A, F50, 0.60%) ~ Türkic šu (shu) (pronoun) “this/that”. The Türkic šu is genderless. The A.-Sax. forms of the šu are masc. se, and fem. seo, the se/seo incorporated into A.-Sax. with the entire semantic bouquet of its Türkic sibling: personal, demonstrative, and relative pronoun, see he, this, that. The A.-Sax. ðat, ðaet “that” originated fr. the Türkic form tet, a derivative of the verb te- “tell, state”, it was used for neut. pronoun “it”, and as a conjunction “that, so that, in order that, after that, then, thence”, see that. Functionally, it was included in the triplet se, seo, ðaet. Etymologically, ðaet is erroneously confused with the unrelated personal pronouns se and seo. Cognates: A.-Sax. se, seo “he, she”, heo, hio “she” (semantics shifted to “he” by 13th c., see he), seo, sio “she” (after 13th c., fem. form of “this/that”). Shared across Gmc. group, she is cognate with all Gmc. cognates of the Türkic šu “this/that”, including the Du. zij, Gmn. sie, see this, that. The Eng. she is a result of diversification and specialization of the allophonic forms of the universal undifferentiated basic polysemantic šu to the allophonic se, seo, and on to she. The Balt. (Latv.) preserved supposedly archaic form šis (shis) of šu. The attested h- allophones heo, hio of seo are the reflexes ho/hu of the common Türkic šo/šu in the Aral-Caspian area. Instead of the original attested pronoun te-, the English linguists erroneously link the A.-Sax. ðat “this/that”, which turned into the article the, with the form of fem. seo. The derivatives of šu “he, she”, and te-/tet/tes “the, that, this” are a most popular group in English, contributing, 0.90%, 3.21%, 2.16%, 1.04%, and 0.66% frequency usage respectively for a combined 7.98%, and bring the total frequency usage of Turkisms in English to about 55+%. See he, the, that, this.

1.26
that, this (pronoun) “adjectival demonstrative” (Sw8, F7, 1.96%, Sw7, F14, 0.95%) ~ Türkic šu (shu), uš, oš (demonstrative pronoun) “that, this”. A glance at Futhark and Orkhon scripts above shows correspondence between Futhark þ and Orkhon so (No.3). The graphics is identical, articulation may somewhat differ; the þ is also depicted as a handwritten capital D and with an angledbubble of þ. Türkic šu and its A.-Sax.-Eng. version seo is a genderless, neuter demonstrative pronoun and adj. “this, that” synonymous with a primeval A.-Sax. articulation se. Anlaut consonant articulation took graphical forms s-, š, þ, ð, d, t, and more; anlaut vowel wobble i, o, eo, u, ü, and more. A final -t in “that” is a reflex a Türkic nominal abstract suffix -t, a final -is in “this” is a reflex of a Türkic “rare” (i.e. archaic) nominal suffix -ïš, -iš, -š. Inherited semantic range was vague, from emphatic and demonstrative to personal, frequently augmented by service words. Dictionaries are vague, incomplete, notoriously interpretational, and limited, incidentally weighted by a trail of notes. Cognates: A.-Sax. ðat (aka þæt), ðæt (pronounced “that”) neuter sing. of the demonstrative pronoun and adj. suffix, second form of masc. se, fem. seo “this/that”, þis “this” (masc. þes, fem. þeos), allophonic with Türkic šu, tet- “that, this, the, he, she”, OSax. that, these, OFris. thet “that”, this “this”, WFris. dat, Saterland Fris. dät “that”, dusse “this”, MDu., dat “that”, dese, deze “this”, Dan., Sw. det “this”, related to Gmn. der, die, das “the”, ONorse þessi “that, this”, Icl. það, OGutnish þissi “this”, LGmn. dat “that”, OHG deser “this”, Gmn. dass, das “that”, dieser, dies, dieses “this”, Goth. þata, þat-ei, þe-ei “that, this, the”, sah (fem.) “that, this”, (+ jains “that, yon”); Ir. sin, seo, si “that, this, she”, Scots sin, seo, i “that, this, she”, Welsh bod, hon, hi “that, this, she”; Lat. talis “such”; Balto-Sl. (Lith., OCS) to; Gk. to “the”; Skt. ta-; Mong. ter “that, she”; the listing may be somewhat addled and out of sync with time. Distribution: Across Eurasian Steppe Belt, with a narrow wedge in Europe and a spec in the Far East Mong. with possible uncited reflexes in Tung. and Manchu. The English “that” reportedly emerged ca.1200 AD, a pure nonsense in light of the attested trail to the A.-Sax., OSax., OFris., Goth., Gutnish, and MDu. forms. An “IE etymology” asserts fictions like a “restored” faux “PGmc. proto-word” *that, “PWGmc., PG proto-word” *þat (þ = th), a “probably” “North Sea Gmc. proto-word” *tha-si- < *þa- + “probably” -s = se “the”, a faux “North Sea Gmc. Proto-base” *þa- “that” from a faux “PGmc. proto-word” *þat, etc., overlaid on top of a faux “PIE proto-word” *tod from a faux “PIE demonstrative base proto-word” to- modified with “NW Gmc. Proto-suffix” -s derived from a faux “PIE proto-word” *so “this, that”. All that deep-thought equilibristics to reach from a “this, that” to a quasi-scholastic and “reconstructed” “this, that”. Given the inherited traceable trail, none of that nonsense is attested, needed, or productive. A diversification from the allophonic forms of the basic šu to the allophonic se, seo, and to ðat is apparent, ditto for the transition šu > she. The Balt. (Latv.) preserved supposedly archaic form šis (shis). The A.-Sax. ðat, ðaet was largely a universal undifferentiated notion with polysemantic applications “that, so that, in order that, after that, then, thence that, so that, in order that, after that, then, thence”. Semantic differentiation formed with amalgamation of local vernaculars. A spelling with the initial s- is somewhat misleading, precipitated by inability of the Roman scribes to convey a quality of the initial consonant. That was also a reason for a continued survival of the Central Asian runic letter þ. Derivatives of šu and tet- “he, the, that, this”, and “she” make a popular group in Eng., contributing 1.41%, 2.92%, 2.89%, and 0.60% frequency usage respectively, for a combined 7.82%, and bring the total frequency usage of Turkisms in English to 55+%. See she.

1.27
us (pronoun, objective case, oblique) “plural of we” (Sw N/A, F104, 0.19%) ~ Türkic ös/öz, üs/üz (pronoun) “self (we, us, selves)”. Ultimately an expression of “be own”; a suffix -ge makes it “other”, see other. An “IE etymology” bravely asserts that it knows where the word came from. A generic notion of ös/öz/üs/üz “inner, core” is declined as any other noun, it is synonymous with a generic notion of ič (Gmc. ik, ich) “self, inner” that stands for sing. “I”, see I. Use of synonyms probably developed to avoid confusion, a hazy synonym went extinct. With appropriate suffixes, ös forms notions “me/us, you”, and “he/she/they”, eidetic with the notion ič that forms the notions “I, myself”. The preserved semantics of the derivatives suggests that at one time both synonyms were used interchangeably in a universal line of personal pronouns, and that a speciation occurred at amalgamation with alien languages. The Gmc. group settled on the semantics “us”. That is corroborated by the pronoun “you, yours”, a derivative of the pronoun suffix -üŋ, -uŋ. Of 44 European languages, 23 (52%) do have objective case pronouns, the rest is using non-objective “I, me” forms. Of the 23 “us” group, largest are nas- with 9 members, 8 Sl. + 1 Hu., followed by os-/us-/ok- (k/s alternation)/on-/un with 8 members, and the remaining a motley group of 6 languages. A majority have Vs- model, a few an NVs- model with a prosthetic anlaut n-, and a few more have obliques of their own native origins. The European form -os-/-us- mirrors the Türkic ös/öz, üs/üz as a base root of the oblique us. That matches a 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. us “us”, user “our, I, me”, OSax. “us” OFris. us, Du. ons, Dan. os, Sw., ONorse oss, Icl. okkur “us” (k/s alternation), Gmn. uns “us”, Goth. unsar “our”; OIr. ni, Welsh ni “we, us”; OCS ny “us”, nasu “our”, Bosn., Croat., Cz., Pol., Rus., Serb., Slov, Ukr. nas (нас) “us”; Lat. nos “we, us”; Gk. no “we two”; Skt. nas, Av. na; Hitt. nash “us”; Mong. örö, öre “gut”, örü “epigastric cavity” (s/r alternation), Kalm. ör, örö “gut” (s/r alternation); Evenk, Lamut. ur “stomach” (s/r alternation); Sum. ez “us”; all “us” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: across Eurasia, from Atlantic to the Far East, deeply ingrained across a width of Europe. Distribution of the allophones of the -s- and -n- in Europe, Asia and across Eurasia is consistent with N.Pontic serving as a sanctuary for the motley European refugees from a carnage inflicted during a 3rd mill. BC on the old European farming populations marked by Y-DNA haplogroups G2a, E1b-V13, I1, I2, and R1a. From a N.Pontic started a forked migration of the peculiar -n- form to the south-central Asia (Skt.) and comeback to Europe (Lat., Gk.). Attested timeframe extends fr. 4th mill. BC (Sum.) and 2nd mill BC (Hitt.) to the present, and on into a future. The “IE etymology” conflates the -s- and -n- forms into a dubious unattested phantom “proto-word” *ns. It asserts a faux “Proto-Gmc. proto-word” *uns “us”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *nes- “accusative and dative plural of we”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *ne-, *no-, *n-ge-, *nsme “us”. That's how the legends are built, from a fireplace story to a print. No “IE” acknowledgement of a preceding dated Sum. ez “us”. A systemic “IE myopia”. Practically entire European pronoun fund consists of petals of Türkic flower, with relatively minor exceptions. A dating of amalgamation keeps sliding, from Attila time down to Gimbutas Kurgan invasion time and on down to a closer to 10th-9th mill. BC. Development is drifting from anthropology to archeology and on to genetics. A fate of pronoun “us” also befell to the pronoun “we”, a reflex of the Türkic pronoun biz, bez, internalized with anlauts b- > v- ~ w- alternations. And to the “me”, an another form of the same pronoun, internalized from a suffixed auslaut -m, and with anlaut mi-, me-, ma- (e.g. Tat., Turkmen miŋа bir lit. “bring (to) me”, Uz. menga bering ditto, Kaz. mağan berşi, ditto, etc.). That degree of myopia can't be accidental or absent-minded, it has to be concocted and nurtured. An -n- form was active in Gmc., Celtic, Lat., Gk., Sl., Skt., and Hitt. languages. The OIr. and Welsh -n- forms point to its presence in the N.Pontic as early as the start of the Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration in the 6th-5th mill. BC. The Sum. ez attests the 4th mill. BC timing of -s- form. A Türkic origin of the word us, and an entire pleiad of its kins is beyond any doubt. See I, me, my, other, un, you.

1.28
we (pronoun) “1st pers. pl.” (Sw4, F29, 0.71%) ~ Türkic biz, bez (pronoun) “1st pers. pl., we”. The biz is a copula, the notion “we” is a functional extension forming dual plural (Cf. biz (ikki) “dual, copula”, and Goth., ONorse vit, OHG wiz “dual we”), which further expanded to inclusive plural. Ultimately, biz is a derivative of bi “1st pers. sing.” + -z pl. suffix, with regular alternations b- ↔ m- and -z ↔ -s, Cf. Eng. pl. suffix -s: sing. thing ~ pl. things. In Türkic daughter and affiliated languages, b- may also take a range of qualities Romanized as p-, v-, and w-, with further variations. Cognates: A.-Sax. we, OSax. wi, OFris. wi, Dan. vi, Du. wij, ONorse ver, OHG wir, Goth. veis (weis); OIr. mu-idd (-id plural), Welsh ni; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) mes, ve(du) “we (two)”, (Latv.) mes, (OPruss.) mes, (OCS) my (мы) “we”, ve “we (two)”; Skt. va(yam); Av. va(em), OPers. vay(am); Hitt. wesh; Hu. mi, min-k; Est. me, Fin. me; Arm. mеk; Ch. wo; Jap. wa-; Mong. bid (бид); Sum. me. Distribution: across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Pacific, deeply ingrained across a width of Europe. An “IE etymology” asserts feigned pedigrees: a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *wiz “we”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *wejes (“?”), a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *wir (“?”), and a faux “PIE proto-form” *we- (“?”), a faux “PIE proto-word” *wey “we plural”. All that nonsense is not needed: it has no address, no timeframe, can't be reverse-verifiable, has no use, and needs to be gracefully retrieved. Attested evidence shows much deeper roots. Cognates across Eurasia demonstrate that European and Asian “IE” forms, each with its own flavor, are related as a subset of underlying forms split along m/b divide that crosses the entire “IE” family. The m/b split and co-existence extends across both the eastern and western parts of the Eurasia. A Romance group has its own independent form: Lat. nobis, Fr. nous, etc., Cf. Sl. nash (наш) “ours”. An oldest on record is the Sum. form of 4th mill. BC, leading to a proposition that the m- form was a prime form, which separated into m- and b- lines, with the b- line diffusing into areal b-/v-/w- variations. That is corroborated by the OIr. m- form. Both the Sum. and OIr. -m forms are datable, the Sum. form by an appearance of writing, and the Celtic form by the time of the Celtic departure from the E. Europe, by the 6th - 4th mill. BC. Earlier dates are hinted by R1a genetic traces. Other diagnostic traits are the inclusivity vs. exclusivity of the word, a presence of the dual form, the interrelation between the notion “we” and the notions “I/me” and “you”. The n- forms may putatively ascend to the Old Europe vernaculars prior to the 4th mill. BC, prior to the period of the “killing fields”. A major overlap between Gmc. and Türkic personal pronouns shown in Table 5 provides a vivid attestation of a paradigmatic transfer case, and an indisputable evidence of a common origin from Türkic vernaculars. See are, I, he, she, us, you.

1.29
you (pronoun) “2nd pers. sing. and pl.” (Sw2, F1, 6.21%) ~ Türkic -üŋ, -uŋ (agglutinated pronoun) “2nd pers. sing. and pl., +respectful”. Ultimate origin appears to be fr. notions “front, face” üŋ, öŋ, e.g. “one fronting (you), “one facing (you)”, Cf. “new face, numerous new faces” for a person or persons. Agglutination apparently made the pronoun invisible for the experts, Cf. G. Clauson EDT xiv, at best defined it as an “exact function obscure”. Accordingly, it does not figure in etymological dictionaries. Reality, in the very same dictionaries, however reflects it, Cf. köŋüŋče “you think”, kögsüŋ “you throw”, közüŋ “your eyes”, köŋülüŋ “your mind”, köŋülüŋin “your own mind”, kilimüŋge “your kilim (blanket)”, süŋüküg “your bones” (Clauson, q.v.). The Türkic syllable is semantically exactly the same as a detached English pronoun. The initial -ü/-u is most typical, but can be ï/i/a/ä and more in consonance with the phonetics of the base root. The auslaut ŋ is typical, but can be g/ɣ/q and more depending on the application: verbal, nominal, declination, and conjugation; many of them sport component -üŋ-. The wealth of the different forms, packaged with and among other agglutinated suffixes, is nearly incomprehensible for alien ears. A most prominent phoneme -ü-/-u- had been internalized and reshaped into the native grammars and articulations, and then codified into native scripts. In English, by 1450s, a 2nd pers. sing. respectful became a general norm, and the form thou gained connotation of disrespect or intimacy. In transition to an alien phonetics and syntax, if not earlier as a Sprachbund norm, occurred a leap from a suffix to a separate word, and a loss of a nasal consonant. The most basic personal pronouns I, you, he were internalized in their entirety and verbatim. More complicated forms were internalized partially, some became indiscriminant 3rd pers. generic (he + she + they), some have retained a native base, and others have not survived in the host languages. Dual plural for a time was partially absorbed, but expanded to a generic “both”, breaking the original pinpointed connection with pared objects like a pair of ears. Cognates: A.-Sax. ge, git (dual), eow, OEng. ye, ge, OSax. iu, ye, OFris. iuwe, ONorse yor, MDu. ghi, Du. u, gij, OHG iu, iuwih, German euch; Lith. jus; Hu. ön; Lat. vos, Fr. vous, Sp. usted, usteres; Gk. hymeis; Sl. vy (вы); Skt. yuyam, Av. yuzem, Fin. sinua; Mong. ӧngge “front , countenance, complexion, appearance, color”, öŋe “color, appearance”; all “you” unless noted. Distribution: across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Far East, deeply ingrained across a width of Europe with SE Asia fringes. In addition to the Eurasian Türkic languages, the distribution is limited to the European zone and its fringes, crossing linguistic family boundaries. Saliently, most cited European cognates carried the Türkic-type indiscrimination between 2nd pers. sing. and pl., a unique trait of paradigmatic semantic transfer. Essentially, there are no citable “IE” cognates from other “IE” branches. The faux “PIE” *yu is unwittingly an allophone of the attested Türkic -ü. An idea that the Corded Ware Kurganians spoke an “IE” language is beyond absurd. And that European people of the Corded Ware spoke some unknown non-European languages is beyond absurd too. The Lat. and Fr. sport a prosthetic initial v-, also an earmark of the Sl. languages. Outside of the literary usage in Eng., and in daily use elsewhere, the pronoun thou, a detached cognate of the Türkic past tense 3rd pers. suffix ti, continued to be used till present, another case of paradigmatic transfer. In light of the 2015 discoveries on the genetic composition of the Corded Ware, a reasonable suggestion would be that the -üŋ > ü transition happened at the Corded Ware stage, and the Corded Ware inaugurated the pidgin of a blend of the Turkic and Old Europe vernaculars that lost agglutination and recycled a number of Turkic suffixes as prepositions that grew to independent words. That was the first draft of the “IE” family. The use of ü for both 2nd pers. sing. and pl. also presents a paradigmatic transfer case shared by a number of the European descendents of the Corded Ware period.

Idioms (Examples found in etymological materials)

Numerous catch phrases are inherited from the pre-literate world, they are idioms peculiar to native languages, often untranslatable literally. Some idioms can be traced to the millenniums-old first literary works, and they are still with us. Few of them even get into etymological works, where they are translated and cited as etymological examples, and viola, some translations look like phonetic distortions of the regular catch phrases. In cases when a word does not have a single synonym, a translation is literally forced to use a cognate word, defeating any biases. In the literate era, these idioms are internationalized by the spread of literature.

English tit for tat “equivalent pain given in return” ~ Türkic tite tit, lit. “pain for pain”, an authentic Türkic idiom. The “IE etymology” does not have a sensible answer for this English expression, or a comic “nippel for a touch”, it is rated as a mystery. See tooth for tooth.

English tooth for tooth “equivalent given in return” ~ Türkic tiše tiš (tishe tish, Turkish diše diš (dishe dish), lit. “tooth for tooth”, a Türkic idiom. See tit for tat.

English eye for an eye “equivalent given in return” ~ Türkic közasa közas, lit. “eye for an eye”.

English (see) eye to eye “to be in agreement” ~ Türkic göz göze, Turkish köz köze lit. “gaze to gaze” (Russian calque s glazu na glaz, lit. “from eye to eye”).

English flea market “street market” ~ calque of the Türkic bit bazary “flea market”. Gmn. der Lausemarkt, Fr. marché aux puces.

A.-Sax. eorðscrafu “earth cave” ~ easily recognizable Türkic compound yerkaba, lit. “earth cave”. A.-Sax. is full of such compounds, Cf. modorcynn “maternal + kin” ~ Türkic mamü + kün, orceard “garden, lit. dug up yard” ~ Türkic or-, ore “dig, dug (ground)” + yer “earth, land”, steopsunu “step-son” ~ Türkic tep- “step” + song “son”.

See also examples in the section Phrases, q.v.: charcoal, greyhound, tooth ache, God given, I (am) sick, acidic ache, don on me, old geezer, tall (and slim) body. For any distinct semantics, every additional phoneme added to a string reduces chances for random coincidence by few orders of magnitude. Beyond 5- or 6-phoneme strings, a chance possibility becomes impossibility. A chance coincidence of two or more strings is infinitesimally small.
35

2. Morphology (comparing a few of English and Türkic morphological elements)

2.1
-an (suff. pl.) ~ Türkic suffix -an (suff. pl.): erän “men”, oɣlan “children”, örtän “flames”. Both Türkic (rare, archaic) and English denote plurality of objects or subjects, defined in English as “weak nouns” category because they used the -an suffix. The A.-Sax. plural suffixes -u and -an are not active any more, victims of continued creolization. They were replaced with a Türkic plural marker -s, which has been extended to singulars in the old collective sense formerly rendered with the suffix -an: babes, sweets. See -s.

2.2
at (prep.) “reference to position, direction, location, or time” (Sw201, F59, 0.35%) ~ Türkic at- (v.) basic notion “throw at, shoot at”, with a very wide range of extended and metaphoric meanings including directional, and a wide variation in cases of direct and indirect object. In some languages at- has almost became an auxiliary verb (EDT 35): A.-Sax. at daw, Eng. at dawn, Türkic daŋ (dan^g) at, all “at dawn”, lit. “poking dawn”. Cognates: A.-Sax. aet (ət), a, ONorse, Goth. at, OFris. et, OHG az, Sw. at, Du. te, Afrikaans teen; Lat. ad, Romance a; Skt. adhi “near” (?), Gujarati ante; Ir. ag, Est. -ga, Az. -ed, Tr. -de, -da. The vague A.-Sax. aet grew to cover “near, by, in” plus ~15+ other meanings, quite a blurred internalization. Eng. uses both -t and -d forms, many of them echo Türkic-based phrases: adapt < ad + apt (see aptitude), adage < ad + age (see age > “old saying, proverb”), adequate < ad + equate (see equate), and so on. The Romance a may be a relict of Burgundian Sarmats' systemic truncation. Agglutinated Est. -ga may or may not be a form of Türkic directional -de/-da. Another European word for the directional “at” is i, used in spots by diverse languages, it may ascend to a Balkan Sprachbund of the Old Europe (e.g. Arm., Icl., Lith.). The simultaneous presence of the form at/ad in the “IE” languages of Europe and Asia attests to its presence in the N. Pontic as a directional auxiliary verb prior to the Indo-Aryan 2000 BC migration to the Indian subcontinent. See and, age, at, aptitude, be, equate, dawn, in, on 1, on 2, till (prep.), to.

2.3
com- (prefix) “with, together” ~ Türkic qon-, ko:n- (v.) denoting cooperative action “with, together”. Ultimately from a polysemantic stem qo-/ko:- “all, together”, “stopover”. A qon-, ko:n- expresses generic “to stop”, “to stay” (from sleepover to dwell) and “bunch together (stopover)” among other meanings. The semantic component of “bunch together” makes qon-/ko:n- a precursor of the European com- “with, together”, its antecedent con- (contrary to a claim of a derivative), co- (coact, coaxial, etc.). That Türkic component is illustrated by allophones and derivatives: active deverbal noun konat (konot, qonat, qonot) fr. ko:n- “cumulate, bunch together, companions”, kontur- (v.) “settle, lodge (together)”, i.e. “cohabit”, konum (n.) “people living together”, i.e. “cohabit”, kop/kob “all”, koš- “conjoin, unite (two things), together”, etc. The element qo-/ko:- did not survive as a stand-alone word, it is well attested in derivatives. The complementary Türkic forms with -n/-m assimilation (ki:m/gi:m/kem/kemi/kemi) form a credible link to realistic etymology, offering viable prototype notions. The Türkic etymology is necessary to demonstrate a phonetic and semantic congruity in Eng., Lat., and Türkic languages. In Europe, the prefix com- and its versions blossomed into a major word-forming component, occupying a large place in the European vocabularies, a list of cognates across languages would take volumes. Prefix con-, com- nowadays is an international component. Cognates: A.-Sax. (ge)com, (ge)coman, (ge)cuman, comon “come together, arrive, assemble” (ge- “together”); Lat. com- “together”; Mong. qono- “to stay (together)”, xonača “guest”, qonaq “guest, overnight stay, lay off stop”, Bur. xonoso “overnight, bednight, sleeper”, Khalk. xonoč “guest”, honots “overnight sleeper”; in this context “stop, stay, guest” refer to collective action. In some instances direction of borrowing between Türkic and Mong. etc. is disputable. Distribution: From Atlantic to Far East. Within European languages, the European prefix com- is a loanword, that is attested by its limited and peculiar distribution covering an insignificant number of the “IE” languages. That makes the claim of a “PIE proto-word” totally incredulous. Unwittingly, the non-attested, imagined “reconstructed PIE proto-word” *kom- is eidetic with the documented Türkic form. An “IE etymology” stops at Lat. as though Lat. lays at the root of all languages, a totally indefensible presumption based on its very late (turn of the eras) dominant status throughout the western Roman zone. The “IE etymology” is notable for its circular manner, as a prehistory it offers wysiwyg “what you see is what you get” with some digressions into customary usage. Many words have became international, like cooperation and convulsion. A fair number combine the Türkic qon-, ko:n- with another Türkic word, like combat (com- + bat/pat) and coapt (com- + apt). Neither A.-Sax. (but see ge-compounds) nor Gothic (but see k/s alternation sam < qam) have recorded traces of Türkic qon-, ko:n-, so a path via OFr. or Lat. may be expected. A separate word in the Türkic syntax turned in the European languages into preposition (Cf. cum laude) and prefix (Cf. concubine, lit. “with stranger”). A Türkic preposition would seamlessly transit to a prefix within the chopped European grammars. The phonetic and semantic concordance expands the short-circuited “IE” etymology into a world of real linguistic processes. See con-.

2.4
con- (prefix) “with, together” ~ Türkic qon-, ko:n- (v.) denoting cooperative action “with, together”. A sibling of com-, see com-. Ultimately from a polysemantic stem qo-/ko:- denoting “all, together” and “stopover”, among other meanings, qon-, ko:n- expresses generic “to stop”, “to stay” (from sleepover to dwell) and “bunch together (stopover)”. A derivative form konat indicates a prior existence of a complementary noun, preposition, or clitic (proclitic) con (kon, qon) conveying a notion “with, together”. Neither the A.-Sax. nor Gothic used that element, English acquired it from Lat., possibly via Norman French, thus the prefix con- is an adstrate rather than substrate, con- is assimilated form of Lat. com- . Its path via Lat. has bypassed the Gmc. phylum, attesting to an independent route and pointing to dialectally independent intrusion. See com-.

2.5
en- (prefix) “make, turn into, put into” ~ Türkic eŋ (preposition service word) “in the beginning, first of all”. An “IE etymology” does not have any sensible explanation to its origin, the en- just appeared from nowhere, and etymologists only report the status, referring to homophones like Lat. in- “in”, Gk. en- “in”. The Türkic eŋ with its allophones developed into the Lat. in- “in, into” and Gk. en “in”, OFr., Fr. en- “in”. In Türkic and in English, em- is used before a p (emplace, proclitic) or b (embrace, proclitic). In Türkic and in English, en- is homophonous with in- and an-, at times they are confused, at times conflated, at times misinterpreted, which adds a much wider semantic spectrum. It is a formant for the aspect of initial time in A.-Sax. and then in English, with a notion “to engage”: A.-Sax.anaegilan “to nail”, anaeðelian “to degrade”, anbidian “to expect”, Eng. enchant “engage in chanting”, encharge “engage in charging”, enact “engage in action”, encamp, enrage, enable, encage, entail, etc. The prefix en- should not be confused with a preposition en, an allophone of the Türkic en- (v., prep.) “descend, come down, sloping down, inclined down” used in idioms “en route”, “en rule”, “en suite”, “en vogue”, etc. Those came to Eng. via Fr. Semantically, the roles of the Türkic eŋ, Eng. en-, and A.-Sax. an- and en- are the same. In A.-Sax. en- and an- stand for “and”, “un-”, “in-”, and “on-”, with most lexicon predating and independent of a Lat. influence. Similar disarray had occurred with other European languages, pointing to dialectal phonetic and semantic variations of the adopted sources. Cases of vague semantics are rather exceptions, like the insure and ensure. Undoubtedly, the Gk. and Lat. were instrumental in spreading eŋ across the European languages, but neither Gk. nor Lat. originated it nor borrowed it from A.-Sax. It is tempting to ascribe it's origin to the Sarmats of the 2nd c. BC, but the roots extend much deeper. The eastern “IE” languages do not share this prefix, in Hindi and Urdu the role of the European en- is performed by particles da- and daa-, allophones of the Türkic directional suffix -ta/da-. That makes it impossible to claim a common origin with the European languages. That sets an upper limit on the earlier date as post-2000 BC, an Indo-Arian outmigration. What unites the Türkic, Eng., Lat., and Gk. splits the “IE” paradigm. The Türkic etymology offers semantic explanation for en/en-, on/on- and in/in-, with further extensions to derivative adverbs and adjectives. The trio belongs to a massive case of paradigmatic transfer of morphological elements from Türkic to Eng. See in, on.

2.6
-er (deverbal, conjugational suffix) ~ Türkic -ar/-er/-ır/-ir/-ur/-ür aorist suffix (past tense) deverbal nouns; Türkic complimentary er/ir/ar/härä (n.) “-man, -warrior, -sire”. A difference between suffix and postposition is purely conventional; a homophonic postposition er “man” in many cases might as well be taken for a suffix in a compound: udčï-er “shepherd”, kеjikei-er “hunter”, etc., identical to the Eng. doublet of suffixes -er/-or and -man (e.g. teacher, craftsman) (OTD 175). Eng. semantics extends to a general instrumental suffix: stapler, machinery. In the modern times, it grew to a global spread, Cf. computer etc. As an agent noun suffix it is widespread in Europe, with allophones -or/-ar/-ir etc., Cf. Lat. -or. In the original sense of power, might, superiority, it lives in the prefix ar-: arch-, archi-, archon, architect, etc., fr. a Türkic root arqa “spine, hillock, hill, ridge, slope, mountain”, see arch. The Eng. suffix -man indicates an agent noun, a human,: teacher, butcher etc., from the Türkic root er/ir “man”. In the exonym German “manly” or rather “very manly” fr. the Türkic erman “very manly”, the -man is an emphatic suffix. The noun “man” comes with at least ten semantic clusters and an astonishing variety of allophones, from ar to ey and from härä to herr and wer, attesting to deep antiquity and a rainbow of receptor languages from Atlantic to Pacific. Cognates: (re: “-man”): A.-Sax. wer “man”, here “troop, army”, ONorthumbrian -are; Dan. -ere, Sw. -are, Gmn. -er, herr; OGk. ‘ερως (eros) “hero”; Scythian (5th c. BC) eor “man”; Mong. ere “man, male”, MMong. ere “army”, Dagur er “male adult, husband, true man”; Tungus ur “man, male, sire”; Manchu erke “manly”, Jurchen ere “patriarch”; Ch. err 兒 “male child, boy” (N.Bichurin, “Collection”, Vol.1, 46, Note 3). Distribution of the word is truly Eurasian, from Atlantic to Pacific. In Eng. the suffix is generally used with native Gmc. words, in Sl. languages it became -el after verbal infinitive suffix -t-: vodit (водить) “lead” > voditel (водитель) “leader”. At the Herodotus' time, Scythians called their man “er”, cited in the word Eorpata (Οιορπατα) with a part eor “man” (Herodotus IV 110), see bat. The Scythian form pata “strike” and its Sumerian precursor bir-, ber- also survived in Eng. as the words bat, beat. The Sum. form bir-/ber- is attested fr. the 3rd mill. BC. The Scythian phonetic form rendered as eor reflects the Ogur articulation yer/yir/yar with a prosthetic y-/j- in the anlaut, rather than the Oguz form er/ir/ar. The Herodotus' form eor is probably a reasonable rendition of the form wer, and the name Sax, Saxon is a reflex of the ethnonym S'k “Scyth, Sak”. See arch, bat.

2.7
-ish (adj. suffix) ~ Türkic -čа/-čä (-cha/-che) (adj. suffix). Both Türkic and English suffixes form adverbs, adjectives. Cf. Eng. small > smallish, Tr. kičig (kichig) > kichigčа, Eng. Turk > Turkish, Türkic Türk > Türkčä. Cognates: A.-Sax. (OE) -isc, ONorse -iskr, Gmn. -isch, Goth. -isks; Gk. -iskos. This suffix is absent in other “IE” languages, except the Slavic-Russian, which retained exactly both phonetic and morphologic function of the Türkic -čа/-čä: e.g. logics - logical logica - logichno (adv.) logichnyi,-en (adj.) (логика > логично, логичный, -ен). The Gk. allophonic form and function is just another Gk. adoption or retention of the Türkic linguistic elements. If not earlier, it could be spread across Gk. vernaculars by the N. Pontic half-Greek, half-Scythian speakers (Herodotus 4.108).

2.8
-like (suffix) “like” ~ Türkic -lig/-lïɣ/-laɣ (suffix) “like”. An A.-Sax. suffix -lic is an exact twin of the Türkic suffix -lig. Like the English -like (antlike, beelike, etc.) the Türkic -lig is agglutinated to the stem to express a notion of abstract similarity or possession of some property or quality of the root object: eŋ “cheek” ~ eŋlig “cheeky”; erk “power” ~ erklig “powerful”; teŋlig “measured-like (manner)”, tepizlig “marsh-like”, etc. A Türkic allophonic suffix is -laju/-läjü (phonetically -laü) “like”, e.g. adïɣlaju “bear-like”. Apparently, in -laju the auslaut consonant was truncated, replaced with a semi-consonant or a -g, typical for the western Ogur languages. The A.-Sax. reduced the wealth of the Türkic like-type forms articulated with front and rear consonants and vowels and used according to the vowel harmony rules and grammatical conventions (-liğ/-lığ/-luğ/-lüg, -lik/-lık/-luk/-lük, -leč/-la:č/-lıč) to a single form -lic, simplifying grammar, semantics, and phonetics. That simplification is typical for creoles. Eng. has about 750 compounds with a popular suffix -like. Cognates: A.-Sax. -lic, gelic “like, similar”, -lic appears about 1100 times representing about 4% of the Clark-Hall 2011, Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (about 20,000 words); OSax. gilik, OSw. gilik, Norse glikr, Du. gelijk, Gmn. gleich, Goth. galeiks “equally, like”. Cognates are built on the Türkic model with numerous synonymic expressions for the notion “like”: оsuɣluɣ “like”, ančulaju “such, resembling”, jölästürgülüg “compared, resembling”, munčulaju “such, resembling”, and more. They convey formed from disparate roots adjectival notion “like” by agglutinating allophones of the suffix -lig. The A.-Sax. and its daughter languages (OE, ME, Eng.) retained the functional suffix -lig/-like and extended its function to different grammatical functions of noun, verb, adj, and adv. Both in Türkic and Eng., a compound form serves as a noun- or verb-derived adjective. Distribution: Cognates are confined only to the Gmc. branch, no “IE” cognates whatsoever. The phonetic, semantic, syntactic, and morphologic similarity is persuasive, in contrast to artificial and superficial “IE” attempts to derive an Eng. -like from a homophonic (lic, lich) but totally unrelated “body”, “corpse”. Such intractable suppositions heighten doubts about credibility of entire “IE” paradigm. The prefix ge-/ga-, initially “with, together”, forms past participles. It is irrelevant to the suffix -like and its allophones. The ubiquitous presence of the allophonous prefix ge- in the Gmc. languages attests that these languages at one time formed their own Sprachbund with shared distinct morphological features. The element -like is a salient member of a substantial body of morphological elements constituting a massive case of paradigmatic transfer that vigorously attests to its Türkic origin. Not formally accounted against a frequency usage of the Eng. Turkisms, they still add mightily to the proportion of the Türkic inheritance in English, Cf. a respectful 4% in the A.-Sax. vocabulary, probably much less in Eng. usage frequency contribution.

2.9
omni- (prefix) “all, everywhere” ~ Türkic omqï, omqu, umax, yimaɣ (adj.) “all”, lit. “collected, gathered”. Under “IE etymology” the word is either rated “of unknown origin” or of a “perhaps” type. Ultimately a derivative of om-, yom-, um-, yum- “collect, gather” formally rated as long-dead “Proto-Türkic”, but richly furnished with presently active derivatives. The out of circulation word omqï/umqï and its allophones (yomqï/yumqï in Ogur articulation) is an archaic word recorded in the OT and early Middle Türkic periods. The omni-/omqu and total/tutuš share their fate of both being the Türkic relicts, both apparently came to Europe with the Latin migrants. During the Middle Ages, on the British Isles, they rejoined their originally Türkic A.-Sax. synonyms. On top of the somewhat murky Türkic archaic inheritance, the trace of the Lat. relict allows to gain a view of the Proto-Classic processes. Eng. has about 100 compounds with omni-. Nowadays prefix omni- is an international word. Cognates: A.-Sax. (ins)omnian “gather in”, (aets)amne (adv.) “united, together, at once”, (tos)omne, (tos)amne (adv.) “together”; Goth. (ga-)qiman “assemble, come together”; Lat. omni-, omnis “all, every, whole, every kind”, rated “of unknown origin”, but with a pedigree of the modern international word disseminated by the modern science; Gk. mazevo (μαζευω), mazi (μαζι) “gather, together”. A phonetic spread that reached a documentation stage covers both western and eastern (i.e. Türkic) spreads in the Eurasia. The A.-Sax. composite ymbcyme, ymcyme “assembly, convention” with cyme “come” reflects the Türkic om- “collect, gather”, lit. “come to gathering”. An “IE etymology” came up from an “unknown origin” to a speculation of ascending to the notion “work, produce”, based exclusively on an alleged phonetic consonance, quite a desperate proposition. In contrast, the Türkic-based etymology is supported by direct phonetic and literal semantic correspondences. All in all, English is using five of the Türkic 32 ways to say “all”. That is quite an impressive case of paradigmatic transfer. See all, entire, gamut, total.

2.10
on 1 (prep., postp., adj., Norse adv.) “on top of” (Sw N/A, F26, 0.73%) ~ Türkic ö:n, öŋ (n.) “top, front (frontal part)”. Ultimately a semantic extension of the noun ö:n “front, forepart, frontal, beginning”. A top of a well is its front, for one example. Besides “top, front”, the polysemantic öŋ carries another eight semantic branches with their own derivatives, e.g. öŋ “before, previously”, see once. A largely synonymous directional suffix -ta, -tä, -da, -dä, -δa, -δä is more concise, Cf. üstte “on top”, yerde “on the ground” (yer “ground”). With a signal economy of material, Türkic has a complementing contrasting cousin in/en (n.) “bottom, descent”, see in. Admittedly, öŋ and in/en are coevals from the same archaic period. Except for few Türkic languages, the notion “top” was largely supplanted by the words jer, orü, üst, üzä, and forms with directional suffix -ta/-da, Cf. Türkic onda “there, then”, tepede “on the top” (töpü “top”), Cf. Eng. onto “to on, on top of”. The ö:n/öŋ lives on in derivatives, Cf. öndün “ahead, in front, forward, advanced”. In Eng., the fuzzy and fuzzily differentiated A.-Sax. on “on, at, in, to, for” was widely supplemented by a cousin “in”. Like with in/en, the Eng. on is a universal preposition, postposition, adverb, and adjective, with a wide spectrum of semantic meanings: about, along, during, in, upon, with, active, etc., something activated or coming along. In some applications, a blurry semantics of both on and in overlaps, confusing a grammarian and a homegrown expert. The process of speciation continued well into the 2nd mill. AD. The A.-Sax. on carries on the semantics of the Türkic ö:n “top, front, beginning”. Semantic and grammatic haziness are symptomatic for the entire Gmc. group. Out of 44 European languages, an -n- form predominates in Vn, nV, and Vm- forms (n ↔ m) with 21 (48%) languages, approaching a level of the European 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. The remaining 23 languages largely use their own forms. Cognates: A.-Sax. aen, an, on (prep.) “on, upon, during, at, about, against, towards, according to”, (adv.) “forward, onward, continuously”, (prefix) aen(laenan), on(laenan) “lend, grant”, onbaec “backwards, back”, Du. aan, Gmn. an, Goth. ana “on, upon”; Lat. an-; Gk. ana (ανα) “on, top”, ano (ανω “up, top”); Av. ana “on”; OCS na “on, upon”, nai- (prefix) “top”; Mong. ӧnge “frontal part”, ӧmïne, emüne “front (frontal part)”. Distribution: Allophones of the forms on and pa (Sum. ba “in”) predominate across Eurasia. Spread of the ba- is peculiar: Dan., Sw. pa, Fris. op, Fin. päälle, Hu. tovabb, Rum. pe. The Türkic form ö:n “top” has survived in the Uigur and Uzbek languages of the Karluk group. There is no sensible “IE” explanation for the origin of on. The ideas of the faux mechanical constructs like “PIE proto-root” *hen- and/or “PG” *ana “on” are dubious, not needed in light of the attested Türkic originals. These “IE” fabrications need to be rescinded for a sake of scientific credibility. That leaves no “IE” etymology, grammarians and curtailed-purview etymologists act as confused observers. A similar “IE” etymological cacophony surrounds the origin of in (prep.). The directional on, in, and at are notoriously confused in daily life, vernacularly adding to a semantic spectrum. A direct comparison of cognates is etymologically muddled, similar phonetic forms are semantically conflated, and any type of movement in any direction is thrown into a same phonetic pile with little attention to a key message. The Türkic etymology offers semantic explanation for both on (prep.) and in (prep.), with further extensions to adv.s and adj.s. These prepositions have clear and discrete semantic meanings, aiming to a higher state vs. a lower/inside state. An absence of the Celtic cognates and the Gmc. convergence of the European cognates attest to either an absence of the word at the time of the Celtic departure from the N. Pontic ca 5000- 4000 BC, a dubious premise, or an dialectal -r/-n alternation. A presence of the word in the Av. attests to its European presence at the time of the Indo-Aryan departure ca 2000 BC. That points to the Corded Ware hub as a source of the European and South-Central Asian internalization. A healthy half-dozen of the Eng. directional prepositions irrefutably draw their origin from a Türkic milieu. The Türkic origin is the only realistic outcome. See and, at, be, in, on 2, till (prep.), to.

2.11
-s/-es (pl. suffix) ~ Türkic -s, -z, Chuv. -sem (pl. suffix). Ultimately an archaic dual marker that survived to generic plural. Shared by Mong., Tung., Eng., and Türkic; other users are omitted. Both Türkic and Eng. suffixes denote plurality of objects or subjects and mark possessive case, see “-'s possessive”. The archaic suffix is now is present only in some Türkic words, like biz “we” vs. ič “I”, ulus “people”, qos, qös “pair” and is most actively coupled with other suffixes or particles: -ŋïz/-ïŋïz, -dïmïz/-tïmïz, -mas/-mäs/-maz (-ma “negation” + -s/-z pl.), etc., Cf. örmaz lit. “grow not they”, i.e. “they do not grow”, Cf. Fr. pas “not, negation” ~ -mas/-maz. Other archaic Türkic plural markers are -t/-ty, and -an (-lan) denoting collectivity: bajaɣut “affluents”, oglan “boys” Cf. cognate clan. A marker -an, -en is a Türkic and European staple, defined in Eng. as “weak” nouns (i.e. regularly inflected) category because they used the -an suffix. Cognates: A.-Sax. dæg “day" > dagas “days”, us “us”, maennes “community”, asegendnes “offering”; Du. -s plurals, Scandinavian -r plurals (rhotacism): Sw. dagar “days”, Gmc. us, OSax., OFris. us, ONorse, Sw. oss, Gmn. uns “us”, Goth. harjos “armies”; Sl. nas “us”; Lat. aves “birds”, collatus “gather together”, montes “mountains”, nos “we, us”, omnis “all, every”, testes “testicles”; Skt. imas “we go”; Mong. bide “we” (bi- “1st pers. sing.” + pl. suffix, z/d alternation), ayas “sounds”, zalgas “false braid”; Tung. bu “we”, Manchu biz “we” (= Tr. biz “we”), Evenk., Even., Solon., Negid. etc. bu “we”; Kor. uri (< buri) “us, our”; Sum. ez “us”, šeš “siblings” (pl. daughters?) ~ Etruscan sech “daughter” ~ Hu. süz “virgin” (= Tr. kïz “girl”). Distribution: from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic borders. Under an “IE” paradigm, the Gmc. –s/-r declension is a peculiarity traceable to a presumed PIE inflection system. That is a pure nonsense given the Eurasiatic spread reaching from Atlantic to Pacific, vs. a sporadic nature among the “IE” members. In Türkic, rhotacism is connected with the Ogur (Western) languages: Scythian, Sarmatian, Hunnic, Bulgar, Tatar, Halaj/Alat, etc., albeit the nomadic east-west concepts are very fluid. The A.-Sax. plural suffixes -u and -an are not active any more, victims of continued creolization. The process is not over yet, the plural marker -s has been extended to singulars in the old collective sense formerly modified with the suffix -an: babes, sweets. Both Türkic and Eng. did not use plural markers if plurality was conveyed by other means: 3 sheep, 6 o'clock, 2-pound note, 7-year period. The continued creolization tends to add plural marker -s to these plurals: 3 sheeps, 6 o'clocks, 2-pounds note, 7-years period. See -an, -'s “possessive”.

2.12
-'s “possessive case suffix” ~ Türkic -si, -sï “possessive case suffix”. Türkic possessive suffixes tally 18 clusters containing about 72 forms; the -si is one of that crowd, or 1/72th of the total possessive phonetic wealth in a single morphological category. Of that wealth, Eng. internalized a miniscule 2 (two) markers, -s and -n (in “mine”). Türkic examples are ma:masi, mamüsi, annesi “mother's”; atası, dedäsı, babası “father's” vs. Eng. “mother's, pop's, his, hers, theirs” etc. The poss. -s was adopted as a Pan-European trend across brunch and linguistic barriers. Of 44 European languages, it is used by 29 (69%) languages. The remaining 15 (31%) languages use versions of their own 10 forms; some of them may use alternate Türkic poss. markers, poss. -s/-z in their compounds, or a truncated form -i. Cognates: A.-Sax. –es: fæder (sg.), fæderes (gen. sg.) “father’s”, windel (sg.) ~ windles (gen. sg.) “basket’s”; nations of 29 European countries; Uig. tašı, Salar. (China's Qinghai, Gansu) tası “its outer side (of a wall)” (~ Tr. taš “wall”). Distribution: from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic borders. A codified suffix -'s is a contraction of A.-Sax. -es < Tr. –si, the apostrophe “’” is a conventional scribal for -e- unrelated to the verbal form. Other relevant A.-Sax. suffixes -e, -re, -an (gen.), -a, -ra, -na (pl.) etc. have vanished. It is peculiar that the -'s/-es /-si have survived while the others have vanished. A similarly notated possessive marker may have been used by prior populations. See -s/-es (suffix pl.)

2.13
to (prep.) “verbal marker of infinitive case” (Sw N/A, F3, 3.12%) ~ Türkic te-, ti-, de-, di- (v.) “say” (plus 9+ other forms). The verb numbers 12 semantic clusters and ca. 40 meanings. The subject's ultimate verbal semantics comes fr. clusters of intentions and desires, the clusters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 (EDTL v. 3 221): a verb expressing intention. The verb is a grammatical function verb and auxiliary verb of action, functionally eidetic to the Eng. infinitive case pair to and do. Peculiarly, the semantics of “tell” and “say”, unique to the Türkic languages, in English is the same but inverted: a Türkic te- “tell” is Eng. “say”, and a Türkic söy- “say” is Eng. “tell”, see tell, say. That inversion has a tracing potential: Eng. neighboring populations have their own developmental traces. A sibling of te- is a verb tur-/dur-, Chuv. tu- (v., truncated form), “do, act”. Among other derivative notions, a polysemantic CT verb tur-, dur- conveys notions of “intent or readiness to act, duration or permanence of actions”. It is also a grammatical function verb and auxiliary verb of action, eidetic to the Eng. pair to (infinitive case) and do. Since all relevant forms mirror each other phonetically and semantically, they likely share a common primeval root or were conflated. An archaic grammar is peculiar in that a predicate, depending on the meaning, takes a form of a desirable, imperative, or a conditional mood (EDTL v.s.). That peculiarity waned in later Türkic and was not picked up in European creolizations. Cognates:to, till “in direction, for purpose of, furthermore”, OSax., OFris to, NFris. to, tö, tu, WFris. ta, Saterland Fris. tou, Dan. at, Du. te, toe, Norse a, Sw. att, OHG zuo, Gmn. zu “to”, Goth. till; OIr., Ir. do “to, for”, Scots tae, Welsh i “to, for”, Breton da “to, for”; OCS do “as far as, to”, Sl. do (до) “until”; Lat. donec “as long as”; Gk. -de (suff.) “to, toward”; Lith. da- (demonstr.) (“?”); Alb. ndaj “towards”; presumably all “to” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: from Atlantic up to Far East, across linguistic borders. Peculiar to a European NW patch. Etymological citations are heavy on Uigur sources. They do not include any references to Mong. and the balance of the Far Eastern languages. An “IE etymology” is hopelessly botched. It asserts that an attested A.-Sax. inflection of the verb to, till was a complete nonsense without any meaning. There is no clue on flexible predicate. It ignores knowledge of a former conjugation. It ignores the evidence of a Goth. form till “now, hitherto” and A.-Sax. till. It invents a form and substance of an “ancestral” faux “demonstrative *de-”, invents a faux “PG proto-word” *to, *ta “to”, and invents a faux “PIE pronominal base” *do- “to, toward, upward” and a “PIE pronominal base” *de, *do “to”. The “to” is not a claimed doublet of “too” ~ “also” either. The analysis is a disaster. Such consistent botch of etymology is worthy of a record in the “IE” etymological annals. Essentially, to is an allophonic form of the verb do to express intention. A compound form to do is tautologic, repeating the verb do twice, in different phonetic forms. The stem tö-, tü- serves in numerous Türkic derivatives expressing semantics of “make, made”: tükät “completeness, completion of action”, törü- “happen to occur, emerge, be born, appear, give birth”, törüt “create”, törči “happen, occur, undertake, initiate”. The törči also serves as auxiliary verb exactly like the English do, with a similar complement of functions: “make, engage, carry out, carry on, get done, proceed, cause to happen, engage in, comport, execute, finish, complete action” with idioms and nuances. In the compound to do the part do “do, act” originated within the western Türkic Sprachbund vernaculars as an allophone of the verb tö-/tü-, ascending at least to the 1st millennium BC, while the part to “do, act” was a later accommodation to the typology of the “IE” languages, replacing agglutinated verbal suffixes that made clear the verbal use of the stem: to act, to pack, and the like, versus nominal use of act, pack, and the like, lit. do act, do pack. In its syntactic function, to parallels the function of the noun articles, it is a determiner that indicates the functional specificity of reference. The “IE” etymology conflated the directional particle to “in, into, towards” with the verbal determinant to, assuming that in spite of drastically different function a phonetic likeness constitutes a common origin. That speculation on Eng. peculiar independent semantic shift conflicts with the presence of cognates in other Gmc. languages. Instead of recycling a functionally misleading directional marker to to denote a verbal function, English seamlessly adopted as a verbal marker a verb to meaning “do”. Chuv. is held as a language of the Ogur Hunnic circle, that allows to time the introduction of the alternate form tu- for the verb do to the 4th c. AD or Sarmat expansion in the 2nd c. BC. The frequency value is somewhat exaggerated because the source listing does not discriminate homophonic adj.s and ratios, but impacts of those contaminants are negligible. See and, at, be, do, make, in, on 1, on 2, till (prep.).

2.14
un- (prefix) “negation” ~ Türkic -an (аŋ, ang) (suffix) “negation” (MK I 40). With the ancient English language speakers switching to a creole morphology of the new language(s), the old negation suffix moved to become a prefix, and the original negation suffix -an (аŋ, ang) had vanished as a suffix. The set of negations an and ma (the Fr. negation pas /pa/ in ne... pas may be an emphatic tautological allophone of ma) appears to have a “Nostratic” primordial pedigree. They appear as prefixes and suffixes depending on the typology of the languages, and include uncounted allophones and transpositions. See me, my, no.

3. Verbs (226)

3.1
access (v., n.) “entry, opening” ~ Türkic ačsa:- (achsa:-, v., desiderative), ačıš- (achısh-, v., co-operative) “open”. Ultimately a derivative fr. a verb ač- (ach-) “open”. The notion “open” forms a first semantic cluster out of a total 16 clusters. Its elucidation lists 39 meanings, from “open” to “sharpen a pencil”. The other 15 collateral clusters are more modest, from 3-4 to a single meaning, spread across dozens of Türkic languages. Among those are notion #5 “conquer, capture” and #10 “start (war, process, discussion)” reflected in a Fr. semantics (EDTL v.1 209). The convergence of the Lat., Fr., and Eng. versions in distinct semantic and phonetic aspects points to a single Türkic origin. Eng., like Türkic, has numerous semantic meanings, few literal and many metaphorical, at times unexpected (e.g. open door and open season, open sky, gift “open the door with a gift”, open mind “non-prejudiced”, open-ended “changeable”, etc.). A transition fr. ač- to ac- (ak-) is regular, the -c- indiscriminately stands both for -k- and -ch- (e.g. tacan (tachan) ~ teach). Cognates: A.-Sax. none; OFr. acces “onslaught, attack; onset”, Lat. accessus (early 14th century) “entrance, coming to, approach”; Finno-Ugrian az “opening, hole, pit”, Vogul as “hole, pit”; Mong. asa “split”, Kalmuk ats “split point between brunches”, Kaz. aza ditto; Manchu asa “join, converge”, asap “conjoining (joining, conversion point of mountain ranges)”. Distribution is not limited to a spec of W. Europe, it extends from Atlantic to Pacific, way beyond a myopic sight. It crosses linguistic barriers, including those with the European Romance branch. On semantic side, “IE” cognates demonstrate a disconnect that can be only explained via a source that carries both an “entry, opening” and an “attack”, a scenario that ascends to the Türkic verbal stem ač- (ach-) “open”. On phonetic side, the “IE etymology” fictionalized a Lat. compound ad- “to” + cedere “go, move” with a transformation from ad- to ac- (ak-) and “open, entrance” to “move”. It conflated that with the Fr. separate semantic “onslaught” distinct from the Eng. concise “entry, opening”. That is a typical etymological technique of creating brand new “IE proto-words” on a fly. Unwittingly, that machination leads directly to the Türkic ač- that statically makes impossible an existence of an analogous word in any other earthly language. It has to be either a loanword or an imposter. The “IE” claim of an open road to nowhere prevents a promising ethnolinguistic research of the available material, like an association of certain semantic clusters with certain languages. That, in turn, is a potent diagnostic tool to trace the origins of the English language and contributing routs, a sole task of the etymology.

3.2
act (v., n.) “doing or done” (Sw N/A, F735, 0.03%) ~ Türkic aqtar- (v., causative) “raid, dunk, plunge”, akıt- “raid”. Ultimately fr. the verb aq-, ak- with a prime notion “(river) flow, stream, jet”, aqtar- < aq- + -t- (deverbal noun) + -ar (conjugational suff.). An initial origin from “(water) movement” and “cattle rolling over” appear to be sound interpretations: cattle rolling likened to agitated water. Like the Eng. “flow”, the aq-/aq (Cf. aqua, aquarium) comes grammatically in noun-verbal homomorphic pairs, attesting to its most archaic pedigree. It has a fistful of secondary notions (“liquefy, pour, bleed”), a few direct and a wealth of metaphoric derivatives. One of those is verbal “attack, assault, raid” (fr. prime “carried, float” of the notion “move, stream”). Even for the same word, Türkic has numerous phonetic and rendering variations, ağtar-, axtar-, aktar-, akdar-, agdar-, agnar-, agar-, ağna:- etc. The generic verbal “act” is synonymous with “do this, do that” expressed (or translated as) in vast array of conc. acts: “knock down, bring down, overturn, overthrow, defeat, beat, smash, pound, drag, rip off, destroy, crush, nock to the ground, push over, turn over, throw to the ground, bring down”, etc. On the surface, without minute analysis, numerous derivatives of aq-/aq appear to be homophones unrelated to each other. It is as much a notion as a verb. Some, incongruent semantically, are held as true homophones, e.g. “white”, “net”, “elder, aged”, “rake (glance)”, aktarma “contraband”, etc. It has numerous concrete extended meanings “examine”, “search”, “translate”, some quite loaded, like “sudden raid at night”, fairly in line with the spectrum of Eng. 200+ applicable meanings. The inlaut alternation -ğ-/-k-/-q-/-x- allows semantic shifts and breeds dialectal diversity. The loss of the final element -er shows that the internalized root was perceived as aqt. In English, a derivative -act grew into a powerful suffix: contract, impact, react, transact, etc., with a slew of their verbal and object derivatives. In one or another form, the word gained universal acceptance in most languages of the modern world. Cognates: A.-Sax. agan, aegan, agangan “go, go by, pass”, ONorse aka “to drive”; OIr. aigid “act”, MIr. ag “battle” (Türkic “raid, attack”); Lat. ago “put in motion”, OFr. acte “document”, etc., certainly of derivational origin; Greek ago (αγω) “I lead”; Skt. ajati “drives”, ajirah “moving, active”; no references to Far Eastern languages. Distribution is like needles in a haystack: too many meanings, too many possible languages. An “IE etymology” stops at Lat: Lat. actus “a doing, a driving, impulse”, pp. of agere. Its circular logics and an unattested faux PIE stem *ag- are mechanically deduced from various derivatives in a myopic range of Lat., Gk., and Skt. The Skt. examples mingle roots and suffixes, Cf. -ti, Türkic 3rd pers. suffix; the root is aja/aji. The Lat. act- likely appeared as a reflection of the semantics “move”or “raid”, an echo of the Ir. “battle”. The Celtic R1b Y-DNA haplogroup circum-Mediterranean migration of the 6th-5th mill. BC. brought them to Iberia in the 3rd mill. BC, ca. 1.5 mill. earlier than the anachronic Lat. migration to the Apennines, and of the Skt. migration to the SC Asia.

3.3
aggrieve (v.) “feel bad”, aggravate (v.) “make worse” (v.) ~ Türkic aɣrï-, aɣïr-, aɣru- (v.) “feel bad, be sick, make sick”, “grow heavy, become a burden”. Ultimately a derivative of a verb a:ŋ- “lean to one side, outweigh (on one side), hang down”. Grammatically aɣrï-/aɣrï is a noun-verbal homomorphic pair, attesting to its primeval origin unrelated to the consonant gür (n.) “grave”, see grave. The Türkic stem is most productive, applied with anything unpleasant, and in that respect closely parallels the English “sick” and “grieve, onerous” respectively. The Türkic linguistic nest has aɣï “poison”, aɣïmaqlïɣ “painful” aɣrïɣ “pain, sickness”, aɣrïɣlïɣ “sick, painful, suffering from disease”, aɣrïɣučï “suffering person”, aɣrïmaqlïɣ “painful”, aɣrïn “suffer pain”, aɣruq “load, weight”, “seriously ill”, and so on. In the A.-Sax., with an initial vowel, it wielded a notion of beginning or transition form a lighter to a heavier state, interpreting an anlaut a- as an unemphatic verbal prefix marking a verb a single momentary event, Cf. A.-Sax. abakan “bake”, aberan “bear”. With aphesis of the unaccented first vowel, the root ɣrï-/ɣru- produced a bifurcated host of grievous derivatives in the European languages: grave (adj.), grief (~aggrieve), grim, grimace, grime, gravity, gravitate, gravel, and all their derivatives with semantic meaning of “(pain, trouble, heavy) burden”. Cognates: A.-Sax. egile, egle “grievous, painful”, ONorse uggr “dread”, Goth. aggwifa “anguish, distress”, aglus “hard, difficult”, Gmn. verärgert lit. “real grief”; Lat. aggravatus, aggravare “make worse”; Sl. gore (горе) “anguish”; Mong. aɣur “anger, wrath”, ula-, uyila- (< uɣila-) “cry”; Manchu uktu “crying, 'sobbing, wailing, sorrow, mourning” (< Mong.). Distribution is ubiquitous across NE Eurasia, spotty and vague in Europe. In Europe a bulk of cognates are Gmc., pointing to two independent etymological paths, one via Gk.-Lat., and one Gmc. The latest derivatives, like a modern noun “gravity”, echo the proto-root of “pain, burden, weight”. The “IE etymology” misrepresents a huge raster of the derivatives with a faux “PIE reconstruction”, a Lat. “from ad “to” + gravare “weigh down” < gravis “heavy” < a faux “PIE proto-root” “heavy” *gwere-”. The ersatz *gwere- is an overture on the Türkic attested aɣïr “heavy, weighty”, a very close cousin of the word aɣrï- “grow heavy, become a burden”. The scam has no place in a fair analysis. It can't cite any cognates outside of the “IE” claim. See grave.

3.4
aim (v.) “direct, target”, (n.) “target” ~ Türkic amač (n.) “aim, target”. An “IE etymology” does not have a clue, it suggests a range of late European pseudo-homophones for a word that existed from at least the primordial days of spears, arrows, and blow tubes, for some 40 millenniums. The “IE etymology” prefers to boil in its own juice. The word amač is formed with a noun am and a diminutive denoun noun suffix -ač/-äč/-uč/-üč, lit. “small pussy”, not an unexpected title for the exercise. Eng. internalization of the ürkic word stripped it of suffixes: amačla “to target, aim” > aim, amačliq “target range” > aim, etc.). Türkic synonyms for “shooting target” are a:ra, baj, bajge (Cf. “badge”), belek, belgı, da:ra-, qabaq (from pumpkin), qaravul, u:č, u:r- and probably more. Cognates: Osset. mil “aim, target”; Pers. aim “purpose, resolution, undertaking” (< Ar. < Tr.). None is IE. A native A.-Sax. word was targa, targe, a term for a small shield used for practice. Not supplanted by aim, it survived to the present. The suggested “IE” cognates are phonetically dubious and semantically unrelated: “estimate”, “value, rate, count”, “plow”, etc. “IE” suggestions reek of desperation. They conflict with simple and vitally important training requirements of many millenniums. The absence of the “IE” cognates indicates direct continuity between the Türkic and English. That is corroborated by the timing: 15th c. AD, the time of apogee of Turkish expansion in Europe. That suggests that the OFr. word came fr. the military lingo of the European Türkic tribes, while the Pers. word hadaf for “aim, target” came from the Mesopotamian Semitic sources. The suggested Pers. word for “plow” as a loanword for the Eng. “aim” does not make any sense: the nomadic pastoralists and hunters had to aim millenniums before the Persian appearance on the scene. The winded wordy rationalization used to cross from the “plow” to “aim” shows a futile linguistic exercise based on some homophony. The phonetics is direct, and semantics is perfect. The Türkic source is likely a metaphoric use of the noun am “vulva, pudenda muliebria”, quite appropriate for its time, for predominantly male participation, and for non-offensive nature of the word in the world where sexual reproduction of the herds was a daily affair guided and assisted by people.

3.5
ambush (v., n.) “ambush, hide, lurk” ~ Türkic bus, busuɣ, pus, pusuɣ (n.) “ambush”, buš-/bus-/baš-/bas-, puš-/pus-/paš-/pas- (v.) “push, wound”. A base meaning of the verb bus-/pus- is “ambush”, of the verb buš-/puš- is “push, press”; a semantic and phonetic overlap suggests either conflation or relation. It has innumerable derivatives, of which a “sudden attack” is one of many. In Türkic warfare it was a cardinal term for a tactics that over millenniums overpowered nearly all lands from Pacific to Atlantic. Invariably, it was attested for the armies from the Scythians to the late Türks. The form rooted in bos- dominates in Europe: of 44 European languages a motley group of 17 (39%) languages use that form; 14 (32%) languages use Sl. native Old Europe forms with a prefix za- (за-) “beyond-”; 3 (7%) Gmc. languages use a prefix “hinder-”. The remaining 10 (23%) languages use 9 of their own native forms. Cognates: A.-Sax. basnian “await, expect”, Dan. baghold “ambush” (s/k alternation), Sw. bakhall (s/k alternation), Norw. bakhold “ambush” (s/k alternation), +14 others; Serb. busija “ambush”; Lith. pasala, Latv. pasleptuve; OFr. embuscher “ambush, hide in ambush”; an unrelated example is Sl. (Bolg.) zasada (засада) +13 others.The late Fr. word is apparently an accommodation of a Burgund form with then a Fr. prefix em-; an original busher with a directional suffix -er/-r conveys a notion of “into an attack”. The Eng. form conflated with the Fr. form and replaced the A.-Sax. native noun basnian “wait (in ambush)” and its verb of the same root. The Eng. and Fr. words came via separate paths fr. divergent vernaculars, attested by an absence of a prefix in the A.-Sax. and phonetic differences of the same root, the bush- vs. bas-. An “IE etymology” is misleading and plain silly, a bus “ambush” is not the same as a bush “woody plant”. The “IE etymology's” VLat. boscus “wood”, Frankish “Proto-word” *busk “bush”, “PG Proto-word” *buskaz “bush, heavy stick” are a self-deprecating nonsense. It fails to connect the dots, ignores or pretends not to know a millenniums older native basnian “in wait”, and suggests a juicy Fr. version of some act “in the bushes”. A primitive interpretation excludes real scenarios: from a hill, in a mountain pass, from behind, etc. See push.

3.6
are (v.) present pl. indicative of be “to be” (Sw N/A, F36, 1.20%) ~ Türkic er- (v.) “be, am, are, is, exist”. According to a standing “IE” etymology, the are supposedly has no “IE” cognates whatsoever, but cf. Sp. yo era, tú eres, eras, él/ella/Ud. era, nosotros éramos, vosotros erais, ellos, ellas, Uds. eran. The Türkic verb is conjunctional, noted as accompanied by a predicate; it cannot be used by itself to mean “to exist”, but is often used as an auxiliary verb of other verbs (Clauson EDT 193), and as a deverbal and denominal suffix -ar/-er (with phonetic variations) for “be, to be”, forming nouns and adjectives of the type eye + be > “ocular, visible” (körünü:r, fr. kör (n.) “eye”), see + be > “ocular, visible” (okunur, fr. oki:- (v.) “see”), see eye. In Türkic, the suffix forms -ar-, -är-, -ur-, -ür-, -ir-, -ïr- produce derivatives of the type X-be, still preserved in English as “that be” (e.g. “powers that be”), “we be”, “us be”, “blessed be”, “boys be”, and the like, see be. That echoes the Türkic applications: tutar “caught be/be caught” < fr. tut- “catch”, kelir “come be/bring/convey” ~ came < fr. kel- “to come”, ketär “depart be/take away” ~ remove < fr. ket- “leave, depart”, etc. For a word “with no “IE” cognates”, are/er- and its siblings take an exceptionally prominent place in Europe. Of 44 European languages, 24 (55%) use forms related to er- directly or via an r/s alternation, matching a level of a 50.6% hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. A runner-up descendent of the Türkic bol, buol “be” is used by 8 (18%) European languages, see be. A degree of etymological disinformation is splendid. The remaining 12 (27%) languages use their own native forms. Cognates: A.-Sax. ear(un) (the form ear- (ər-) may reflect dialectal variation of the vowel), ar(on), Mercian ear(un), Northumbrian ar(on), Norse, Norw., Dan. er-, Sw. är, Icl. ertu, er(um) (but Lux. bass (< bol, buol); Welsh 1 ry(dym) (but Ir. bhfuil (< bol, buol), Scots bheil (< bol, buol), Welsh 2 wyt (< bol, buol); Lith. ar; Tr. er(tim) (but Tatar sez); a separate significant motley fraction underwent an r/s alternation: Lat. sumus, It. sei, Fr. es, Sp., Cat., Galician estas, Port. esta, Rum. esti, Gk. eisai, Maced., Bosn., Serb., Slov., Sloven. si, Bolg. ci (si), Czech jsi, Croat. jesi, Pol. jestes, Corsican si; Latv. esi, Alb. je, Tatar sez (сез); all er-/es- “are” excepts as noted otherwise. Some forms elide a phoneme or add prosthetic phonemes but all are consistent with the forms of their neighbors. Distribution: ubiquitous across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. Distribution of the verb are is peculiar, the Lat. form corroborates the pra-Celtic influence on the pra-Italics, the northern European cognates and the Türkic cognates are consistent with the spread of the Kurgan's R1a/b haplogroup. The spread of the bifurcated “be” leg is incompatibly more directional and focused than the dispersed spread of the “man” leg, and all seeded languages are adjacent to the Eurasian Steppe belt. There is a striking dissonance between a myopic “IE” preachment and reality. Genetic connections between all examples are indisputable. The Türkic concrete er- “be” and generic bol, buol “be” express a same basic notion “exist” in a range of overlapping functions, hence an overlap in specific applications. The Celtic forms attest a direct inheritance of both forms, further supported by a use of a Türkic 1st pers. marker -m encountered in the Celtic word, see me. The Lat. suffixes also mimic a Türkic suffix -ar: -eram (with suffix -m), -ero. European (and Türkic) languages have three main stems for “be”, er-, es-, (b)ol-:, and be-: Balto-Sl. (Latv.) esam (with suffix -m), (Lith.) esame (with suffix -m), (Sl.) est (есть); Est. oleme (with suffix -m), Fin. olemme (with suffix -m). The Uralic forms acquired versions visibly ascending to the Türkic er-; Gmn. bist, Fris. binne, Az., Turk., Kaz. biz, Mong. bid, these forms ascend to the Türkic bol- (v.) “be”, q.v. The origin of “are” is supposed to be a puzzle, a screaming enigma in the “IE” paradigm. It does not fit any scholastic “IE” schemes. It is an irregular, demonstratively non-IE verb with all verbose conjectures befitting a great scientific conundrum. The origin, however, lays on the surface: a Türkic form of the verb “to be” or a matching agglutinative suffix that produced derivatives expressing an existence (being, presence, fact) of a property, action, or a trait. In flexive milieu it is used either as a stand-alone application or in a form of agglutinated suffix. The origin reliably points to a substrate language with an incompatible grammatical structure. Apparently, in A.-Sax. be and are were used interchangeably, depending on the analytical semantics of general vs. singular. Both Türkic and English have salient identical bifurcated semantics of the stem ar/är (ər)/er. In Türkic it stands for “be” and “man”, in English it stands for “be” and “man” in the form of instrumental suffix (teacher, dealer, etc.). A transfer of bifurcated semantics is a case of paradigmatic transfer indelibly attesting to a common genetic origin. See be, -er, make, me.

3.7
argue (v.) “quarrel”, “proving or refuting” ~ Türkic arqu-, arqula-, arɣula- (v.) “discord, disagreement, strife”. Ultimately fr. a polysemantic verb ar- “separate, part” for a piece that bridges two parts, a:ra (n.) “middle, center”, its deverbal noun derivative arqu: “ravine (valley)”, and finally its denoun verbal derivative arqula- “sow discord”, lit. “cause ravine” between two sides. A semantics of the root ar- is “in between”, like an arch connecting two sides, with bifurcating “intermediary” for positive and negative derivative notions; in this specific case a rather negative connection. A suffix -la forms a denoun instrumental verb. The verb ar- has a version az-/as- of the r/s rhotacism, attesting to a deep age of the stem. It also has forms with prosthetic anlaut consonant: ha:r-, ha:y-, xa:r-, and anlaut vowel versions u-/ï-. Where the EDT sees mostly a positive, like a “messenger”, the OTD notes a homophonic negative. By now “argue” is an international word via a scholarly argument. Cognates: A.-Sax. arteflan “separate, divide” < arqu-, OFr. arguer “maintain an opinion or view, harry, reproach, accuse, blame”; Lat. argutare “blabber” (negative), arguere “make clear, make known, prove, declare, demonstrate” (positive); Hu. ervel “argue”; Mong. aračila “plead for somebody”, marga(dar) “argue”, arga “method, means, way out, trick, cunning, intrigues”; Tungus-Manchu arga (< Mong.) “possibility”, (Evenk.) arga “faith”, (Even.) arga “method, way”, (Sol.) agga (< arga-), (Oroch.) arga(n-) “cunning, deception”, (Orok.) arɣa “cunning, deceit, trick, means, method, plan, calculation”, (Manchu) “method, means”; Kor. phariha “emaciated, gaunt”; Hittite arkuuae- “plead”; Finno-Ugrian languages also have correspondences with the stem ar- (Nemeth, 1928). Distribution: ubiquitous across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers, a feat patently unreachable by the Lat. The word probably gained universal distribution via a trade chain, likely along with a spread of metals as objects of trade. It pointedly did not reach a W. Europe at that time, leaving the Old Europe Sl. and its environs blank till an arrival of the enlightened Lat. migrants. A Central Asian origin of the word is most palpable; the word illustrate a linguistic development where new concepts are developed from existing material: a physical “ravine” grows into an intangible “discord”. No “IE” etymology, the suggested faux “PIE proto-words” *argu-yo-, *arg- “shine; white” are semantically unrelated and unsustainable. Myopic perspective and whimsical treatment of historical events reduce science to a level of ignorant propaganda and scientists to politicians. The Mong. form marga(dar) has a prosthetic anlaut m-. The significance of the Kor. form is that it is an alternate meaning of the same verbal stem ar- in Kor. articulation. Hittite is far older than the Lat. and is not related to it. The Türkic etymology reaches down to the prime stem, it is semantically and phonetically perfect, and is corroborated by correct morphological elements, suffixes -qu and -la. See arch.

3.8
assign (v.) “allot, arrogate, ascribe, delegate, portion” ~ Türkic asïɣ (n.) “benefit, interest (on a loan), gain, profit, advantage”. Ultimately a deverbal noun derivative fr. a root as- “hang”, its semantic extension “stick, stuck”, and its verbal form asït- “profit”. The Türkic notion is a “benefit” in a form of interest, gain, profit, or not necessarily material advantage (like advantage of knowledge). The European core notion is “assignment of benefit” in the same forms (interest, gain, profit). Usually, but not necessarily, it is in a form of a legal document, best exemplified by the term assignation “grant a right (for benefit)”, related to a transfer of property or a paper obligation to receive principal and/or interest. A shift from a nominal to verbal predicate could be a western innovation, the eastern records cite only a noun form. Cognates: A.-Sax. asegendnes “offering”, est “bounty”, OFr. assiginer (v.) “assign, appoint, allot”, Lat. assignare (v.) “assign, allot, award”; Welsh aseinio “assign”; Fin. ase “get stuck”; Mong. asa “stuck, adhere”; Manchu hasi “hang” (~ weighing?), a precursor of “stuck” a precursor of “gain”. Distribution: from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. A myopic “IE etymology” offers a phonetically dubious Lat. compound of ad- + signare (signum “mark, sign” > adsignare > assign). The “IE etymology” imply that Siberian tribes had adopted a Lat. compound invention unknown to nearly all “IE” languages. The chances that precisely the same very specialized trade word would arise independently in two sources are nil because the semantic field width is extremely narrow (“getting a benefit”). A complimentary term “allot” also has a Türkic match: Tr. atamak, Azeri etmək. The base forms assignation, assignatio and assignacion demonstrate a fully articulated -g (-ɣ/-ğ in Türkic case). A.-Sax. internalized a fossilized third-generation derivative in its trade semantics. Apparently Eng. received that Turkism via French independently of its inherited A.-Sax. cognate. The Türkic etymology has an advantage of being direct, simple, and eidetic phonetically without a need for phonetic transformations. Türkic semantics and phonetics are perfect. See attach, assessment.

3.9
attach (v.) “bind” ~ Türkic atka:-, atqï-, atkan- (v.) “attach, stick, cling, jump”. A deverbal noun derivative is atka:ğ (n.) “barb, burr”. The verb bears 3 semantic clusters: gush, rush (cling, bind), and rise up. An ultimate origin is fr. at “horse” in adjectival form with a frequentive suffix -ka, lit. “(stuck) to horse” or “jumps like a horse”, etc. Any agglutinative language naturally forms derivatives of “horse” (here, at) semantically related to grass, burr, and the like (Cf. Sl. generic loshadinyi (лошадиный) “horse's” with a Türkic suffix -in/-an “of the horse”). A connection is to burred grass seeds atka:ğ that cling and hurt herds. Cognates: A.-Sax. aetcilfian, aetcilfian “adhere”, aeteaca “appendix”, aetfele “adhesion” (loyally ascending to at “horse”), OFr. atachier (11c.), It. attaccare; etymological sources do not cite cognates outside a Türkic milieu. No “IE” connection whatsoever, no trace in the “IE” branches. A suggested “PG proto-word”, a Frankish *stakon “post, stake”, is beyond absurd; cited “IE doublets” “attack, stake, stack” belong to the same absurd bag. A.-Sax. had an impressive trail of derivatives, attesting to a long history of internalization within the A.-Sax. milieu. Some of these words are compounds of two Türkic words: aetfeolan “stick, adhere, continue” < atka:- “attach” + bilin- “feel, like” > “sticky, gluey” (see feel), aetfele, aetfeolan “adhesion, adhere” (with semantic extensions “continue, practice”). Others are a blend of the Türkic atka:- and a European word: aetgaedre “united, together”, aethabban “retain”, etc. A palatalization -k- > -ch- is a Sprachbund trait of the languages in the western steppe zone. The form aetheaca attests to a divergent pronunciation of the sound -t-. In compounds the second consonant -k- is routinely elided. The It. vs. OFr. examples attest to normal dialectal variations and co-existence of palatalized and post-palatal velar forms. The “late” appearance of the documented word parallels a host of other English words that the grammarian strata did not have any attachment to. Internalization, amalgamation, and divergence point to a millennium-long process, which potentially brings the Anglo-Saxon union back to the middle of the 1st mill. BC, and initial internalization to a Corded Ware period. See feel.

3.10
augur (v.) “predict” ~ Türkic ay- (v.) “tell, talk, say, explain, interpret”, ayi (n.) “sound”, ayığ (n.) “word, speech, command”. An “IE etymology” asserts a “perhaps” level of credibility plus some guesses of wild goose chase-type. The word's base notion is “voice, vocalize”, it is used for emphatic expressions like predictions, praise, and accusations. In a earliest period, ay- was close to a honorific “declare”. A 3rd person Türkic form is ayur, aygur, ajar, aygu (ayguc) “advise, explain”; with an instrumental sufix -či (-chi) it is ayguchi, (ajguchi) “teacher, adviser, councilor”. Suffix -gur, -gür, -ɣur marks causative and/or active verb voice. Its retention in Lat. as a part of a root, along with a root ai(i)о, augurs a most tractable historical connection. For percipient philologists and historians it is a valuable bestowal. Gmc. languages routinely articulate it with a prosthetic w- or its equivalents, and with negative overtones. Cognates: A.-Sax. weman (v.) “voice, announce, be heard”; Lat. ai(i)о “declare, assert”, augur (n.) “religious official” foretelling events, auguro “prediction”; Goth. waya (waja) “voicing, expression (blaspheme, slander)”; LAv. ad- “tell, say”; Mong. аyа, ayas “sound, sounds (especially of speech, pronunciation, accent, rhythm, tone”, ajilad- “tell, say” (aji “sound”), ajila- “announce, say”, ajiburči “gossip”. Distribution extends from Atlantic and Mediterranean to the Far East, crossing linguistic barriers and lands which a Latin sole never trod. The Türkic aiguchi'es “adviser, councilor, chancellor” accompanied all Türkic epical and real monarchs. Tonükuk of the Orkhon runic inscriptions was an Aiguchi. A dumbfounded “IE etymology” stops at a single Lat. instance, citing as cognates a few mechanically applied nonsensical phonetic examples (avis “bird”, garrire “talk”, augos “increase”). Semantic and phonetic match is perfect. In a feat of paradigmatic transfer, Eng. possesses five main action words related to communication: declare, say, tell, call, and gabble, the direct siblings of ay-, söy-/söyle-, til-/tili-, qol-, and gap-/gapir-. Although overlapping and interchangeable to some degree, each one conveys its own spectrum of very basic communicative notions. The origin from the Türkic milieu is indelible. See call, gabble, say, tale, talk, tally.

3.11
awe (v., n.) “to be inspired, deep fear, reverence” (Sw N/A, F1140, 0.01%) ~ Türkic ö, ö-, a-, u- (v.) “think, reflect, delve, understand”. The word a: (’a) carries a flavor of “astonish, amaze, astound”; u- is an allophone of ö-/a-. A single-phoneme allophonic line produces overlapping derivatives with diverging outcomes, e.g. adar- (-dïr-, -δïr-, -tïr- -ŋa, -ŋla-), оdɣur- (-δɣar-, -δɣur-, -jɣur-), etc. A use of non-rounded vowel word further extends the allophonic derivational field. An extent of modifications involves nearly entire store of consonants: öb(kälä-) “angry”, öč “revenge, anger”, öδ(ik) “passion”, öf(kä) “anger”; ög, ök “intellect, thought” with a standard Türkic deverbal noun suffix -g/-ɣ, and so on. The words ay “oh, ouch, ow, ouh, aah, uh-oh, ugh”, añığ “excessive(ly)”, ayman “fear, timid, faint”., etc., are derivatives of a:-, ö-, and u- expressing a negative excitement of awe. Of those, the ayman, with a relict deverbal noun suffix -ma, portends the awe of fear predominant in the Middle Age A.-Sax. lexicon. Both Eng. and Türkic have preserved the noun derivative ög/ök “mind, thought, understand”. The ög, ök formed with a standard Türkic deverbal noun suffix -g/-ɣ/-k became the A.-Sax. eg, ege and other Gmc. allophones. The A.-Sax. blurry transcription eg-, aeg-, eag-, ieg- simultaneously attests to an accuracy of the spelling awe to render the rounded ö-, to attempts to render a rounded ö- with the tools of the Roman alphabet, and to a wide spread of the word. The final victory of the form awe (= ö-) over the A.-Sax. phonetic variety attests to the demographic significance of the original Türkic component, probably numerously reinforced and reinvigorated by continental refugees fleeing Middle Age religious persecutions like that of the Tengrian Cathars. In Europe, the form ö-, are-, awe predominates with 13 (30%) languages; the other 31 (70%) European languages use their own 22 words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root. Cognates: A.-Sax. aege, ege, oga “awe, fear, terror, dread”, aghe, ege “fear”, egesa “awe, fear, horror, peril”, ONorse agi “fright”, Dan., Norw. ære(frygt), ære(frykt), OHG agiso “fright, terror”, Goth. agis “fear, anguish”; Ir. ua(mhnach) “awesome”, iontas “astonishment”, Gael. obha “awe”, iong(nadh) “astonishment”, Welsh ofn “fear”, anhy(goel) “astonishment”; Latv. aizplust “astonishment”; Sl. ah, ahnut (ах, ахнуть) “astonishment, fear”; Lat. ave “greetings”, afflictum “impressed”; Gk. akh(os) αχ(ος) “pain, grief”; Fin. joku “some event”, Est. aukartus “awe, reverence”; Mong. aidas “awe”; Manchu gelembi, golombi “angst”. An “IE” scholarship is limited by severe myopic horizons and ingrained prejudice. Distribution is consistent with migrations from the Eurasian Steppe Belt with Corded Ware expanses, with emanating westward prongs and a radiant spread. The A.-Sax. cognates attest to an existence of the word for about 2 millenniums prior to the “IE” claimed ca. 1200 AD. A standing “IE etymology” ignores inspiration and zeroes on the utility of fear. It connects awe with Gk. akhos αχος “pain, grief, ally”, which semantics and phonetics make it an allophone of the Türkic ö- (v.) and ög (n.), but does not make any sense in respect to kittens and other awesome curiosities. It debases semantics with an assertion of a faux “PG Proto-root” *agaz “terror, dread” (vs. the real “think, reflect, percieve”) from a faux “PIE Proto-word” *agh-es- from a faux “PIE Proto-root” *agh- “depressed, afraid” or a faux “PIE Proto-root” *hegh- “upset, afraid”. That kind of primitive speculations in the presence of attested originals is not needed; the myopic horizons only breed confusion and spread disinformation.The early literary examples apparently are heavy on religious admiration and fright, while the “awe” is a more generic awareness than a particular cause like a fear. The simple modern “awesome” has nothing to do with fear, the “awesome” are kittens, shoes, and manners, anything worthy of admiration and inspiration. The English spelling quite clearly attempts to render the labial ö in the ö- and ög with available means (the w is a labial voiceless phoneme), and the spellings with auslaut -g and Gk. -kh-/-χ- faithfully render the Türkic noun ög, i.e. ö-/ög “to think/a thought”. The A.-Sax. egesa faithfully renders the Türkic ögsa, a desiderative form expressing intensity, formed with the Türkic basic suffix -sa. The “IE” languages do not have single phoneme nouns and verbs. Linguists in search for etymology should avail themselves of that reality. Numerous single vowel words, like “think” and “eat”, probably ascend to a very beginning of the human abstract thought. English has inherited and preserved many such words. The word ö-, awe, preserved in its pristine phonetic form, in its verbal, substantive, and adjectival roles, with its abstract and concrete semantics, with preserved Türkic suffixes, with millenniums long history, constitutes a fierce case of paradigmatic transfer of absolutely indisputable common genetic origin. On the banks of the Thames or Itil (Volga) it is still the same single phoneme word . The Celtic forms still echo the modern Eng. and CT forms, in spite of a parallel 12,000 years of independent existence. It lived through many alien influences after a Celtic circum-Mediterranean departure from the Eastern Europe sometime in the 5th-4th mill. BC. That attests to a Celtic-Türkic common linguistic phylum ascending to the 6th mill. BC, and an existence there of a single-phoneme vocabulary. The autochthony of the word in the A.-Sax. is attested by a field of more than 30 derivational words and forms, an impressive impact for a tiny abstract notion of “astonishment”. That number excludes the sibling words like the A.-Sax. aegleaw “law-knowing” from the ög “knowledge”, and efen “awe, fear, horror, peril” from the ö- “think, reflect, delve, understand” that belong to the same base mental function. And, English has inherited derivatives like awesome, awful, awing, awe-inspiring, etc. We should appreciate an ingenuity of the A.-Sax. scribes who invented a four-morpheme spelling aege for a single-morpheme rune ö to relay a true articulation at a time when an only known alphabet was a chiseled runic script. To rob Eng. of that precious inheritance in favor of a parochial jingoism is more than a petty crime.

3.12
bale (v., n.) “bound bundle” ~ Türkic bele- (v.) “bind, wrap, lace”. The term is strikingly popular in Europe: of 44 European languages, 30 (68%) use versions of “bale”; the remaining 14 (32%) languages use their own 8 words. The Türkic word is preeminent there; it is a non-IE “Pan-European” term. Cognates: A.-Sax. belegde “covered”, belə(can) “surround completely”, belecgan “to cover, surround”; OHG balla “ball”, Dan. baal, Du. bale, Norse balle, vikle; Sw. bal; Gmn. Ballen; OFr. bale “rolled-up bundle”; Welsh bels, byrnu; Sl. pelenat, pelenka (пеленать, пеленка) “wrap”; Hu. bala; Kor. beil (베일); Heb. byyl (בייל); Chuv. piel, piele (< be:l) “swaddle”, beshik “cradle”, Shor. (in Altai) nӧlä- “swaddle, wrap” (< be:l); Mong. orooh “swaddle, wrap” (~ “wrap”); all “bale” unless noted otherwise. Distribution of the allophones runs along Eurasian steppes from Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic barriers. Cognates demonstrate amazing uniformity across linguistic families, attesting to widespread borrowing and high mobility across Eurasia long before an active trade exchange. The main spreaders of the word probably were women, with mamas swaddling babies millenniums ahead of bales of goods. The first swaddles were probably of leaves and pelts, Cf. Romance pelo “hair”, Eng. pelt. An “IE” fantasy on a faux “PIE Proto-root” *bhel- “blow, swell” is beyond ridicule, on a level of self-denigration. Numerous A.-Sax. derivatives and semantic extensions attest to an antiquity of the word in the incipient A.-Sax. language. The phonetic and semantic match, and gigantic geographic spread make a Türkic dissemination inescapable. See band, bazaar, belt, bucket, bunch, bundle.

3.13
band (v., n.) “bind, tie, ring” (Sw N/A, F1524, 0.005%) ~ Türkic ba- (v.) “bind, tie, bound”. A reflexive-passive form of the verb ba- is ban-/ba:n- (v.) “bind, tied on itself, bound” and its m- allophone man- (v.). The intransitive form ba- of the verb have not survived in the European languages, but the transitive form of the verb ban- not only survived together with its agglutinated Türkic suffix -n, but blossomed into uncounted derivatives in numerous languages, probably due to amalgamation in addition to a trading lingo. Cognates: A.-Sax. bend “band, ribbon”, bindan, ONorse band “tie strip”, OHG binda, Goth. bandi, bandwa; MIr. bainna “bracelet”, Welsh band; OFr. bande, ONFr. bende, Fr. bander, Sp. bandana; Rus. bint (бинт) “bandage”; Skt. bandhah; Taj. moftan; Mong. bind; Mongor. bo-; Kor. mukkda (묶다); Jap. baindo (バインド); all “band” excepts as noted. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. An unstoppable “IE etymology” came up with faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *bindan “?” and *banda, *bandiz “band, fetter”, and faux “PIE proto-root” *bhendh- “bind” and “tie, bind”. These useless fantasies have no home address, no origin trace, illuminate nothing, and have no reason to exist. An absence of Lat. cognate indicates particular north-west and south-east paths; the Skt. form dates the word to the migratory split time before 1500 BC. The OFr. form allows to suggest Burgund-Provence source, the ONFr. form points to Alans (Amorican Alans) of the 5th c. AD. The MIr. distinct semantics suggests 2800 BC circum-Mediterranean route if not a later acquisition. The semantic and phonetic derivatives of the Türkic intransitive verbal stem ba- “bind, tie, bound” in English are extremely numerous, from band, bind, bound to military and social bands to the commodities like Band-Aid. The substantial Türkic-based English lexical cluster related to tying and packaging (bale, band, bind, etc.) and related derivatives (Cf. bandage, bonding, etc.) inextricably attest to their Türkic origin. See bag, bale, bundle.

3.14
barge (v.) “break into, crash heavily into” ~ Türkic bar- (v.) “come, arrive”, bart, burt “suddenly, bump” The root comes in versions ba-, baj-/bay-, var-, par-, pïr-, and probably more. The verb comes in a semantic plethora: 12 semantic clusters totaling 59+ meanings. In Eng., an anlaut may be bar-, ber-, bir-, bur-, br-, etc. A suffix -ɣ (-g) adds an aspect of a danger warning and a 2nd pers. (“you barged”), internalized as a part of the root with an air of calamity. The verb is neutral to transitivity. Its syncretism attests to a primordial origin. The notion burst “burst” is a complimentary allophone ascending to the same root bar-. Cognates: A.-Sax. berst, bærst “bursting, eruption”, berstan “break, burst”, burst (16th c.), OSax. brestan, OFris. bersta, WFris. boarste, MDu. berstan, Du. barsten, ONorse brestan, brast, brosten, LGmn. barsten, OHG brestan, Gmn. bersten “burst”, Goth. *bristan (~ ONorse bresta); Ir. bris “break”; Mong. bara “end it”, barag “in a main, as a whole” (~ “at the end”); Sakha barä “eliminate, decimate”; all “barge, burst” except as noted. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic borders. An “IE etymology” on purely phonetical homophony confuses the verb barge “come” with a semantically incompatible noun barge “flatbottom boat” and its verbal derivative barge “transport by barge”, of a Türkic root barq- “build, construct”, see barge (n.). Or it offers an alternative: a variant of Fr. barje, barjot, a Fr. argot of jobard “gullible, crazy”. Neither one is palatable or any credible. That speculations are indefensible, they jeopardize an entire method of an “IE etymology”. The “sudden intervention” and “crash into” convey a true emphatic semantics. There is no chance for the notion bar-, barge, berst, burst (v.) (ca. 1st mill. BC) to be related with the semantics “barge” (n.) “boat” (16th c. AD); an anachronic Fr. argot is also beyond contempt. See barge (n.).

3.15
bark (of dogs) (v., n.) ~ Türkic ür, üyr, ürü, hür, Chuv. ver- (v.) “bark (of dogs)”. An “IE etymology” asserts a generic “of echoic origin”, a typical useless fudging. The verb ür and its cousin ör relate to voice, voicing, a generic notion, Cf. orate (v.), oration (n.) “talk”, Türkic orla:- (v.), orı: (n.) “shout, yell”, see orate. Not to see a connection requires a combination of aloofness and ignorance. The word is certainly one of the first words of humanity. A prosthetic initial consonant is typical for numerous vernaculars stumbling on initial vowels, Cf. Chuv. ver-. A Tr. form barak “dog (type)” attests that prosthetization occurred within a Türkic milieu, it marks an eastward cultural exchange. The Chuv. form with a prosthetic anlaut v- (corresponding to English b-) is an allophone of the Türkic forms eerer, hur, örü, üjrek, üjürge, ür, üre, ürü, ürüü “bark”. They represent a relict that went westward to Atlantic. Other forms extend all the way to Pacific. In Europe, out of 44 European languages, a motley Sl.-Romance group featuring a la- (Cf. Old Europe Sl. lai “bark”) predominates with 10 (23%) languages out of 44, followed by a Türko-Gmc. group featuring -Vr- with 6 (14%) languages. The remaining 28 (63%) languages use their own versions of 16 European native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is notably motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. beorc (n.), beorcan (v.) “bark”, ONorse, Norw. berkja, bjeffing “bark”, Icl. berkja, gelta “bark, bluster”, Lux. barken; Tr. barak “dog (type)”; Mong. ülije, hülege (v.) “trumpet” (r/l alternation); Manchu fulqije (v.) “trumpet” (r/l); Kor. pul (v.) “trumpet” (r/l); all “bark” except as noted; compare Sl. synonymous lai (лай) “bark”, laika (лайка) “barking (dog)”. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. No “IE” etymology, “of echoic origin” is as far from etymology as it gets, a typical for “we don't have a clue”. Chuvash is thought to belong to the Ogur branch (R1a Y-DNA Hg.), which dominated the Eastern and Central Europe for millenniums, from before a turn of the eras to beyond 10th c. AD. The Eng. dog's bark with prosthetic anlaut consonant is consistent with other Oguric traces in Gmc. and Eng. languages, along the lines of ür- > ver- > bar-. The form barak is formed with deverbal suffixes for noun/adjectives and abstract nouns, a common suffix -k (bark) and “rare” (in the eastern sources) suffix -ak (~ barak). The Türkic verb ür- may very well predate domestication of the wolfs. Eventually, using available grammatical tools, it developed derivatives for the notions of “bark” and “dog”. The recorded A.-Sax. forms bearca, bearcae, beorc point to difficulties in rendering a quality of the vowel using Roman alphabet.

3.16
bash (v.) “hit hard”, (n.) “heavy blow” ~ Türkic ba:s, ba:š (ba:sh), ba:θ (n.), ba:sa, ba:ša- (ba:sha-) ba:θa (v.) “bash, whack, attack, assail, assault, wound”. An “IE etymology” advances a “perhaps”-level or an echoic origin. That amounts to “no clue”. Ultimately fr. a root ba-, Cf. ba-liɣ “wounded”, ba-lik “be wounded”. The polysemantic verb's ba:š prime notion is “push, press from above”, along with nine other semantic clusters. The word is peculiarly connected with a Türkic baš “head”, pointing to an origin from a notion “strike from above, strike on a head”, and thus ascending to a most primordial hunting time. “Ba:š” denotes a notion “tramp, thresh, pound”. If “bash” was not a loanword from Türkic, it could be advertized as a native “IE” word: among 44 European languages, it is a leading word with 28 (64%) languages. Most of them are relatively recent loanwords, i.e. it is a classical “wanderwort”. The remaining 16 (36%) European languages use 11 of their own native terms lead by a unner-up Old Europe Sl. group. Like numerous other Turkisms, bash was probably lurking under a radar of contemporary grammarians. Cognates: A.-Sax. pote, potian “butt, push”, ONorse basca (basha-), beysta “strike”, Sw. basa “baste, whip, flog, lash”, Dan. baske “beat, strike, cudgel”; Ir. bruth, putaidh “push”, Gael. bruth, buille “blow, push”; Catalan festa “strike”; Galician bater “strike”; Rus. bastryk “yoke, weight, oppression”; Mong. basu- “oppress”; Manchu basala “kick”; Kor. matta “break, crush”; Sum. badd “beat, strike”; Az. vurmaq “bash, shoot” (b/v, s/r alternations). Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. A phonetic consonance between synonymous “bash” and bat allows to suggest that “bash” is an allophone of the bat, both ascending to a primeval root ba- (EDTL v.2 89), see band. Then the attestation of this word runs to the Sumerian language of the 4th mill. BC (Sum. badd, q.v.). A time of internalization of the Türkic with Eng. ascends to the time of the A.-Sax. Türkic-Gmc. amalgamation. The ONorse and Sw. had preserved the Türkic morphology in forming denoun verbs by suffixing -a. The perfect phonetic and semantic match, the authentic suffix, a global spread, and the status of a non-IE origin leave no doubts of the Türkic origin. The word belongs to the host of Turkisms that survived in English and Türkic without any substantive change. The entire body of intact survivors constitutes an insurmountable evidence of a massive paradigmatic transfer. See ambush, bat.

3.17
bat (v.) “beat”, (n.) “bat, club” ~ Türkic bad(ar) (v., n.) “beat, strike”. A Scythian pata “to strike, to kill” was explained by Herodotus IV.110 as a Scythian for “kill” in a compound eorpata - those who are killing their husbands, with Türk. er “man, husband”, Cf. A.-Sax. wer “man, husband”, Gmn. Herr ditto, etc. In Türkic a Scythian eorpata is erbadar; if A.-Sax. had a “man-killer”, it would have been werbatt/werbeot. A noun bad “(tree) limb” produces implements “bat, club”, it survived in a form “boutique” = “branch”, see boutique. A causative form batïr of “bat” relays “thrust, plunge, strike, stab, stick, jab” formed with suff. -ïr, -qïr, -tïr. Cognates: A.-Sax. batt “bat, cudgel, club”, beot and (rarely) beoft “beat, strike, thrust, dash, hurt, injure, tramp, tread”, fystgebeat “blow, beat with fist”; OBreton bath “cudgel, club”, Breton bazh “swagger stick”, Ir., Gael. bat, bata “cudgel, staff”; OFr. batte “pestle”, Lat. battuere, LLat. battre “strike”; Sum. badd “beat, strike”. It is incompatible in Av., where pada is “heritage, offspring”. A Sumerian badd is an oldest record for bat (v., n.) ascending to a 4th mill. BC, it is construed as “to thresh (beat hard) with sledge (hammer)”. The Sum. word aligns with the Türkic Bulgars' folklore story of their descent from Sumerians. That links Türkic with Sumerian and Scythian, and on to Gmc. > Eng. The Breton word points to a Celtic inheritance from the Eastern Europe. A 5th century AD Isfahan Codex in Yerevan with Hunnic grammar and wordlist lists a Hunnic batten as “push”, a minor semantic twist produced by ancient or modern Armenian translators. That's in a ballpark. Attested traces across Eurasia sequentially cover the Celtic circum-Mediterranean migrants from the E. Europe ca. 5th mill. BC, then the agglutinative “isolate” Sum. ca. 4th mill. BC, then the Scythian Kurganians from the Siberia ca. 3rd mill. BC, then the entire Eurasian agglutinative family of the Türkic Kurganians, and reach to our days. An appeal of the unstoppable “IE etymology” to an illusionary clone, a faux “PIE Proto-word” *bhat- “strike”, or its gilded faux clone a “PIE Proto-word” *bʰedʰh- “strike, beat, pierce” are not not needed. In a “probably of Celtic origin” a “probably” is not needed. A real attested material is a plenty of real evidence. Rather, traces reflect an amazingly wide distribution long before the Corded Ware period and footprint. Traces reflect a tight correlation with the attested spread of the (later Sarmatian) R1b and the (later Hunnic) R1a Y-DNA haplogroups. A three-phoneme word must have numerous homophones in nearly every language on the mother Earth, like the vat and butt in Eng., a huge playground for lively imagination and storytelling. Of a relevance to the etymology of the word are only the ones that directly convey the notions related to “beat, strike, branch, bat, club”. A Türkic - Celtic - A.-Sax. - Eng. heritage is beyond any doubts. See battle, boutique, pat.

3.18
bath (v., n.) “immerse in water” (Sw N/A, F1370, 0.01%) ~ Türkic bat (v.) “immerse in water”. Ultimately a derivative of a verb ba- “bind, tie, bound”, see band. A unifying generalized meaning of the verb bat- is “enter into”. Depending on special conditions of its manifestation, it is modified, becomes specific, and then determines portable meanings of the verb by origin or use. The Türkic verb bat- comes in a range of forms and meanings. The stem forms are also put-, but-, pat-, bad-, and ban-, randomly scattered among different languages, a form bat- dominates. Acoustically different allophones bat- and ban-, are verbal names for the same effect in related communities, Cf. bath and banya, q.v. A range of meanings is astonishing, from “bath/bathe” to “bankrupt” (i.e. “(river) bank, tub wall + rupture” > “go under”), “poke, pierce, stab” (i.e. “reach under”), “dare” (i.e. “dive under”), altogether more than 50 meanings. In each individual language a number is severely narrower, i.e. 5 “bath/bathe” in modern English. The causative-transitive suffix -t- and causative-reflexive suffix -n- are nearly synonymous, the -n- adding an aspect of benefitting the speaker. A preservation or an absence thereof of a root verb ba- in daughter languages is irrelevant, a range of its derivatives from various paths can peacefully co-exist in any language, Cf. band and bath. A homophonic verb büt-/püt- “come to an end, be finished” (Cf. bud, butt) may have further confused internalization, semantically conflating a process of moving “put, place” with an end of the process “have put, have placed”. Semantic difference between the two is on the level of a mere shade. Cognates: A.-Sax. bað, bæð, baeð, baðu, bathu “bath, bathing”, also “water, etc., for bathing”, baezere “baptiser, baptist”, bedipan (v.) “dip, immerse”, pitt, pytt “well, hole, pit”, piða “inner, pith”, and so on; ONorse bað, botte “pail”, MDu. bat, Gmn. bad; Welsh baddon, maddon; Lat. batus, puteus “pustule, blister”, Sp. bañera with -n-, Fr. bain with -n-; Russ. banya (баня) (with -n-), “bath”; Balt. (Latv.) vanna with -n-, (Lith.) vonia with -n-, Arm. baghnik (բաղնիք); Georg. abano (აბანო) with -n-; Mong. bann with -n-; Kor. baseu (바스); Jap. basu (バス); Heb. bath (בַּת) “archaic unit of volume”. See put for more cognates. Distribution reliably excludes both “PIE” and “PG” origin. Lexical and spatial distribution shows that of the 50+ semantic meanings only a small stream was carried to the northwestern Europe: a core meaning bath, plus derivatives put, well, poke. That lexical stream reached Europe very selectively: a smatter of northwestern communities, plus spotty Lat. and Sl. cognates. But eastward, cognates extend down to the Pacific. No suitable “IE” parallels, the “IE” etymological implication of the Lat. linguistic influence on the A.-Sax., Sakha (Yakuts), Uigurs, Koreans, etc. is a patented nonsense. Suggested faux “IE” ersatzes, the faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *baþ “bath?”, faux “PG proto-form” *baþą “bath”, faux “PG proto-form” *badan “warm?, faux “PIE proto-root” *bhe- (v.) “warm”, faux “PIE proto-form” *bʰeh (v.) “warm” are not needed. Those motions are a waste of ink: internalized loanwords carry etymology of their predecessors, which needs to be established first. The faux absurdities are waiting to be rescinded. Bathing was associated with hot water, especially with hot springs. A Somerset city in England, the A.-Sax. (aka OE) Baðun, called so for its hot springs, exhibits ancient Türkic-Celtic continuity. Another toponymic form is the Gmn. Baden. A major advance in analyzing the word bat-/bat was done by E.V. Sevortyan, 1978, who brought together specks of unheeded knowledge scattered in numerous patchy works but not covered in etymological compendiums. We may feel bad for the throngs of “IE” etymologists who toiled to compile a rational story. A paradigmatic transfer of the vernacular, phonetic, and semantic complexity indelibly attests to the origins from a Türkic milieu. True victims are the misled masses who trusted misleading assertions. See band, butt, put.

3.19
battle (v., n.) “open clash” ~ Türkic bat (v.) “beat”, bat (n.) “bat, club”, bad(ar) (v., n.) “beat, strike”, butarla, butyrla “tear apart”, budun/yodun “obliterated, destroyed”; Scythian pata “strike, kill”, Hunnic batten “push”. Apparently, a lexeme battle “battle” had never arose in Türkic languages, or it was supplanted by other lexemes: čalïš, süŋiš, süŋüš, süŋüšmäk, toqïš, toqus, tutulunč. An “IE etymology” shyly suggests a credibility level of “probably”, “perhaps”, and a face-saving “probably imitative” origins, but covers its rears with a few juke “reconstructions”, q.v. The form battle is a cognate and allophonic derivative of a Sum., Scythian, and Türkic pata, bat (v.) “beat”, see bat, formed with a rare (i.e. archaic) passive voice marker -l > “beaten, vanquished”. In Türkic grammar, suffix -l forms deverbal and denoun adj. batl with semantics “brave, daring, decisive”, etc. The notion's origin ascends to a noun but “branch (tree)”, “leg”, ultimately from a notion “divergence, branching”, see boutique. The notion furcated into bat and but, the bat line associated with violence (attack), and but associated with trimming (trees). A surviving adj./noun is a Türkic form batyr widely known across linguistic barriers as a heroic title from the Hunnic times to the present. A verbal-nominal homonymy and furcated metaphorical semantics (branch ↔ leg) attest to a primordial origin of the root. The root was explicated by Herodotus IV 110 in a compound eorpata as a Scythian word for “kill” – those who are killing their husbands (Türk. er “man, husband”, Cf. A.-Sax. wer “man, husband”, Gmn. Herr ditto, etc.). The word ascends to the earliest symbolic scribble; of 44 European languages, forms of “battle” are used by 22 (50%) languages, far ahead of the second group (Gmc.) with sla- of 5 (11%) languages. The form bat- is largely a Romance phenomenon. The remaining 17 European languages use their native 17 words. Cognates battle: A.-Sax. plaett, plaettan “slap, smack” (b↔p, prosthetic -l-), beado- (prefix to denote battle, war, slaughter, cruelty): beadogrim “grim battle”, beat (n.) “scourging”, baetan “beat, strike”, beaterc “beater”; Scotts putt “push, shove”; OFr. bataille; LLat. battualia, battuere; Rus. batog (батог) “stick, length of wood, tree branch”, bitiyo (битьё) “beating”, bitva (битва), boy (бой) “battle”, boynya (бойня) “slaughter” (t/y alternation), voina (война) “war” (b↔v); Sum. bad “kill, die” (b↔w); Hunnic batten “push”, Chuv. patak “stick” (~ Tr. budyq, budaq ditto); all derivatives of bat-. Cognates batyr: Ar. batal, battal “hero”; Pers. bahadur; LSkt. bahadurah, Av. baxtar; Osset. batyra, batra, paxar; Batraz (name); Alan Badur (name); Mong. ba’atur, bagatur, Sagay (Khakass) matır (b- > m-); Hu. bator, Bator (name); Sl., Rus. bogatyr (богатырь); all designate “warrior, hero, brave, strongman”. Distribution: Cognate distribution from Atlantic to Far East, across linguistic barriers. The word is incompatible in Av., where pada is “heritage, offspring”. In addition to a “probably”-level assertions, “IE etymology” came up with some faux “PGmc. proto-form” *plat- “strike, beat” and yet better, a faux “PIE proto-form” *blod-, *bled- “strike, beat”. None of that treacly stuff is useful, credible or non-disinformative; it is blind to or is soundly ignoring the attested lexicon of ca. 6,000 years old on. That quality of myopia is impressive. The Türkic deverbal suffix -ur/-r and their allophones denote personal possession. The inlaut -g-/-ğ-/-h-/-x- are typical for Mong. suffixed articulation. The word is ultimately known from Sumerian, see bat. The Isfahan Codex in Yerevan with Hunnic grammar and wordlist from the 5th century AD gives a Hunnic batten “push” (with instrumental suffix -en), apparently with a minor semantic twist produced by ancient or modern Armenian translators, but still in the ballpark. The settled Sumerians were surrounded by nomadizing neighboring pastoral Türkic tribes of Subars (aka Suvars), Kumans, Quties (aka Oguzes), Turuks, and who knows who else. Pastoralists appearance could be seasonal, for trade and forage. Whether a word originated in a Sum. or a Türkic milieu we wouldn't know. Who borrowed from whom between them, nobody knows. With a heft of paradigmatically transmitted mass of clones and derivatives, a widespread origin via a Türkic phylum is incontestable. See bat, boutique, pat.

3.20
be (v.) “exist” (Sw N/A, F25, 0.73%) ~ Türkic bol-/mol-, buol-, ol-, o- (v.) “be”. The word is extremely universal, numbering 17 listed semantic clusters at its base, plus 13 service functions. In addition to the b/m split, the form evolved b- > v- > 0 (bol, vol, ol, o), leading to a present dominating spread of ol along with numerous relict and dialectal forms (14+). A diphthong -uo- is a dialectal form of a long vowel -o-: buol = bol. An “IE etymology” is completely lost between various internalizations where a same form leads to different concrete expressions, i.e. pl. vs. sing., 1st pers. vs. 2nd pers., etc. A habitual b→w, b→f articulation also throws a monkey wrench into semantic and phonetic articulation. Sorting confusion with warped assumptions baffles even more. A range of source articulations from different ethnic groups brings another element of confusion: the Türkic 14+ anlauts carry alternations bo-, bu-,- po-, pu-, vо-, wo-, and truncated forms o-, ol-, etc. A spine of the Türkic articulations is apparent, it clearly elucidates the spine of the related European “IE” forms. A European footprint of the Türkic origin leads with a combined motley group of 18 (41%) languages (17 b- + 1 a < o-, ol-), approaching a level of 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. It is followed by a largely Romance group es- with 7 (18%) languages, a Gmc. group var- with 6 (14%) languages, and a motley group ser- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 9 (20%) languages march to their own tunes with 7 distinct native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is notably motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. beon, beom, bion “be, exist, come to be, become, happen”, OHG bim “I am” (< Tr. bolVm, -m denotes I), bist “thou art”, Gmn. bin, bist; OIr. bheith “be”, bi'u “I am”, Ir. a “be” (~ o), Gael. bhith “be”, bha “was”, Welsh menjadi, berada; Lat. fui “I was”; Gk. phu- “become”; OCS. byti (быти) “be”; Balt. (Lith.) bu'ti “to be”, Rus. byt “to be”, etc.; Av. bu-; Pers. bu-, bulhös; Skt. bhavah “becoming”, bhavati “becomes, happens”; Fin. ole-, on “be”, Hu. vol-, van- “be”; Mong. forms and semantics are largely identical with Türkic forms: MMong. bol-, Khal. bol-, Bur. bolo-, Dag. bol-; Mogol bolu; Evenk bola-; Nenets bol-; Chinese bei 被 “be”. In Türkic: OT, Kirghiz bol-, Chuv. pol-, Tat. bul-, Yak. buol-, Khak. pol-, Yugur pol-, Turkish bul-, dial. mol- “be, become”, Uz. mul-; all “be” except as noted. The origin of the A.-Sax. forms is clear, they are versions of bol- + -än from a phonetic series -an/-än past tense participle suffix, i.e. bolan > A.-Sax. beon, see been. In this construction the specific form bul-, bol- is strictly conceptual, it could have been anything from the attested series bi-, by-, bu-, be-, bo-, with consonant variations b-/p-/w-/f-. Historically, all non-Türkic (“IE”, Chinese, Mongolic and Tungus/Manchu) examples are contiguous with the Great Steppe, and either contain, or used to have contained sizable Türkic component. Distribution of the cognates is nearly ubiquitous. In linguistic terms, the word points to what used to be called a Nostratic origin. A peculiar m/b alternation, present on the opposite ends of the Eurasian Türkic areal attests to its indigenous origin and deep roots. In English, some paired compounds with be seem to preserve intact, Cf. English “be abundant” ~ Türkic abadan bol “be (become) crowded, populous” > A.-Sax. beon, beom, bion abadan > hide > be abundant. Another Türkic verbal stem for “being (v.)” var-/bar-/par- was preserved in Goth. and daughter languages (Fris., Dan., Du., Sw., Norw., Icl.), incl. Eng., as var and was, see was. Another Türkic verbal stem for “being” (v.), with a notion of permanency, is dur-/tur- “be, do, stay, remain, stationary, halt, copula”, it overlaps with bol-/be to express “exist continuously”. It very successfully survived in the Eng. do expressing abstract permanent action (e.g. “Do you like?”, “Do him in, do it now”, etc.). Welsh forms echo the very old Türkic forms. The presence of the cognates in Celtic languages attests to its existence prior to the Celtic departure from the N. Pontic in the 5th-4th mill. BC at the latest, Cf. Celtic buralo “wolf”. Gmc. phonetic forms are closer to the Türkic forms than their older Celtic siblings. An Indo-Aryan presence attests that it existed in the N. Pontic area before their anabasis ca. 2nd mill. BC. The Chinese presence ascends to the arrival of the nomadic pastoralists toward the end of the 3rd mill. BC (the legendary Xia dynasty) reemphasized ca.1750 BC with an arrival of the “Zhou Scythians” to the isle of the Shang China. The “IE etymology” is lost in utter confusion, calls the “be” a “fragment collection, conglomeration”. Still, it comes up with an unattested faux “PIE Proto-root” *bheue- with true semantics of “be, exist”, and a slue of other ersatz speculations and “reconstructions”: “PGmc. Proto-forms” *biju- “I am, I will be”, *beuna “be, exist, come to be, become”, *wesana (“?” ), “PWGmc. Proto-form”*wesan (“?” ), and faux “PIE proto-words” *bheue- “be, exist, grow”, *bhuht “grow, become, come into being, appear”, *hwes- “reside” *hesti, *hes (“?” ), even a Lat. fui “I was” from an ersatz *bʰuH (“?” ). A most provocative is a chronologically misplaced suggestion of a word borrowed from Rus. bɛ (бэ): Rus. did not yet exist concurrently with A.-Sax., it started forming ca. 600 AD when Shambat (ca. 630 AD), a Samo of the western sources, a younger brother of the the Bulgarian Khan Kurbat, retreated from the C. Europe causing a first Sl. migration to the E. Europe. That event is not related to an acquisition of the Türkic lexeme “be” by the Sl. tribes: the Türkic carriers of the Y-DNA Hg. R1 haplogroup reached the Sl. carriers of the Y-DNA Hg. I in W. Europe by ca. 9th mill. BC. Whatever were the articulations of the bol-, buol- ca. 9th mill. BC, there were enough opportunities to spread them in the following 6,000 years period, engraining them in one or another form across most of the W. and C. Europe. The bol-, buol- and its versions were long-ingrained guests, amplified by numerous migratory waves of the R1a/b groups. At the time, majority of the W. European population belonged to Hg. I, a Sl. haplogroup then disseminated across W. and C. Europe. The trio bol-, var-, and dur- constitute an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to traceable and veritable genetic connection from the Türkic Kurganic milieu. See Be, bear – Preliminary Note, been, do, durable, duration, duress, was.

3.21
bear (v.) “carry, give” (Sw N/A, F1114, 0.01%) ~ Türkic, Türkic runic be:r- (v.) “carry, give”. The Türkic be:r- (v.) is extremely polysemantic: “give, hand over, grant, bring, bring upon”; it carries 24 meanings in Türkic vs. 14 in Eng. With its semantic wealth, it lived on as a paradigm onto Eng. and other European languages, with literal and figurative meanings, like “pay”, “marry off”. With some modifications in semantic accents, it is preserved in Eng. as a paradigm with a meaning “give”, it is a part of a paradigmatic allophonic triplet “give, bestow” and “bear”. A homophonous bear (animal) fr. Türkic bori makes it a foursome transfer paradigm, see bear (animal). It is Türkic most used auxiliary verb with participle, expressing direction for a sec. pers. and expressing perfect tense actions: “carried out conquest”, “carried out ordering”, “carry out sermonizing”, “carried out breaking something”, “bear praise”, “bear reward”, “bear title”, “bore a baby”. Eng. carries both the literal meaning (“bear fruit” ~“give fruit”) and popular auxiliary functions (“bear expenses” ~ “pay expenses”). Forms of the Türkic be:r- lead in Europe with a motley group of 19 (43%) languages, approaching a level of 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. It is followed by a hefty Sl. Old Europe group nes- with 2 neighbors, with 14 (32%) languages, The remaining 11 (25%) languages march to their own tunes with 8 distinct native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is notably motley. There is a certain parallel between the “IE” and religion paradigms: weeding out all non-compliant paradigms leaves out a single universe of a paradigm “us, we, ours!”. Cognates: A.-Sax. ber(an), bær, bor(en) “bear, bring, bring forth, produce, endure, sustain, wear”, OSax. beran, OFris. bera, ONorse, Norw. Nynorsk bera, Norw. Bokmal bære, Goth. bairan, OHG beran, Gmn. (ge)bär(en) “carry, bear, give (birth)”; Bulg. (Tr.) berü “give”; Sl. bremya (бремя), ber(emen)- бер(емен)-) “load, carry (child, burden, bring)”, Bolg. (Sl.) bir- “give”, Rus. beru, brat (беру, брать) “am taking, take” (vs. nesu (несу) “bear”); Pers. bordan (بردن) “bear, carry” (-dan Tr. suffix. of initiation); Skt. balü (bhaaloo) “bear”; Koman, Čag. bär, Kazakh, Kirgiz, Azeri ber, Kazan bir, Oirot, Teleut, Lebedin, Shor är, Sagai, Koibal, Kachin per, Crimean wär, Sakha biär, Chuv. par; all “bring, give” unless noted otherwise. No Mong., Tungus-Manchu or any Far Eastern correspondences. Distribution of cognates is limited to a ca. 80 Türkic languages Steppe Belt and its periphery: Gmc. (9), Romance (6), Irish, Tatar, Greek (3), Bask (1), and probably few more. Not only the phonetics and semantics of the stem are identical to the Türkic word, but the morphological function of the participle is accomplished with the retained Türkic suffix -an, -än that forms a past tense participle: Tr. beran “born”. The verb “carry, bear” shows amazing correspondences across Tr., Skt., Gk., Lat., Goth., OIr., etc., in base forms and in most forms of present tense declension (Cf. “I carry”: Tr. berim (-m = me, I), Skt. bharami, Gk. fero (φερω), Lat. fero, Goth. baira, OIr. beru, etc. The Skt. agglutinated form is a clone of the Türkic agglutinated form. According to Kashgari, truncation is typical for the western Bulgar language. Herodotus (4.117) wrote about Sarmatians in the same area who spoke Scythian incorrectly. Variations in spelling and slight phonetic modifications can't obscure the fact that the word survived from an archaic Türkic substrate into modernity with all its polysemantic cache and with Türkic morphology. No need for unattested “PIE reconstructions” and unrealistic reverse engineering of a particular application: a faux “PG proto-form” *beranan and “PWG proto-form” *beran and “PG proto-form” *berana, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *bher-, *bherti “carry, bring, born”. These poor man's patches are supposed to create a distinct “Pan-Gmc.” etymology, but demonstrate an opposite by myopically including the Türkic suffixes -an, and -ti in their “Pan-Gmc.” fiction. There is no escape from reality. Those inventions just parrot the attested basic Türkic forms. A “birthing” triplet ber-, döl-, ken- stands as a paradigmatic evidence attesting to its Türkic roots, in a way it is a trade terminology passed from generation of “birthing” practitioners to their “birthing” daughters and granddaughters with the other “secrets of the trade”. The triplet serves as unequaled linguistic marker bestowed from generation to generation immune to all societal turmoils. A homophony with a noun bear “large mammal” is predicated by the homophony of the Türkic stems of unrelated origin: ber- and böri. See Be, bear – Preliminary Note, bear (animal), bestow, confer, deliver, give, gene.

3.22
been (v.) “past participle of be (exist)” (Sw N/A, F91, 0.21%) ~ Türkic ben “past of be (exist)” in predicate verb, see be for the root word. Cf. (ičinte:) beg ben “(I've) been a bek (prince)”, bašı: ben “(I) was a boss”. Ultimately a derivative fr. bol- (v.) “be, exist”. The development of been is clear, bol-, buol- (v.) “be” > ben (predicate) > A.-Sax. beon (v.) > Eng. been (v.); a suff. -n effects a base verb. The form bul-/bol- is strictly conceptual, it could have been anything from the attested series bi-/by-/bu-/be-/bo-, with consonant variations b-/p-/w-/f-. The original linguistic efficiency is demonstrated by the opposition ol- (bol- ) “to be, to exist” vs. ӧl- (bӧl- ) “not to be, not to exist”, i.e. die, death. Allophones of ӧl- (bӧl-) are widely used in Gmc. daily and ritual languages, Cf. Walhalla “death-hall” with wal < ӧl- “death”. A history of later lexical transformations past a beon stage (13th c.) is well established; it is quite twisted, convoluted, unpredictable, and unsupportable by any “phonetic laws” of the 19th and 20th centuries. Quite the opposite, the rule is “there are no rules”, as is proper due to a stochastic process of amalgamation, internalization, and adjustment. To overcome a conundrum, the “IE” theoreticians came up with a 1.) concept of a “b-root” with a flexibility of a jell, which can accommodate all known forms for the generic notion “be, exist”, and 2.) invented fictitious PIE and PG proto-forms *bheue- and *biju- respectively. The Türkic real bul-/bol-/ol- also fits nicely in a rubber scenario. A rubber scenario is OK in observations but hapless in credibly explaining them. Forms of the Türkic predicate ben- < bol- lead in Europe with a motley group of 23 (52%) languages (12 Sl., 3 Celtic, 2 Fennic, 2 Balt., 1 each Eng., Tatar, Hu., Lat.), approaching a level of 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. It is followed by a hefty Gmc. group wes-, ver- +2 neighbors, with 10 (23%) languages, followed by a Romance group with 7 (16%) languages. The remaining 4 (9%%) languages use their own 2 native words. Aside from the Türkic-derived, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is notably motley and assembled from discrepant ingredients. Cognates: A.-Sax. buon, byan, buwan, buian, buan “been”, Sl. bil, bio, bol, byl, buv, byc, byi, beshe “been”, Ir. bhi, Scots bhith, Welsh bod; Fin. ollut, Est. olnud; Latv. bijis, Lith. buvo; Du (ge)weest; Fris. west, Dan. været, Sw. varit, Norw. vært, Icl. verið, Gmn. (ge)wesen, Yid. geven (געווען); Hu. volt “been”, voi-, van “be, become”; Lat. fuit; Mong. bol-, bolah “be”; Tung. o “be, become”; Evenk bola “maybe, probably”; Tatar ben; all “been” except as noted; references to Finno-Ugrian, Nenets, Kalm. cognates. Distribution of cognates spans across Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. The presence of the oldest Celtic form bi'u attests to the existence of that form in the N. Pontic at 6th-5th mill. BC, predating by far the word's 2nd mill BC migration with the Aryan farmers to the south-central Asia. A presence of the Türkic, Celtic, Chinese, Mong., Av., Pers., Skt. etc. forms flatly defies the “IE” Family Tree model and irrational PIE and PG/PWG figments. An “IE etymology” displays both a severe myopia and a parochial approach. It starts with attested A.-Sax. buon and projects it to a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *beun “be” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form”*beuna “be” “related to buan “to dwell”, and then to faux “PIE proto-forms” *bʰew-, *bʰuH- (“?” ). Since the “been” denotes a past tense, it appeals to faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *wesana, *wesan and a faux “PIE proto-form” *hwes- (“?” ). A simple “IE” miracle imparts a PGmc. stopgap *wesan into the A.-Sax. attested forms of “been” (conflation ). Viola!, done, and there are other similar ideas to spare! Then, a connection between homophones buon “been” and buon “dwell” just wanes peacefully. Remarkably, the Türkic grammatic function of the past tense participle expressed with the suffix -an/-än has survived into the Gmc. bin, A.-Sax. beon, and modern Eng. been alongside the Türkic OT, Kirghiz bolan/olan, Turkish, Tatar bulan, Khakass polan, and Uigur polan. Seeing screaming commonalities, a linguist would not have problems locating cognates and coming to direct non-prejudiced conclusions. See be; Be, bear – Preliminary Note; Walhalla; was.

3.23
beg (v.) “plead for something” (Sw N/A, F1837, 0.004%) ~ Türkic bag, baɣ, baq (v.) “look pleading, plead”. “IE etymology” rated “of uncertain origin”, but q.v. Ultimately fr. a polysemantic notion “see, look” with 13 semantic clusters; a metaphorical extension baq “plead” belongs to a cluster 1 (EDTL v.2 38). Eng. allophones form with -g/-d alternation, with numerous derivatives: beggar, begging, beggary, beg (pardon, mercy), “beg a question”. Cognates: A.-Sax. bedecian (v.) “beg”, began, bugan “bow, bow down, bend, stoop”, Fris. biddel, Du. bedelen, Norw. Bokmal be “beg, ask”, Icl. beg, Luxemb. bettel, Goth. bidagwa “beggar”; Gmn. betteln, Yid. betn (בעטן); OFr. begart (beggar); Bolg. bakadzik (< bakačak) “outlook”, bak, baka (v.) “look”; Serb. bakas (bakač ?) “call”; reference to Pol. cognates; Tung. baka- “find, clarify”; Tatar baq; all related to “beg, begging” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: spans across Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. No sound etymology, no viable Gmc. connections, no “IE” parallels, but a wild faux of “PG proto-form” *beth- (“?”), a faux “PG proto-form” *bedago “petitioner, requestor, beggar”, and few other “perhaps” wild guesses. A source could be an Alanian source of the Amorican Alans who moved into Brittany in the 5th c. AD, or of the Brits of Brittany with Sarmatian, or Scythian, or even Cimmerian via Frisian connections. In Eng., lexeme beg is recorded from ca.1200, but the substance of the base notion “see, look” and a massive chain of semantic extensions points to a primordial origin, and the attested Goth. form ascends to a 1st mill. BC. In the Middle Age society, pleading with a lord must have been a daily affair, keeping the word rolling.

3.24
bellow (v.) “sound of an animal” ~ Türkic belä- [belə-], bele:-, be:le:-, mele-, mǝlǝ- (v.) “bleat, sound of a sheep”. Such notions are largely onomatopoeic, while specific to individual languages. English has variations bawl “cry loudly”, yowl “utter shrieks”, holla (b- ↔ h-) “sound of an animal”. Cognates: A.-Sax. bylgan, bylgean, bylgian, bellan “to bellow”, hlowan, hlowung “lowing, bleating, bellowing” (b- ↔ h), Du. blaten; Welsh beuo; Balt. (Lith.) bliuti, baubti; Sl. bleyat (блеять); Gk. velazo (βελάζω); Fin. mylviä (< myl/byl); European versions with b/m alternation: Lat. mugire, Port. mugir; Latv. baurot/maut; with b/h alternation: Fr. beugler, hurler; with l/h alternation: Basque behean; with b/br alternation: Da. brøle, Norw. brøle, Sw. vrala, Gmn. brüllen; Gael. berrar; It. barrito; Balt. (Latv.) baurot/maut. Cognates point to ubiquity of distribution, and various paths of acquisition. “IE etymology” abstains from parallels, apparently suggesting echoic origin from numerous sources, but still comes up with a faux “IE” nonsense of faux “IE proto-words” *bhel-, *bʰel- “sound, roar”. Unwittingly, the unattested “IE proto-word” is a replica of the attested Türkic belä- “to bellow”. The echoic origin is apparently true and beyond our horizons. The extant phonetic forms allow to diagnose much more specific sources. Notably, morphology of the A.-Sax. bylgan has preserved Türkic suffix -gan/-ɣan/-an (-än, -ın; -gän; -qan, -kän) that forms deverbal nouns: belä- (v.) > belägän (n.) > A.-Sax. bylgan (n.) “bellow”, with a temporally close transition from the Türkic to the A.-Sax. Gmc. languages have not retained that suffix. The homophonic bellows (n.) is probably related via a woodwind flute. A Türkic origin is impeccable.

3.25
bestow (v.) “grant, give” ~ Türkic bestle-, besle- (v.) “feed, nurture”, besmek (v.) “educate, feed, nourish”, besli, bestle (n.) “fattened, well-fed, fat”. Etymology of the word is far away from that asserted by the “IE etymology”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a root bes-, bäs- (v.) “pasture (cattle)”, reflected in the Eng. word “pasture”. The verb “bestow” is a reincarnation of the form bestle. The root is polysemantic with 4 semantic clusters expressing a combined 20+ meanings. The form bestle- is an agglutinated compound of the root bes- + deverbal abstract noun suff. -t- + verbal suffix -le, i.e. feed (v.) → feed (n.) → feed (de-n. v.) → bestle (v.) “feed, grant, give”. A generic Türkic word extended a meaning of the bes-, bäs- to reflect a reality of the day, a posse (comitatus) system of the times. Children of nobility were enrolled into a personal guard service of the leader. They were bestowed nurture and tending in exchange for a service. A substantial difference between Türkic and feudal systems was that Türkic comitatus was of necessity voluntary: nomadic volunteers could mount their horse at any time, disappear into a blue horizon, and never be seen again. The term outlived the archaic and feudal times, and became a post-feudal exalted synonym of “give”, see give. The word is unique in Europe, where a Sl. Old Europe dar- dominates with 10 Sl. and 5 non-Sl. words in 15 (35%) languages. A second group is Gmc. schen- with 5 (11%); a third are 3 groups with 3 (7%) languages each (Celtic, Gmc., Romance). Eng. belongs to a 4th grouping of 4 groups with 2 (5%) languages each (Romance, Sl., Balt., Eng.), where Eng. group contains Eng. and Tatar languages. There is no common “Pan-IE” root in Europe. But some 14 linguistic entities in Europe, incl. Tatars, use versions of the root bes- for “feed, nourish”: 1. Azeri 2. Bashkir 3. Chuvash 4. Crimean 5. Gagauz 6. Karachay 7. Karaim 8. Kazakh 9. Kumyk 10. Nogai 11. Tatar 12. Turkish 13. Turkmen 14. Urum. They complement the Eng. oddball “bestow”. Cognates: A.-Sax. beteon “bestow” (+agiefan, aegift, agift, ametan, daelan, don, gaf, etc. “give”); Ir. beatha “feed”, Scots biadhadh “feed”, Welsh ymborth “feed”; Gk. beslemes, peslegeve (μπεσλεμες, πεσλεγεβε) “feed, eat”; Serb. besleisati “feed, eat”; Pers. baxš “gift” (< Tr. bakšiš, Eng. bakhshish). All cognates either came fr. a Türkic milieu (A.-Sax., Serb., Celts), or have a historical connection (Gk., Pers.). The last two are idiosyncratic, with a Türkic loanword not present in other “IE” branches. Distribution: An Eurasian arc of the Türkic languages; isolated presence in Eng. and Pers. The “IE” etymology suggests to parse the A.-Sax. beteon “bestow” in a form bestow as a be- + stow, lit. “emplace”, and a faux “PIt. proto-word” *pasko, a faux “PIE proto-word” *peh- “protect, shepherd” for a cognate “pasture” (v., n.). Outwardly, the “IE, native” bestow looks quite suitable and phonetically precise. But the construct be- + stow creates a semantically divergent paradigm that does not convey the notion of “grant, give”. The stow “emplace” is not exactly a “give” or a “feed”. The artificial compound be- + stow unwittingly combines an Eng. allophone of the Türkic be- (see be) with the Türkic üstü- (v.) “stay”, lit. “on feet, standing”, see stay. And the non-Eng. cognates are absolutely unexplainable, Cf. Gk. beslemes. The “IE” assertion is a shameless nonsense. A root best, for example, can be played on to produce many more “IE etymologies” of a compatible quality. A Türkic trifecta of terms for “give” comprises a hierarchy of qïv- (“bless, confer”), bestle- (“bestow, grant”), ber- (“give, bring, bear”), with qïv- a most dignified and ber- a most mundane. English has preserved allophones of all three words, give, bestow, and bear, with some change in semantic accents (Cf. dignified Eng. bestow and a mundane give, the bear is more “carry” and less “give”). This is a case of an entire paradigm borrowing, a clear attestation of the genetic inheritance, and an impeccable evidence on the linguistic scales. In the English highly stratified class society, such an important term as bestow could not fail to appear in historical records way before the 15th c. That points to a winding path for the word, and its survival in the folk lingo under a radar of the literary English. See be, bear, give, stay.

3.26
bet (v., n.) “wager” (Sw N/A, F592 Σ0.02%) ~ Türkic büt-, bit-, püt- (v.) “be determined, confirmed, believe, trust” bütrüš- (v.) “wager, bet (between two sides)”. An “IE etymology”: no cognates, “argot of petty criminals, of unknown origin”, with some fudge of “perhapses”. The “IE” assertion essentially admits “we have no clue”. The polysemantic word büt-, bit- carries 3 key semantic notions: (EDTL v.2) 1. end, finish, resolved (p. 152), 2. believe, trust (p. 279), 3. all, completed (p. 302). Each one applies to a bet: semantics is not specific. Cf. just a single notion “end” with 15 nominal and a verbal clusters. The verb büt-, püt- was formed by a primeval monosyllabic model of noun/verb (EDTL v.2 280). Derivatives of the verbal stem neatly fall into the notion of contest for something to be confirmed, the truth to be determined: bütrüš- “contest, seek truth”, bütür- “confirm, find out, attest”, bütünlä- “seek truth, search for truth”. Türkic has 11+ words to express “wager”, vs. the Eng. two. That points to gaming as a national Türkic pastime, including children. Of 44 European languages, the form büt- dominates (Gmc. bet-, vet-, wed-, etc.) with 11 (25%) languages, followed by Old Europe Sl. with 7 (16%) languages, followed by a Romance group with 5 (11%) languages. That Y-DNA and geographic hierarchy ranks the specific weight of the origination sources in time and spread: earlier > seeded more. The remaining 21 (48%) languages use their own 15 native terms. Constructs like a bet- require attentive parsing: with a root starting with -t-, anlaut be regularly serves as a prefix be “to be”. Cognates: A.-Sax. bet “better, one who bets”, betynung “conclusion, end”, buttuc “end”; Dan. vædde, Norse edde, Sw. sla (vad), Gmn. vette, Icl. veðja; Fr. pari, Sp. apuesta, Basque apustu, Port., Catalan, Galician aposta; Lat. pateretur, pignus, Rum. pariu; Serb. opklada (опклада); Alb. bast; Fin. veto, Est. panus, Hu. tet; Kaz., Uz. bet, Turk. bahis; Mong. bootsoo (бооцоо) “bet”. An assertion, q.v., of total absence of cognates is a gross distortion. Distribution: An Eurasian arc of the Türkic languages; partial spread in Europe. The “IE etymology” suggests a PG origin, i.e. either “IE” or by default a non-IE, from nominally homophonic bait, A.-Sax. bat “food”, ONorse beita “food”, beit “pasture”. A semantic incongruity puts that insanity beyond contempt: jumping from a “wager,bet” to a “food”. In Türkic languages the alternation b-/v-/p- is regular; some receptor languages also regularly palatalize initial b-. A prefix a- (apuesta etc.) is also regular. Random variations at internalization should be expected. Some inferred cognates may not belong to the lineup at all. A Türkic etymology is semantically proper, phonetically reasonably close. It does not need to appeal to an argot of the criminals, especially so considering that betting is an ubiquitous Eng. tradition of all classes from the earliest times. The idiom I bet you illustrates the notion of bet “wager” in a sense of “I am sure (of this truth), I would wager (that this is truth)”. An A.-Sax. betrendan “to roll” may be a metaphorical derivative of bet- “roll a dice”. The homophonic better “betting person” and the native better comparative of “good” are not related. A Türkic origin stands on its own, supported by the lucid lineup of the cognates, known historical development, and unequivocal genetic tracings.

3.27
bill (v.) “advertise, publicize” (Sw N/A, F899, 0.01%) ~ Türkic bil (v.) “find out, learn”. The polysemantic word numbers 10 semantic clusters and some 60+ meanings. The “IE etymology” traces an origin to Gaulish passed on to Lat. That sends the word to 6th-5th mill. BC, prior to the time of the Celtic departure from the N. Pontic in the 5th-4th mill. BC at the latest. That, in turn, dates the Türkic bil “know, understand” by ca. 6th-5th mill. BC, in conflict with some “IE etymology”. The last asserts that a MLat. bulla “decree, seal, sealed document” comes fr. a “bubble”, aka “boss, stud, neck amulet” and hence a “seal” and hence a “Papal bulla”. That kind of etymological equilibristics from a Gaulish source to bubble is too uncouth. A Türkic, with its refined morphological mechanism for producing grammatical forms, tends to use an active voice; Eng. has a preference for passive voice verbs: “he is billed as an expert” means “he is said to be an expert”. Türkic billüg is “found out, known”, with extension to “famous”; a “publicize, advertise” is formed with causative tense suffix -dur > bildur “notify, inform”. A derivative of bill (v.) is bill (n.) made quite famous with the Bill of Rights, followed up with thousands bills approved regularly by Congress. Each enterprise has a billing system, we get daily, weekly, monthly, and annual bills, we used to billet militia and army, we carry bills of different denomination in our wallets, we trace billables, are overbilled and underbilled. The “learned” in the form Bilge, usually translated as “wise”, was a popular title of the Türkic Kagans, including a famous hero of the Bilge-Kagan inscription. The root bil- with the semantics “able” found employment as a suffix -able in Eng. innovations like suitable and doable, the last is a compound of two reflexes, the tü “do” and bil- “able”. Similar internalizations took place in other amalgamated languages like Lat, Cf. bil- “able” > Lat. -abilis, -ibilis ~ Eng. -able, -ible. Another prominent derivative is the English verb feel “feeling”, a 15th c. contraction of the Türkic derivative bilig, bilin-, see feel. Three words, bill (0.01%, rating 899), feel (0.13%, rating 174), and will (0.58%, rating 75) contribute combined 0.72% frequency usage in Eng., without accounting for forms like billable, feelingly, willful, and palpation. That brings the total frequency usage of the Türkic bil-'s descendents to about one of every hundred daily words, or a 5 words per page. With all the learning-related subjects at hand, the “IE etymology” did not get even a hint of any “IE” cognates nor a clue on the origins of the so dear to us existential and linguistic components of our accumulated cultural wealth. See -able, eligible, durable, feel, will.

3.28
bode (v.) “augur” ~ Türkic bodi “insight, achievement of perfect wisdom”. Ultimately fr. a Türkic root büt-, büt, püt-, püt (v., n.) conveying mystical notions “believe, deity”, “pray, prayer”, “revere, idol, icon, cross”, “refer, truth, fact, verity”. The Türkic word belongs to a class of grammatically most archaic, distinguished by homonymic noun-verb pair and neutrality to transitivity. It was a primer of a word, not a tongue yet, in Skt. bodhi “enlightenment, awakening”. Time has erased in Eng. linguistic traces of the past religions supplanted by the later doctrines, leaving behind only monuments of the old cultures. The term bodi is a Buddhist religious term of Türkic extraction, with vast spectrum of Indian derivatives: Buddha, bodimant “throne of enlightenment”, bodisatva (bodhisattva) “enlightened (bodhi) being (sattva)”, etc. Few of them rolled into a Türkic syncretic lexicon. The first Buddha brought a Buddhist enlightenment to India. He was a Türkic Saka extract, a Scythian “prince” Shakyamuni (6th c. BC), of the Saka (Saxon) Kurgan tradition. The Türkic bodi underlies the entire Buddhist lexicon. Cognates: A.-Sax. Buddhistic bodi- derivatives: bod “command(ment), message, precept, preaching”, boda “messenger, herald, prophet, apostle, angel”, bodere “teacher”, bodian “foretell, announce, proclaim, tell, preach”, bodiend “proclaimer, teacher, preacher”, bodlic “command(ment), decree, ordinance”, bodscipe “message, command”, bodong “message, recital, preaching, interpretation”, bodungdaeg “Annunciation Day”; secondary internalizations: OSax. (gi)bod, ONorse boð, Gmn. (ge)bot; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) budeti “awake”, (OCS) bludet “be alert, follow”; Skt. bodhati “awake, watchful, observe”, buddhah “awakened, enlightened”, bud “Buddha” (and “planet Mercury”), Av. bütaj “name of one of the demons”; Pers. but- “idol, fetish” (also “beloved, sweetheart”), pwt- “Buddha”; Kor. mitta, mide, midin (믿다) “believe, trust”. Distribution: An Eurasian arc of dashed lines of diverse Türkic languages centered as local communities; polylingual nodes starting in India with branches scattered across Eurasia; ca. 1st mill. BC partial spread in W. Europe; ca. 370 - 470 AD last Hunnic wave in Europe. Reportedly, the Far Eastern China and Japan received their terminology via Sogdian intermediaries. Reportedly, the same with Türkic, Mongol and Tungus-Manchu via Sogdian, attested by a form put-. That probably refers to proselytizing of the following two millenniums, the secondary splashes of activities. A parochial PIE- and PG-suggested etymology belongs to a genre of scientific fiction: local origins and unreal etymological cures, the faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *budon- “message”, *buda “message, offer”, the faux “PIE proto-root” *bheudh- “aware”, the faux “PIE proto-form” *bʰewdʰ- “awake, perceive”. The inventions have nothing to do with the subject bode (v.) “augur”, and need to be gently retracted. They flout the Buddhist period of the rich, philologically documented multi-faceted A.-Sax.-Eng. history. The “IE ingenuity” suffers myopia and blindness of politics. Digging for an “IE prime root”, it completely ignores the Buddhist terminological nest. The “IE etymology” also suggested an origin linked to OIr. buide “contentment, thanks” barely related to the notions of “enlightenment, augur”. The OIr. buide may be a reuse of a Celtic Kurgans' semantics of the 5th mill. BC before their departure on a circum-Mediterranean anabasis of the 4th mill. BC, separated from its siblings by a combined 8,000 years timespan. The semantics of bod- “augur, insight, enlightenment” first came to, and then post-6th c. BC grew on the Indian soil. A few centuries were needed for the Buddhist terminology to take root and develop in India. That points to a timing for the matured Buddhist formulaic terminology penetration into the steppe belt. Instead of being exalted or accidental, migration of the Buddhist enlightenment to the foggy Albion and its environs jibes with the historical canvas on the known migrations of the Celtic Kurgans, Sarmat Kurgans, with the Buddhism's syncretism with Tengriism, and the Gmc./Scandinavian innate religion of Thor of the 1st mill. BC. There also is a linguistic connection between the Khakas of the Aral basin and the A.-Sax.-Eng. The Sogd of the Aral basin was an intermediary between the Indian, Pers. and Türkic phylums; it was formed by migrants from a present Baluchistan at the beginning of a 2nd mill. BC, 1500 years before Shakyamuni's arrival to India and his idea of Buddhism. The expanded extent of the A.-Sax. lexicon attests to a long syncretic period and deeply ingrained use of the Buddhist terminology. It was carried by the Sarmat migrants of the Sarmat expansion period not earlier than the 3rd c. BC and not later than the first references to the nomadic Vandals Wendeln “Wonderers” at the turn of the eras. Buddhism was syncretically embraced by Tengriism, and spread from India to the western Asia and the eastern Europe. The Gmc. cognates attest to a deep penetration of the Sarmat Tengriism into the life and etiology of the Central European (A.-Sax., OSax.) and Northern European (Gmn., ONorse) populations. The Lith. and OCS lexemes attest to the semantics and phonetics extant in the Eastern Europe in the 2nd c. BC. The penetration had to be directional, touching certain tribes and not reaching the others. For temporal and spatial reasons, more westerly archaic Scythians, Cimmerians, the Mesopotamia Kurgan nomads, the northern Tele tribes, and and the archaic Zhou in the east could not have been affected by Buddhism. Those tribes would have preserved the archaic etiology of Tengriism and the archaic religious terminology, missing on the Buddhist formulaic bodi and its numerous derivatives including buddha. That lopsided penetration is reflected in the dictionaries. An OTD succinctly lists a series of Buddhist lexemes, and an EDT ignores them altogether. An influence of the Roman world in disseminating Buddhist terminology to the N. Europe needs to be ruled out for two reasons. One is a spread of Mazdaism in conflict with Buddhism across the Roman world precluded a spread of the Buddhist lingo there. The other was a lack of a Roman religious influence on the outside world. The Romans neither mastered Buddhist terminology nor were in a position to spread it. That again leaves only the Sarmatian part of the Scythian world to carry Buddhist terminology to Europe. A return of a mutated Indian term to the Eastern Europe has not caught on because Balto-Sl. languages have already developed their own synonymous lexicon based on an Old Europe Sl. stem ved- “to know” (Cf. Sl. vedat, veschiy (ведать, вещий) (adj.) “know, prophetic, enlightened”, etc.). It also did not infiltrate the Fennic population of the area. The A.-Sax. term bod- affords a unique opportunity to trace physical and cultural migrations across Eurasia that link the Indian subcontinent with the Atlantic seaboard, a yet unaddressed unique and credible marker that propagated along the Eurasian steppe belt in the course of the sequential Türkic migrations. See bursary, purse.

3.29
bore (v.) “drill a hole” (Sw N/A, F1969, 0.003%) ~ Türkic bur-, bür- (v.) “twist, wind round, screw”, a subset of a generic meaning “twist, twirl, spin” applicable in non-bore related sense, like twisted vines, etc. Ultimately fr. a verb bur-, bür-, buz- that starts with “ruffle, pleat” and is consonant with an antecedent bu- “steam”, probably referring to eddying twisting steam. The meanings of those three stems are both overlapping and divergent. Various allophonic forms include ebir-, egir-, evir-, evür- with a front prosthetic vowel and initial p- (b > p), Cf. “puff”. The r/z alternation is equivalent to r/s alternation, it attests to a most archaic origin. Of 44 European languages, a large motley group of 21 (48%) languages uses forms of the Türkic bur-, matching a level of a 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. A remote second toch- is used by 3 (7%) Old Europe Sl. languages. A very motley mass of remaining 19 (43%) languages use 16 of their own 16 native terms. There is no common “Pan-IE” root in Europe, where the Türkic bur- dominates. Cognates: A.-Sax. bor “borer, gimlet”, borian “to perforate”, (wede)berge “(helle)bore”, MDu. boren, Dan. bore, ONorse bora, Sw. borra, Norw. Bokmal bore, OHG boron, Gmn. bohren “drill”; Lat. foro, forare “drill”; Sl. allophones of br-, vr-; Russ. bur (бур) “auger”, buravit (буравить) “drill”, vertet (вертеть) “spin”; Bosn. buše-, Serb. bush- (буш-) “to drill”; Alb. brime, birë “hole”; Fin. porata, Est. puurida, Hu. furni “drill”, forog “rotate”; Mong. burgi “eddy (smoke, steam, dust”), burzigina-, burziginah “puff up”, buran “tornado”; Even mori “pucker, wrinkle, fold” (m/b alternation); Manchu foro “revolve”, forgon “rotate”; Nanai poro “revolve”. Distribution: Eurasian including and adjacent with the Eurasian Steppe Belt; W. European cognates are scattered in a geographically confined area, consistent with the Eurasian distribution of other words of a Türkic origin. An “IE etymology” came up with utterly myopic fantasies of the faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *buron, *burona “? hole” and a faux “PIE proto-root” *bhorh “hole”. Given the Eurasian spread of the word, from Atlantic to Pacific, such parochial pretentions on antecedence are beyond the pale. See wrinkle.

3.30
borrow (v.) “receive temporarily” ~ Türkic burč, borč, borğ, borığ, murıč (n.) “debt, indebtedness, obligation, loan, borrowing”. Ultimately a deverbal noun derivative fr. a verb be:r- “bear, give”, see bear (v.). An anlaut consonant wobbles between b-/p-/m-, the vowel wobbles between e-/i-/o-/u-. A deverbal noun suffix -č is one of the most productive suffixes, same with -ɣ/-ïɣ (ğ/ığ). A form bert (-č > -t) conveys the same in a passive form, “something given”. The European cognates are limited exclusively to a Gmc. group, attesting to a non-IE origin. A primacy of Türkic or Sogdian origin is disputed. But Sogdians, the farmer migrants from Baluchistan, came to the Aral area after the end of the 2nd. mill. BC, after an end of a desertification during entire 2nd millennium BC. That points to a Türkic origin of a very archaic term, further reinforced by consistently Türkic morphological elements. The other suggestions of origin, the Syrian, Kalm., Mong., Manichaean lingo, etc. are likely adopted trade loanwords. Cognates: A.-Sax. borg/borh “debt, pledge, security, obligation, debtor” (-ğ ↔ -h), borgian “lend, be surety for”, boren pp. of beran, bringan “bring”, etc., with a significant set of derivatives and extensions, OFris. borgia “borrow, take up money”, MDu. borghen “protect, guarantee”, ONorse borga “bail, guarantee”, Goth. brahta “brought” (i.e. “brought to” with a Türkic directional suffix -ta), OHG brahta ditto, Gmn. borgen “borrow, lend”; South-Sl., Rumanian, Alb., NGreek bordž, bordžlu “borrow, lend” (< Tr.); Sogd. pwčr “debt”; Syrian porč “debt” (b/p alternation); Mong. buru “responsibility, guilt”, Kalm. buršm “debt”; Karagas-Koibal (Tuvin.) bro “debt”; Kor. bij (빚) “debt”. Among the Türkic family the form borğ, borg, borığ (with -ğ/-g) is shared by Azeri, Chagatai, Crimean Tatar, Ottoman, Turkish, and Uigur. Distribution: Geographical distribution extends from Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic barriers. Distribution pointedly avoids numerous linguistic groups, accentuating a local attachment to the word. The focus of the Türkic -ğ/-g form centers on the Aral-Caspian area, consistent with numerous other Türkic-Gmc. lexemes. The word has a rich range of phonetic forms, attesting to a long history of circulation and plenty of amalgamation. With the weight of the complex and overlapping diagnostic evidence, the simplistic phonetic knockoff of the faux “PGmc. proto-form” *burg- “pledge”, “PIE root” *bhergh- “hide, protect” is perfectly ridiculous. The combined evidence of carryover of the prime stem ber- “bear” and its derivative borg lit. “something carried over, given” constitutes a paradigmatic transfer case that definitively attests to their origin from the Türkic milieu. That evidence is corroborated by a sister case of paradigmatic transfer, the “birthing” triplet terminology ber-, döl-, and ken-, passed from Türkic moms to their daughters and granddaughters, unambiguously attesting to the innate Türkic roots. See bear – Preliminary Note, bear (v.).

3.31
botch (v.) “destroy, ruin”, botcher (n.) ~ Türkic budun, buzun, yodun “obliterated, estroyed”. The word is “IE etymology” rated “of uncertain origin”, that is supported by late and alive Eng. linguists. Ultimately, derivatives of yo:d- (bud-, buz-, pos-) “destroy, obliterate, wipe out”; -č is a marker of deverbal noun (budč, buzč, yodč “destruction, ruination”); inlaut -t- reflects -d-. -z-, -s-. The word numbers 11 semantic clusters; concrete meanings are situation-formed, Cf. bad weather vs. weather worsening, etc. The Türkic semantics includes both a lit. and a contrasting metaph. and sarcastic meanings, to ruin something for good and to do something badly (spoiled work). There is no common “Pan-IE” root in Europe, where the Türkic bud- dominates. A motley group of 19 (43%) European languages uniformly uses forms of “botch” (Türkic, Celtic, Gmc., Sl., Bask, Cors. Maltese); the remaining 25 (57%) European languages use their own 22 native words. Such breakdown attests powerfully to a “guest” status of the word in Europe. No A.-Sax. cognates. An Eng. word bocchen with unrelated literal semantics “to repair” is documented from late 14 c. A cure for the upside down semantics comes with a suggestion that later, a semantic shift turned it to “spoil by unskillful work” (1520s), a noun from ca.1600. Interpretation that a “black” turned into a “white” is ludicrous. Etymology is extremely succinct, no “IE” cognates whatsoever, no restored “IE” “proto-word” to go around. A coincident presence of the Türkic and Celtic sibling forms profoundly attests to an origin of the word from a far-away Siberia, a motherland of the Y-DNA R haplogroup.

3.32
bother (v., n.) “trouble” (Sw N/A, F1073, 0.01%) ~ Türkic buša-, busa:-, bušan- bosa:-, busan-, (v., n.) “alarm, irritation, grieve, sorrow”. In an “IE etymology” book: one or two layered “origin unknown”, with some “probably”, “perhaps” to boot. Ultimately fr. a polysemantic root bus/bus- “fog” that wields 15 nominal semantic clusters form “fog” to “rubber” and 5 verbal semantic clusters from “smoke” to “hush”. Türkic word belongs to a most archaic class, with a noun-verb pair and neutrality to transitivity. There is no common “Pan-IE” root in Europe. Most loose interpretations come up with not less than 29 forms among 44 European languages. A closer inspection may raise that to about 38; practically every European language has its unique form. Cognates: A.-Sax. bot “help, relief, advantage, remedy”, bottan/betan “fix, amend, cure (trouble)”, botettan “improve, repair”, botleas “unfixable”, “Anglo-Irish” pother; Gmn. busse “concern, worry”, beschwerde “trouble”, Dan. besvær “trouble”, Du. bezorgdheid “concern”, beroeren “trouble”; Ir. bodhraigh “bother”, Scots bodraigeadh “bother”, pother “stir, commotion, bustle”, Welsh boeni, poeni “bother, worry”; Fin. vaivautua, vaiva “bother, trouble”, Hu. baj, banat “trouble”; Rus. buza, buzit (буза, бузить) “trouble, nonsense”, bus, busenets (бус, бусенец) “drizzle”, izmoros (изморось) “mizzle” (m/b alternation); Kalm. bug “demon of fog”. Distribution: From Atlantic to the eastern end of the Türkic Steppe Belt, across linguistic barriers. “IE etymology” is non-existent, no “IE” cognates whatsoever, no “restored “IE” proto-words”. A suggestion of Ir. physical “deafen” applied to the emotional “trouble” is unsuitable both semantically and phonetically; less so with Ir. bodhaire “noise”. A citation of the agglutinated Ir. -im in unrelated bodhairim “I deafen” ascends to the Türkic standard “I, me”, corroborating a Türkic origin of a Celtic lexicon. The Ir., Scots, and Welsh cognates carry the echoes of the forms ascending to the Celtic Kurgans of the 6th-5th mill. BC, before their departure on a circum-Mediterranean anabasis of the 4th mill. BC. They must belong to the oldest known traces of the Türkic linguistic monuments. The word must have lurked somewhere in the Eng. folk language until it surfaced to the grammarians sometime in the 18th c. The A.-Sax. bot with its derivatives is connected semantically with a process of recovery. With the frequency rating of 1073, the word has a decent status in Eng., ahead of such prominent words as “island”, “broken”, “advice”, and “paid”. It was lurking right under the surface. As a Celtic contribution to Eng., it parted with the E. Europe ca. 5th-4th mill. BC, creating a 5-millenia phonetic/semantic gap with its less adventurous Asian siblings. Cognate distribution across linguistic families, and the ingrained presence within the daughter Celtic languages attest to a deep antiquity of the underlying emotional notion “trouble, grief” predating by far the ancient Celtic migration.

3.33
bruise (v., n.) “light injury” ~ Türkic bart, bert, birt, bört, baš-, pert, mert (n.) “injury, hurt, bruise, sprain, break, cut, hack, incise, wound”, bürt (n.) “contort, convulse, sprain”. The Eng. form with an elided vowel leaves the vowel obscure; a ber with -e- is likely. A transition from -t to -z, -s may be a result of interdental -t- (-th-) not rendered in the reference sources and receptor languages because of a peculiarity of the phoneme. The two akin forms connected with inflicting injuries (war, wrestling) and the resultant injuries (hurt, bruise, sprain, break, wound) point to a common origin with a wide spectrum of forms and semantics. That leads to a conclusion on antiquity of the lexeme (EDTL v.2 71). A Tr. bert- ~ Sl. modr- “light injury” slightly dominates European lexicons with 7 (16%) languages, followed by a motley group of sin- (blue) with 6 (14%) languages (Sl., Est., Yid.-Gmc.), followed by a motley groups of bla- with 4 (9%) (Dan., Du., Fr., Alb.) and bruis- with 4 (9%) languages (Eng., Ir., Scots, Basque). The remaining 23 languages use their own 20 native words. There is no “Pan-IE” common “bruise” (v., n.) in Europe. There is a very common synonymic bert-, mert-, mort- “heavy injury, death”, it is overwhelming in Europe: of 44 European languages, 31 (70%) use the Türkic bort-, mert-. It is followed with a sprinkling of Gmc. ster- with 5 (11%) languages, Gmc. död- with 3 (7%) languages, and 5 native terms in 5 remaining languages. The mass of 7 (16%) + 31 (70%) of Türkic-based terms weights heavily on the soul of its etymology. The root bVr- ~ mVr- was brought over to the Albion by Türkic migrants - Celts aka Kelts (3rd mill. BC), see Celt/Kelt. It was carried by the older Hg. R1a/b Siberian Türkic migrants of the 9th mill. BC to the initially a Hg. I Old Europe Sl. population (Cf. Sl. mort “dead”), later on carried by their descendents Ir., Scots, Welsh, etc. By the times of the Central European “killing fields”, newcomers of undifferentiated Hg. R1a/b successfully clubbed the Old Europe populations of undifferentiated Hg. R1a/b + I + others. They were unaware that among the killed they are killing descendents of their own forefathers. Cognates: A.-Sax. brysan, brysian (v.) “bruise, crush, pound”, brysednes (n.) “bruise, crush”, Goth. brakja “strife”, brikan “break, quarrel”, Anglo-Fr. bruiser “break, smash”, OFr. bruisier “break, shatter”; OIr. bronnaim “I wrong, I hurt” complete with the Türkic suffix -im denoting “me”, Breton brezel “war”, complete with the Türkic passive suffix -l; Lat. mortem, mors, mortalis “death”, VLat. brisare “break”; Sl. bron (брон) “war”, oborona (оборона) “defence”, (s)mert ((с)мерть) “death”, borba (борьба) “wrestling”, etc.; Mong. berte- “dislocate (bone)”, bertege- “damage (body part, organ)”, beye-, berteh “bruised, wounded, maimed”, Kalm. bertǝhǝ “internal wound, injury”. Distribution: From Atlantic via Türkic Steppe Belt to the Far Eastern Mongolia, across linguistic barriers. A parochial “IE etymology” myopically resorts to dubious unattested lexemes starting with br- “smash, cut, break”, with unverifiable variations derived from belated phonetics with a paltry sampling range. Blind searches deliver unsubstantiable results: “perhaps” Gaulish *brus- (“?”) and a faux “PCeltic proto-form” *bruseti “break”, faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *brusjan “smash, cut, break up” and *brausijana, *brusijana “break, crumble, crack”, a faux “PIE root” *bhreu- “smash, cut, break”, a faux “PIE proto-word” *bʰrews- “break”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *mertis, mer- “death, die”. Without ever glancing at the contiguous linguistic wealth of the continent, a parochial exercises breed nonsense. The primitive drills are not worth a paper that carries them: ignorance is a soil for disinformation. The OIr. bronnaim somes with a Türkic suffix -im “me”, Breton brezel - complete with a Türkic passive suffix -l, Sl. (с)мерть - with a Türkic 3rd pers. suffix -ti. These morphological markers serve as lexical milestones tracing a road. The semantics is perfect, phonetics of the continental-wide word falls into quite reasonable margins, Since Lat. did not have a br- root, the presence of late VLat. and OFr. cognates may point to a Burgundian path. The path of a Siberian lingo to the Iberia and on to the Albion is beyond any doubts.

3.34
bulge (v., n.) “protrude, bump” ~ Türkic baldïr, baldïrï “protrusion, bump”, baldaq “ephesus (of sword)”. Ultimately fr. a notion “calf, shank” of people and animals; metaphorically “wrapping (gift, etc.), pouch”. A root bal- forms 50+ semantic notions, most with undetectable semantic connections, some of immense importance. The Eng. notions “wrapping (gift, etc.), sac, pouch, nappy, diaper” are most popular. There is no prehistory for the origin of the word baldïr, but compare its cousins, the Türkic bal, balavuz “fastened, tightened”, beleg (n.) “wrapped, wrapping (gift, etc.), pouch”, (v.) “swaddle a baby”, bele:- “bale, swaddle, wrap”, bala, balaqïnaq “baby, infant”, baldïrï “ledge mountain)”, balkan “high forest mountain range, Balkan mountains”, bal (aka käl, mal, kälä) “cattle”. The Eng. verb bulge is a semantic extension of the noun bulge “pouch”; bilge “bulge (ship)”, bulk (v.) “bulge, swell”, belch “swelling burst”, pouch “sac”. Cognates: A.-Sax. bulge (n.) “bag, wallet”, belg (n.) “bag, purse, leathern bottle, bellows”, balic- “encompass” (lit. “bind-like”, bealuelomm “bond (oppressive)”, baalurip “fetter (oppressive)”, pocca, pohha, poh(ch)a “bag, pocket”, and quite a few more; Goth. balgs “bag, wallet”; OIr. bolg “bag”, Breton bolc'h “pouch (pod, of flax)”; Bolg. balder “calf, shank” (< Tr.); OFr. bouge, boulge “pouch, leather bag, wallet”; Lat. bulga “leather sack”, Lat. valere “strong” (< Tr. baldïr, baldyryan, Cf. “bald”); Mong. baltaji “bulbous, bent out below”, balqagar “thick and fat, paunchy”, balei “plentiful”; Kalm. balxun “high banks, dry valleys”; Sakha baltaj “large body, bulge”, baltarxaj “large” (Cf. Eng. “bulky”, Sl. bolshoy (большой) “big”). Distribution: Across linguistic barriers from Atlantic and Türkic Steppe Belt to the Far Eastern Mongolia. The “IE etymology” is utterly misguided in its claims that ascend the Eng. form to Lat.; its references to “budget”, “bellows”, “belly”, “budge” etc. as “cognates” are pure nonsense. The faux “PIE proto-forms” *bhelgh-, *bhel- “swell, blow” are merely propaganda soundbites. All that nonsense must be honestly disclaimed. The references to asterisked Gaulish-Celtic bulga, bulgos, bolgos reflect a true etymology, they are eidetic with the real world Türkic beleg “wrapped, pouch, swaddle” q.v., brought over by by the Türkic Celts via Eastern Europe to the 3rd mill. BC Iberia. Phonetic leveling took eons to transit from a pre-literal dialectal variety to a grammatically unified written word. A technical progress forced extension to newer applications like the maritime bilge, bulk, belch, etc., q.v. The semantic extension from “protrusion” to Eng. “bulge” appears to be a local innovation. The derivative bulge “protrude” and underlying bulge “pouch” are consistent with the Sarmatian Kurgans' spread to the C. Europe simultaneously with the emergence of Rome as a colonial power in the Apennines in the 1st mill. BC. The OIr. and Breton forms point to a distinct possibility that the word was carried to the European soil by the Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration in the 3rd mill. BC, and by the 1st mill. BC it was deeply internalized on the European scene. See bag, bale, band, belt, bundle, burg, pouch.

3.35
bunch (v., n.) “gather into cluster” (v.), “large number” (n.) (Sw N/A, F1228, 0.01%) ~ Türkic bunča (buncha) (adv.) “so many, so much”; “so, such (emph.)” Cf. so early, so kind. Per “IE etymology” – “of uncertain origin”, with many dotty antics, q.v. A base notion is a semantic derivative of an image of a hand and its skeleton – a gathering segment, precursor of a sheaf, bundle, cluster. Ultimately from a Türkic stem bun-/mun- “sheaf, bundle” + equitive adverbial suffix --ča. The archaic suffix -n- or a synonymous -ɣ- (i.e. bu-n-, bu-ɣ-) mark a reflective aspect of an archaic root bu- “tied together, tightened, strangled” fossilized as a root bun-, buɣ- (EDTL v.2 13, 79). A normative noun form of the stem is bunaz, munaz with suffix -az, from a parental root baɣ-, boɣ-, see bag. The root boɣun/boɣum (> bun, mun, pun, buïn, etc.) numbers 16+ forms in 10 semantic clusters; the notion “sheaf, bundle” forms a cluster I.5 (EDTL v.2 170). With a dialectal m/b alternation, bunča has twins munča (muncha, adv.) and mïnča (myncha, adv.), with closely related meanings of “such a number of, so many, so much”. They have found their way into the A.-Sax., early Eng. and on to Eng., in A.-Sax. and Eng. complete with the Türkic suffix -ča. Türkic languages have accumulated 38+ terms largely synonymous with “bunch” (as “so, such”). Such a wealth comes only by internalization from diverse populations and languages. Only a miniscule portion of that wealth is passed along for internalizations, in this case the bunča, and only a portion of that gets internalized. In Europe, a shard Türkic bun- dominates with 7 (16%) of 44 European languages. A large group of 20 (46%) European languages uses 20 of their own diverse native terms; each of the other 10 groups uses from 4 to 2 native terms each. There is no “Pan-IE” common “bunch” in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. bund “bundle”, Eng. many, much, Gmn. bündel, Yid. bintl (בינטל); Ir., Scots bun (but Welsh criw); Sp. mucho; Alb. bandë; Mong. bogug, bоgаg, Kalm. boɣ “shoulder bone” (ɣ ↔ n, < hand skeleton); all bunch except as noted. Besides dotty antics, not a trace of any “IE etymology”. Distribution: Across linguistic barriers from the Atlantic and Türkic Steppe Belt to the Far Eastern Mongolia. An “IE etymology” displays a severe myopia, a partisan approach, and a rabid imagination. On top “of uncertain origin” and “perhapses”, it comes up with a pile of “PG” and “PIE proto-words” *bunko, *bungo, *bʰengʰ-, *bʰengus,*bʰengʰus “heap, crowd, thick, dense, fat” and cognates “bone, lump, bump, tuber, volume, fatness, knob, thick, diminutive of bump”, etc. None in that pile approaches a notion “cluster, sheaf, bundle”. An only case rated as a “possible” by the “IE etymology” a Flemish oddball boud “bundle” is a transparent cognate of a Türkic bandur- and its Eng. form bundle. The references to a Sogd. βwn “base, basis, basic”, Pers. mun ditto are unrelated homophones of bun-, a loanword in Türkic. A now rare coincidence of the Ir. and Scots bun attests to the arrival of their predecessors to Iberia in the 3rd mill. BC as a linguistically compact demographic group. Their anabasis from the Eastern Europe is traced by an R1b Hg; they are an oldest attestation of the notion bunch. The concordance is perfect, except for expected phonetical shifts: in Türkic grammatical definition is done by agglutinating suffixes, so any part of speech can be formed from a single stem; in internalized English, suffixes are dropped, and grammatical function is primarily defined by a word order structure and traditional usage. See see bag, bundle, much.

3.36
bundle (v., n.) “cluster” ~ Türkic ban-, ba:n- (v.) “bind, tie”. Ultimately a reflexive and passive of ba:- (v.) “bind, tie”, bandur- (mandur-) (v.) “bind, tie” causative of ba:-; the final -l (-le) reflects a passive aspect or marks a denoun verb with a suffix -la, for morphological aspects markers see bunch. The Eng. form bundle is a predictable deverbal noun innovation from some version of bandur-. A Türkic shard bun- dominates in Europe with 11 (25%) of 44 European languages, followed by a large Sl.-Romance group pak- of 9 (20%) languages and a 3 minor Sl.-Romance groups fas-, bal, scru- with combined 7 (17%) languages. A 17 (39% ) majority of European languages uses its own 17 terms. There is no “Pan-IE” common “bunch” in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. bund “bundle”, bindan “tie, bind, fetter, fasten, restrain”, etc., MDu. bond, bondel, binden “bind”, Gmn. bündel ditto; Sl. (Rus.) bant, bantik (dim.) (бант, бантик), becheva, bichovka (бечева, бичёвка) “cord, string”, (Serb.) baglja “bunch (hay, straw)”, bağlama “door hinge” (< “joint, tie”); Rum. balama “door hinge” (< “joint, tie”), Alb. rez-baglama “door hinge” (< “joint, tie”); Mong. baɣla- “tie knots, form groups”, Kalm. ba:g “bundle, group, node”; all “bind, tie” except as noted; for systemic suffixing -ɣ- ↔ -n- ↔ -t- etc. see bunch. Distribution: Across linguistic barriers from the Atlantic and Türkic Steppe Belt to the Far Eastern Mongolia. A limited and peculiar distribution covers a dominating but insignificant number of the European languages. Claims of a “PG proto-word” and “PIE proto-word” are totally incredulous, it is an overt propaganda. The suggested “IE etymology” of some aspirated form of “PIE” *bend- “bend” is candidly irrational, unwittingly it is a clone of the Türkic verbal form bantı “bind, tie” a derivative of ba:-. The Gmc. forms carry versions of the Türkic stem complete with the Türkic suffixes -t, -l and -en, a noun, passive and reflexive markers respectively. A Türkic origin of the siblings “bundle”, “bunch” and “much” as a semantic and phonetic transfer paradigm is impeccable. See bunch, much.

3.37
bust (v., n., adj.) “ruin completely, break into pieces, apart”~ Türkic bast (n., adj.) “ruin”, bastur- (v.) “destroy, crush”. An “IE etymology” offers an inexplicable “probably” origins, i.e. “have no clue”. Ultimately a deverbal noun of a verb bas-/ba:s- “destroy, crush” with an abstract noun suffix -t, see push, port; the verbal suffix -tur forms a causative of bas-) The panoptic verb bas-/ba:s-/bas numbers some 175+ root meanings semantically divided into 10 clusters from “push, press” to “poke, cut”, basically or oddly related to applying downward pressure (EDTL v.2 74-78). Most prominent nominal or verbal modifiers are -m, -qï, -(ï)q -qïn, -qïč, -maq, -ma, -a, -qaq, each one starts a separate semantic line. Cognates: A.-Sax. basnian “ambush”, Dan. børste “beat up”, Sw. basa “beat (with rod), flog”, bösta “thump”; Ir. faisc, Welsh bwyso “press”; OFr. embuscher “ambush” (en-/am- prefix), baston “stick”, bastonnade “beat with stick”; Rus., Ukr., Rum., Serb., Bulg. basma “print, press” with allophones, Serb. basamak, Bulg. basamaci “step-”, Pol. basaiyk “whip (prod)”; Arab., Rus. baskak “official, tax collector”; Mong. basu- “press, throw”; Tung.-Manchu basala, basalla “kick”; Nenets (Kamasin) baspa “trap”; Kor. matta, mağa, mağin “beat (war), defeat” (Ref.s EDTL v.2 p. 77). Distribution: Eurasian-wide across linguistic borders, Eng. is a rare speck in a linguistic sea. The “IE” etymological speculations are pitiful: variant of “burst” with loss of -r-; a variant of bursten, bresten “to burst”; semantics “frolic, spree”; “probably” from earlier expression “bust (one's) boiler”. An interesting offer is a dubious Lat. bustum as a backformation fr. Lat. urere, ustum “burn”. In the context of the bust “ruin” it makes a quite logical “busted, broken statue”, and links homonyms bust “female chest”, bust “partial statue”, and bust “ruin”, all without any need for any urere, ustum. A survival of the Celtic Ir. and Welsh forms attests to an existence of the word in the N. Pontic in 6th-5th mill. BC, prior to a start of the Celtic anabasis to Iberia and their arrival there in the 3rd mill. BC. That predates by far the word's 2nd mill BC migration with the Aryan farmers to the south-central Asia. A paradigmatic transfer of the terms “bust”, “bastard”, “push”, “ambush”, etc. indelibly attests to an origin from a Türkic phylum. See ambush, bastard, bust, push, port.

3.38
butt (v., n.) “thick end” (Sw N/A, F1415, 0.01%) ~ Türkic büt-, bit- (v.) “come to an end, end, end up, befall”. An “IE etymology” blunders between realities, “probables”, and outright fantasies. In Europe, out of 44 European languages, the Türkic büt- predominates with a miniscule 7 (16%) languages, followed by a Sl. Old Europe zad- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 33 (75%) languages use their own versions of 18 European native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is hyper-motley. A status of a Türkic loanword is obvious. Cognates: A.-Sax. buttuc “end, small piece of land (probably a tip of a lot)”, MDu., Du. bot, ONorse bauta, ONorse butr “short (end), log of wood”, LGmn. butt “blunt, dull”; Ir., Gael. butt; Welsh fytiwyd; Fr. bout, OFr. bot “extremity, end”; Sl. (Rus.) bodatsya (бодаться) “butt, gore”; Bulg. bitisam, bittisam, bitisuvam, bitermedze “end”, biter “finished, ended”, bitermedze “end”; Serb. bitisati “pass, die”; Mong. bütǝхǝ “complete”, bütxǝ “finished”; all “end” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: ubiquitous across Eurasia from Mongolia to Atlantic, with incidentally spotty appearances in Europe. The word's evading the Asian “IE” areas makes etymological association with the Kurgan Sarmatians unavoidable. The Celtic fytiwyd is inescapably an echo of the original büt- from the Eastern Europe of the pre-migration period ca. 5th-6th mill. BC to Iberia of 3rd mill. BC. An “IE etymology” is badly lost, stewed in its own juice, it is myopic, vague, with incidental conflations (button - bud) and unrelated (button - Fr. boter “thrust”) words. Or it connects “butt” with “digging”. The “IE etymologies” are unsustainable. The Türkic system of suffixing allows creation of vast volume of derivations, e.g. bütün whole, entire; bütmäk ending, termination, fulfillment, etc. So is its use in English: butt in, butt out, button, buttress, butt-weld, button, buttock, and so on. The age of the lexemes is indicated by a proliferation of the Türkic suffixes, pointing to the formation of the words like button still in the Türkic linguistic milieu: suffixes -on, -ta, -uch, etc. The original semantic association with the human butt is attested by the Türkic derivative form bütgü “baby excrement” (sounds much like the modern “butt goo”). A Türkic origin is indisputable.

3.39
cackle (v., n.) “hens shrill squawk” ~ Türkic kak-, kakı:la:- (v.), kakı: (n.) “cackle”. Ultimately fr. a verb qаqı- “blab, bleat, scream” with a denoun suffix -la; k ↔ q etc. The verb conveys a range of flavors, from joy to complain. In Europe, the word spread like a fire, becoming a literally Pan-European loanword: of 44 European languages, 37 (84%) languages use versions of Türkic qаq-; the remaining 7 languages (Lat., It., Corsican, Gk, Pol., Hu., Scots) use their own 7 native words. An imitative origin of a bird call is quite convincing, but it is known that in different languages imitations of the same are most different, any imitation requires an address. Cognates: A.-Sax. cahhetan, ceahhettan “cackle, laugh loudly”, cehhettung, ceahhetung “laughter, jesting”, ceahhe “thieving bird, jackdaw”; 11 Sl., 10 Gmc., 8 Romance, 2 Celtic, 2 Baltic, 2 Fennic, and 3 oddbal (Alb., Basque, Tatar) words constitute the 37-language majority; Hu., Scots, Lat., It., Corsican, Pol., Gk. words of non-qаq- variety; Pers. akaqib “lies, falsehoods” (< Arab. ?); Mong. khashgirakh “cackle”; Ref. to Doerfer I 1400. Distribution: ubiquitous across Eurasia from Mongolia to Atlantic, peculiarly ubiquitous across Europe and across linguistic borders within Europe. For a linguistically patchy territory with ca. 50+ languages that is an outstanding phenomenon. Not a scent of “IE etymology”. A suggested “imitative” is probably true, but is useless in respect to the familial origin of imitation: nowhere else a chicken squawk is imitated by a cackle-type form. The Türkic denoun verbal suffix –la had internalized into an Eng. auslaut –le for both verbal and noun forms. The Hu. vihog and Scots uchd appear to echo each other. The phonetic and semantic match is perfect. A chance of a pre-historical borrowing fr. English into a bulk of the Türkic languages is absolute zero. This word belongs to a cluster of Turkisms inherited by English independently fr. other Gmc. languages. It may be a useful marker for linguistic and demographic tracings.

3.40
cagy (v.), cagey (adj.) “evasive, reticent” ~ Türkic qač- (qach-) (v.) “avoid, shun, escape, disappear”. An “IE etymology” rated as “of unknown origin”. Ultimately fr. a Türkic base qo/qon “coach, migrate”, the form qač is related to an allophonic basic notion köč-, göč- (v.) “ride a coach”, “migration, travel”, köč/göč (n.) “coach, carriage, wagon, house”, fr. a Türkic base qo/qon “coach, migrate”, see coach, come, go. Türkic qač has numerous derivatives. Due to a character of the surviving records a best recorded is “avoid, slip away, escape” from an enemy. Cognates: Eng. coachman, Dan. kusk, Du. koetsier, Gmn. Kutscher, Norse, Sw. kusk “coachman”; Sl. (Bosn., Croat) kočijaš, (Bulg.) kochiyash (кочияш), (Czech) kočí, (Ru., Serb., Slov., Slovt., Ukr.) kucher (кучер), (Rus.) qočqa (кочка) “escapee” (dial.); Romance (Cat.) cotxer, (Fr.) cocher, (Galician, Port.) cocheiro, (It.) cocchiere, (Sp.) cochero; Balt. (Latv., Lith.) kučieris “coachman”; Fennic (Est.) kutsar, (Fin.) kuski “coachman”; Basque kotxezainak; Ch. ganche (赶车); references to Ugrian correspondences; all qač- “coach-” except as noted. Distribution: ubiquitous across Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific. No “IE” pretentions on the origin of the word, but a hanging tail of “unknown origin”, “1896 U.S. colloquial”, “a “sportive” in Eng. dialect”. That nonsense need to be cleared. No “IE” parallels, no surviving Gmc. parallels. Akin to the Türkic nomads with their mobile homes, Serb. has a term koch (коч) for their stationary homes. The Türkic origin is semantically pinpointed and phonetically precise. See coach, come, go.

3.41
call (v.) “verbal touch” (Sw N/A, F162, 0.16%) ~ qol- Türkic (v.) “call on, for, ask, beg, pray”. An “IE etymology” silently suggests that it is a loanword. An origin of the Türkic verbal stem qol- may be a reflex of a noun qulaq “ear” or its archaic predecessor, corroborated by a Hu. cognate hal “hear”. Or a reflex of a noun qol “arm, limb” as syncretic with a gesture of “ask, beg”, Cf. qolči “petitioner, beggar”. Over the ages, the verb has developed a respectable derivative tree. Eng. too has an assembly of 25 semantic meanings for the verb. Gmc. forms with auslaut -g are allophones of the Türkic deverbal noun qolɣ formed with a deverbal noun/adj. suffix -g-/-ig-/-yg-. In Europe, out of 44 European languages, the Türkic kol- predominates with a miniscule 6 (14%) languages, followed by a Romance group with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 34 (77%) languages use their own versions of 24 native European words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is hyper-motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. ceallian, clipian “call, shout, loud utter”, glesan “gloss”, MEng. “clepe, yclept”, Dan. kalde “call, name”, MDu. kallen “speak, say, tell”, Du. “talk, chat, chatter”, Sw. kalla “call, refer to, beckon”, ONorse kalla “cry loudly, loudly summon, name, call by name”, Norw. kalle “call, name”, Icl. kalla “call, shout, name”, OHG kallon, kallen “call, speak loudly”, kalzen, kelzen “talk, brag”, Gmn. kallen “call”, klage “complaint, grievance, lament, accusation”; OIr. kalla “calling, singing”, Scots call, caw, ca “call, cry, shout”, Welsh galw “call, demand”; Cimr. galw “calling”; OCS glasit (гласить) “say”, glagolit (глаголить) “speak”, klikat (кликать) “call”, Pol. głos “voice”, Rus. golos (голос) “voice”; Lith. gal̃sas “echo”; MLat. glossare, LLat. glossa, OFr. gloser “speak nicely”, lit. “say it, explain voicing”; Gk. klisi (κλήση) “call”; Alb. gjuhë “language, tongue”; Hu. koldus “beggar”; Skt. garhati “bewail, criticize”; Mong. ɣujl-, ɣuli- “call”; all “call” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic barriers. The word is non-IE. The “IE etymology” recognized qol- for Cimr. galw and OCS glasit, but not for the MLat. glossare etymologically confused with a notion “thorn”. Most “IE” languages do not have parallels, and those few that have historically or biologically documented Türkic links. In O. Maenchen-Helfen's favorite expression, the “IE etymology” is pure galimatia, piling up all allophones in one uncouth heap. Among faux speculations reside the faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *kall- and *kalzona “call, shout”, and faux “PIE proto-forms” *gal- “call, shout” and *gal(o)s-, *glos-, *golh-so- “voice, cry”. These pretentious inventions add nothing to the etymology of the word, and should be replaced with attested material. The word has been around for quite a while: the Cimmerians of the 10th c. BC are youngsters against Skt. of the 16th c. BC and the Celtics of the 28th c. BC. Against their dated counterparts, the Gmc. are late arrivals. What unites these diverse people is that they are all living on the outskirts of the great steppe, bordering, occasionally amalgamated, and at times being the original Türkic tribes. In a feat of paradigmatic transfer, Eng. possesses four main action words related to communication: say, tell, calll, and gabble, the direct siblings of the Türkic söy-/söyle-, til-/tili-, qol-, and gap-/gapir-. Although overlapping and interchangeable to some degree, each one conveys its own distinct spectrum of very basic communicative notions. These are in addition to the cognate terms for animal utterances and other sounds. They form an indelible case of paradigmatic transfer, a testament to a common origin. A Türkic origin of the word is irrefutable. See gabble, say, tale, tally, tell.

3.42
calm (v., n., adj.) “quiet” (Sw N/A, F804, 0.01%) ~ Türkic kam-, ka:m- (v.) “weaken, lower”. An “IE etymology” rated “of uncertain origin”. Semantics depicts a change in intensity (i.e. wind died, heat or cold diminished, sea calmed, etc.). Of the word's five semantic clusters, the “weaken” cluster is an oldest, the other four are derivative. The phoneme -l- in the Eng. stem probably simulated a long -a- also rendered as -aa-. Out of 44 European languages, in Europe the Türkic kam- predominates with 14 (32%) languages, followed by a mix Gmc. ra- group with 6 (14%) languages, followed by a mix Sl. mir- group with 6 (14%) languages and a Sl. spo- group with 5 (11%) languages. The remaining 12 (27%) languages use their own versions of 11 native European words. Other than the Türkic kam-, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is fairly motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. col, coll “calm”, cama “muzzle”, Norse calm; OFr. calme, carme, OIt. calma “tranquility, quiet”, Sp. (and other Romance languages) calma; Malt. ikkalma, Sl. (Ukr.) (v)gam(uvati) ((в)гам(увати)), (Russ.) (u)gom(onitsya) ((у)гом(онится)); Est. külm(avereline); Mong. (nam)gum ((нам)гум); Uzb. jim, Az. həlim; all “calm” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic barriers, peculiar and suggestive. The word does not belong to the “IE” family, is peculiar only to a specific European audience, and an oddity among a mass of the “IE” languages. A “PIE etymology” is unimaginable. A Romance group probably received the word via Burgund nomads, in the second part of the 1st mill. AD. Cited pearls for the notion “calm” are unrelated to the subject: the LLat. cauma “heat time (siesta)”, Gk. kauma “heat”, kaiein “to burn”; spelling influenced by Lat. calere “hot”. To a detriment of its own objectivity, the circular “IE” “etymology” omitted calm-type cognates scattered across Eurasia. In above LLat./Gk. example of fabricated “IE etymology”, the only savvy element is its ingenuity. An idea of the Romans carrying their “hot siesta” to the fringes of the Mongolian desert to express “quiet” extends beyond absurd. A.-Sax. had plenty (24) of native words for “calm” with a rich complement of derivatives, attesting that “calm” was a demographic oddball: acelan, astilllan, bliðe, fedlice, and more. Many of them are still active in English with their prime semantics. For a notion “calm sea” A.-Sax. already carried native dumb, cool, still, tame, blithe, fade, mellow, row, soft, plus now lost swig “silence”. Apparently, the forms for the notions “calm” and “cold” were mixed up, resulting in ambiguous col/coll “cold, calm”. True cognates are scattered across Eurasia, across linguistic groups, with European scene a minor remote appendix. In a sane world, a notion of “sea on siesta” for the “calm sea”, and the like dotty leaps of imagination would not make sense. The Greeks did not need to derive “quiet” from “burn”. Phonetically, the Azeri form is a first-line candidate for dissemination, it is connected with As-eri Scythians (Ishguza/Ashguza Scythians in Sakasena, modern Azerbaijan), Ashkenazim Scythians (אשכוז’ škuz and אשכנז’ šknz, Hebrew, Biblical records) and with a Scandinavian folklore of the latter days. Phonetically, most European cognates introduced an inlaut -l-, while the Sl., Mong., and Uzb. forms, and the modern English with a silent -l-, do not use it. The absence of cognates in the Celtic languages allows to suggest that the form kalm-/kam- evolved after 5th mill. BC, after the Celtic departure from the Eastern Europe to Iberia.

3.43
calumniate (v.) calumny (n.) “malicious charge, trickery, subterfuge, misrepresentation” ~ Türkic čоlvu, čуlvu (v.) “defame, disparage, libel” (+ yala-, jala, etc.). Ultimately fr. a verb čоl- “weaken”, and its derivatives related to “damage”, Cf. čolmaq “vice, defect, disable”. The anlauts č-, y-, or j- reflect scribal articulative versions. In the Christian Manichaean lingo, and then with an advent of Islam, it came to designate blasphemy and became a popular daily mantra. Out of 44 European languages, the Türkic čоl-, kal- predominates in Europe with 18 (41%) languages, followed by an Old Europe Sl./Türkic kl-, -kl- with 9 (20%) languages, altogether 27 (61%) use Türkic word. The remaining 15 (39%) languages use their own versions of 13 native European words. Other than the Türkic, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is fairly motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. hol (n.) “slander”, holian “betray”, Goth. holon, holian (v.) “deceive, injure”, ONorse hol “praise, flattery”, OHG huolen, huolian “deceive”; Ir. calumnach, Scots calum “slander” (but Welsh drygair); Sl. (OCS, Serb., Croat, Bulg., Czech, Slovak) xula, xoula, kleveta, etc. “slander, deceive”; Lat. calvi, calvor (v.), calumnia (n.) “false statement”; Gk. kelein “bewitch, seduce, beguile”; MFr. calomnie “slander, deceive”; Mong. jala “fine, atonement”; all “charge, accusation” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic barriers. There is no need for unattested faux “PIE roots” *kel- “conceal”, or *kelh, or *khl-, or a “PIE cognate” Gk. kelein “bewitch, cast a spell”, or for a “perhaps” in a ”from the same root as call (v.)” (see call). The Türkic čоlvu is still active, its numerous allophones attest to its geographical, temporal, and dialectal diversity. A learned Lat. was instrumental in spreading the word in Europe. The Lat. calvi “trick, deceive” matches exactly the Türkic čоlvu in phonetics and semantics, leaving no doubt on the origin of the word. The ONorse hol “praise, flattery” saliently falls out from the semantic uniformity across numerous languages and timespans, but Cf. Sl. xula < čоl-. The transition Türkic čоlvu > Lat. calvi > Lat. calumnia > MFr.; the A.-Sax. holian (v.), calomnie > English calumny clearly demonstrate the paths and directions of the phonetic shifts within narrow semantic field. The ubiquity of the word in time and space attests to the ubiquity and importance of the calumny in the life of numerous societies from at least the 1st mill. AD to the days of enlightenment. A fairly rich research trail leaves no doubts of a Türkic origin. See call.

3.44
can (v.) “able to” (Sw N/A, F51, 0.41%) ~ Türkic qan-, ka:n- (v.) “happen, occur, meet a desire”. For uninitiated etymologists, situation is confusing and confused. The verb has at least 23+ meanings in 5+ clusters. A main cluster denotes a notion “can (execute, achieve a desire)”. A secondary cluster denotes a derivative notion “know”. That created a bifurcated semantic split of “can” and “know”, see know. What appear to be homophones are two offshoots of a single parental root. The Gmc. cognates are semantically split, and are innocently treated as homophones. Out of 44 European languages, an Old Europe Türkic-Sl. mog- predominates with 11 (25%) languages (see might), followed by a Türkic original qan-, ka:n- with 10 (23%) languages, followed by a Romance pot- with 7 (16%) languages. The remaining 16 (36%) languages use their own versions of 13 European native words. Altogether, the Türkic share of the European languages is 21 (48%), nearing a 50.6% R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is fairly motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. can, con “can, able”, and “learn, know”, ONorse kenna “know, known”, OFris. kanna “recognize, admit”, Gmn. kennen “know”, Goth. kannjan “to make known”; Mong. qan-, qanu- “meet a desire”. More cognates are provided by derivatives in a range of languages, Cf. Türkic qantar, Manchu qantara “impatiently wait (desire)”, Türkic qantar “caprice, whim”, “tilt, twist”. Distribution of the can “able” and “know”, peculiar to the Germanic and Türkic languages, proves its linguistic affiliation. An “IE etymology”, myopically or maliciously but surely pretentiously, invented an entire saga-type tale. There are ghosts of faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *kunnjanan “mentally able, have learned”, and *kunnana (“?”), a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *kunnan (“?”), and a faux “PIE proto-root” *gno- “know”, and a faux “PIE proto-form” *gneh (“?”). This potato soup of egg whites is also supposed to etymologically explain terms of con “swindle”, couth, uncouth “refined, unrefined”, could “able”, canny “cagy”, cunning “guile”, etc. All gifts are pulled from a same bag. The myopic experts do not bother to see beyond their parochial horizons. The nonsense leads from nowhere to nowhere, traces nothing, it is a classical game of blind shooting. For couth, uncouth see quite, for con see con. Versions of the form and semantics cantnt “tilt, twist”, rated as “a word of uncertain origin”, are found in many languages: Teutonic, Slavonic, Romanic, Celtic, Latin cantus (OED). In the east, the older notion “can” retained its primacy frozen in time. In the west, A.-Sax. carried the conventional bifurcated semantics eidetic with the Türkic original. Gmc. languages internalized bifurcation “can, able” and “know” in a process of a paradigmatic transfer. A common trend starting with the Goth. was a Gmc. shift to the semantic prong “know”, while the older native words haban “have, possess, hold” and d magan, mahteigs, mahtig “might” filled a function of “can, able”. The near-perfect phonetic and perfect semantic congruence attests to a Türkic origin of the Eng. word can “able”. Like the can “able” and can “know” separately, and the A.-Sax. pair “able + know”, the magan “might” came from the Türkic linguistic phylum, constituting an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer to the Gmc. languages. See -able, con, I, do, know, might, quite, this.

3.45
capture (v., n.) “take” ~ Türkic kaptur, kapdur (v.) “seize, embezzle”. An mentally blind “IE etymology” deadlocks at Lat. captura and calls it “etymology”. A notion “capture” ascends to traditional Türkic methods of encircling hunt. Ultimately a verbal form of kap “bag, pouch”, later “vessel, cup”. A Türkic suffix -tur forms a causative form of the verbal base kap-, qap- (v.) “seize, grab”, qapsa- (v.) is a desiderative form of kap-, qap- “surround, encompass all sides”; also form hapset-/hapis “capture” (v., n.). The anlaut reflexes h-, с-(k-), сh-, х- indicate transmission of Turkic initial glottal h- (q-) with dialectal variations, and the Gmc. -ft may reflect the original Turkic form hapset-/hapis presently spelled -pset in Romanized transcription. In addition to a direct “take” with different angles, the verb produced passive and metaphorical extensions: “trapped”, “catch (an infection, an idea)”, “bite”, etc., selectively used by receptor vernaculars. Out of 44 European languages, a Türkic original root qap-, kap- predominates with 15 (34%) languages, followed by an Old Europe Sl. hvat- with 9 (20%) languages, and Gmc. group fan- with 5 (11%) languages. The remaining 17 (39%) languages use their own versions of 11 native European words. Except Türkic, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is fairly motley. Ironically, the Lat., a key of the “IE etymology”, is using an exact clone captura of the Türkic kaptur. Cognates: A.-Sax. hæft “take”, hæftling (n.) “taken” (+beridan < ber- “bear”, see bear (v.)); OIr. gaib “grasping”, gabaim “I take, grasp”, Scots cum “hold, taken” Welsh cymryd ditto; Lat. captura, capere “take”; Sp. capish “capture (the meaning)”, fr. Türkic kapıš- “capture, understand”, a reciprocal and co-operative form of kap-, qap-; Sl. hapat- (хапать) “grab” with dialectal variations, kapkan “trap, snare” ; Hu. kap-, kapni “grasp”; Fin. kaappaa- “capture”; Arab. qabada; Mong. qabla “seize, arrest”, Kalm. xawl- “catch (ball), bite”, Khalh. havshih “bite (of fish)”; all “capture” unless noted otherwise. The Eng. capture and Lat. captura and captus “taking” attest to immediate inheritance from the Türkic complete with the Türkic causative, active suffix -tur. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East across linguistic families, with a major presence in the “IE” languages. A taxonomic group without a certain definition, the “IE” languages are presently conventionally held as a positively non-Türkic linguistic family. Geographic spread finds ancient Türkic lexicon in the areas of the Italic (R1b 19%, R1a 3%, I 11%, E 14%, J 18%, G 12%), Gmc. (R1b 18%, R1a 12%, I 20%, E 5%, J 6%, G 5%), and in the Slavic branch of the Baltic family (R1b 8%, R1a 30%, I 38%, E 15%, J 8%, G 3%). Naively presuming that genetically and linguistically the otherwise indiscernible Southern Siberian R1a (24 ky BP) and R1b (19 ky BP) constituted a range of kindred biotic communities before and after their long-range migrations and various amalgamations. Only their linguistic and genetic traces in various degrees survived to our times. Phonetic consonance is striking, and semantic match is perfect. An “IE etymology” is non-existent, a faux “PIE proto-root” *kap- “grasp” solely parrots the attested Türkic kap-, qap- (v.) “seize, grab”. To parrot some eastern articulations, a hardline M. Vasmer in desperation suggested an unattested faux “IE proto-word” *-khar. Those claims are groundless and pretentious. Türkic has numerous terms and derivatives with wide geographical spread of the terminology related to encircling hunts ascending to the ancient hunter-gatherer society. The OIr. gabaim came complete with an agglutinated Türkic suffix -im “me”. The OSl. form hapyashte preserved the Türkic deverbal noun suffix -č. A Türkic hunting word qapsa “encircle, surround on all sides” is paradigmatically connected with the English “circle”. See bear (v.), circle.

3.46
care (v., n.) “attend, be concerned, safeguard” (Sw N/A, F216, 0.09%) ~ Türkic kör-, gör-, qara- (v.) “look after, care for” . It would be honest to declare a routine “of unknown origin”, with no “IE” connections, but q.v.. Ultimately fr. a kVr-, kVs-type prime verbal cluster variously articulated with anlaut k-/g- and vowels ö/ü/a, connected with aspects of vision. A branch of verbal allophones kör-/gör-/qara- relays a prime semantics “look (attentively)” (Cf. stare, gaze, see), and semantics “care for” among various extensions. The Eng. idiom “look after” is a calque of the Türkic expression. The form qara- of the cluster is validated by a derivative word qaraɣu “watch, patrol”. A complimentary word of the same semantic branch is sorrow, scare of the Gmc. linguistic trunk, see scare, gaze. The Türkic form kör- gör- qara- predominates in Europe, out of 44 European languages, it is used by 13 (30%) languages, vs. 3 largest secondary groups with 3 (7%) languages each. The remaining 22 (50%) languages are a constellation with their own 19 European native words. Other than the Türkic, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; the entire European mixture is perfectly motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. carian, cearian “care for”, carseld “home of care”, OSax. karon “to care, to sorrow”, OE. cearu, Goth. kara, OHG. chara “care, anxiety”; Ir., Scots curam “care” (but Welsh gofal); Lat. cura, curae “care, concern, trouble, treatment”, It. cura “care, cure, treatment”; Alb. Albanian kujdes; Mong. qara- “see”; Manchu qara- “look, scan, observe”; Evenk, Even qaray “care, save, preserve”, Evenk qaray “guard, watch, ward”; all “care” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic borders, a popular loanword in Europe. OED erroneously emphasizes that albeit Lat. cura is a suitable match semantically and phonetically, it is in “no way related to the “care, concern, trouble”. OED should instead emphasize that it is in no way related to a notion of “scream”, and any other subject semantically unrelated to care. There is no need to conflate phonetic resemblances, like the unattested faux “PGmc. proto-form” *karo- “lament, grief, care” or *karo- “care, sorrow, cry”, or the faux “PIE proto-word” *gehr- “shout, call” and a faux “PIE proto-root” *gar- “cry out, call, scream” fr. Ir. gairm “shout, cry, call” (see cry). Or an Eng. garrulous “chatty, talkative”, Du. karig “scanty, frugal”, OHG chara, charon “to lament, wail”, Gmn. karg “stingy, scanty”, and the like. They deserve and have their own cognates. That kind of antics is not needed, it leads from nowhere to nowhere, and only pretends to cloud an issue. The attested material is profound. Türkic has two phonetically close distinct siblings with close, but different semantics, a qorq “be concerned, safeguard, be afraid for” and gӧrg “scare”, apparently conflated in the phonetic structures of sibling vernaculars. The A.-Sax. carig “sorrowful, anxious, grievous” is a NW European form of the Türkic qorq “scare, fear, panic, horror, phobia”, and Gorgon “monster” is a Greek Mediterranean form. See caginess, cry, gaze, Gorgon, scare.

3.47
carve (v.) “cut by chipping away at a surface, engrave” ~ Türkic kert-, kert (v., n..) “incise, carve a mark, engrave”. Ultimately fr. a verb ker-, ger- “strech” formed with a causative suff. -r fr. a root ke-, ge- with the same prime notion “stretch”. The suff. -t is a reflex of a directional suff. -ta, -da forming a notion ca. “stretch out”. The prime notion “stretch” numbers 6 semantic clusters. Of the 44 European languages a motley group with Türkic ker-, car- with 5 (11%) languages trails an Old Europe Sl. group ris-, rez- with 9 (20%) languages, a Romance scul- group with 6 (14%) languages, and a Gmc. schni- group with 5 (14%) languages. The remaining 19 (43%) languages use their own 15 European native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root in Europe; the entire European “carve” mixture is utterly motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. ceorfan, cearf, corfen “carve, cut, cut down, slay, cut out, engrave”, OFris. kerva, WFris. kerve, Du. kerven, Gmn. kerben, LGmn. karven “cut, notch”; Gk. graphein (γραφειν) “scratch” (> “write”, It. graffire “make graffiti”); Mong. kerči “cut, hew, notch” (~ Sakha kärči, käčči (v.) “notch”), kherchim “piece, chunk”, kherchi “slice, cut”, Kalm. krchm “cut, piece”; all “carve” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic borders; scanty loanwords in Europe. A foxy “IE etymology” comes up with a pile of faux origins: the faux “WGmc. proto-forms” *kerbanan and *kerban (“carve” ?) and the faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kerbana (“scratch” ?), and the faux “PIE proto-root” *gerbh- and *gerbʰ- “scratch”. For an ornament come unrelated but real OPruss. gırbin “number” and OCS жрѣбии (žrěbij) “lot, tallymark”. All that myopic drivel leads to nowhere etymologically, serves no need, and asks to be kindly excused. The auslaut consonant adopts to the local articulative conditions with -t/-f/-v/-b/-ph. The A.-Sax. cweorn “millstone”, i.e. “scratch pad”, cweornbill “chiesel”, quern, and their European cognates probably are remote derivative siblings of the kert. The various forms are consistent with the Türkic kert phonetically and semantically. See cut, curt, short.

3.48
cast (form by pouring) (v., n.) “form in mold” ~ Türkic qïsdï (qysdy) (v.) “squeeze, form in mold”.. An “IE etymology” rated “of unknown origin”. Ultimately fr. of a verb qïs- “squeeze, press, compress, clinch, force, coerce, restrain, crush, suppress”, see squeeze; -dï is predicate and analytical formant. The “cast (in mold)” has numerous homophones unified by a common spelling only; a most popular homophone is “throw”. Cognates: A.-Sax. (ge)cwysan “squeeze”, Du. giet-, Sw. gjut-, Gmn. guss; Ir. caitheadh, Scots (til)geadh (but Welsh bwrw); It. ghisa; Gk. chytos- (χυτοσ-); Balt. (Lith.) ketus; Basque “cast”; Yid. kast (קאַסט); Mong. kisa “furnace”, Bur. xyaha “furnace”, Kalh. xyas “crucible”; Manchu xuža “furnace”; Tatar qïsdï; all “cast, form in mold” except as noted. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic borders; scanty loanwords in Europe. The Celts (Cf. Ir., Scots) but not the Sumerians have used the term. The “IE etymology” escaped an embarrassment by not citing any faux proto-words with a truthful excuse “of unknown origin”. Since the Türks carried technique of a bronze metallurgy from the Urals and Carpathians to around much of the Eurasia, they are an only candidate to bring the term to the Far East (Cf. attested Zhou metallurgy carried to China) and to the Far West. The future Germans of the Corded Ware were on the far fringes of the main trade routs connected with the spread of metal casting. They probably learnt their terminology from some intermediaries, probably of numerous sources. English has retained a trace of the suffix -dï in the form -t; the others contracted -st to -t, or retained the stem qïs- (Gmn., It.). Various European spellings of the anlaut consonant reflect attempts to depict an uvular consonant. The It. form differs from the Lat.-Romance model, it is likely of Gmc. provenance. The “IE etymology” confuses homophones cast “form in mold” and cast “throw”, and even then it can't yield to a rational origin. The duo of cast (v.) “send forth” and cast (v., n.) “form in mold” (< “squeeze”) demonstrates a remarkable case of paradigmatic transfer and creolization, where a semantic group (qus-, qïsdï) is transferred in its entirety while phonetic simplification created homophones out of distinct originals. The oldest known Türkic castings and the casting lingo were carried by the “Zhou Scythians” from Mesopotamia to the Altai and on to China, bringing ca.1750 BC the casting technique, including the monetary knifes, to the Shang China. The word probably ascends to a Kargaly time in the Urals, where metallurgy started in the 5th mill. BC and was famous till the 2nd mill. BC, or originated in the 4th mill. BC not too far from the Carpathians, a center of the European metallurgy. It was spread far and wide by the horsed nomads who brought it first to Altai and then to the Far East. It was carried to the Central and eventually to the Western Europe by different horse nomadic groups. The Mesopotamian horse nomadic Guties in the 3rd mill. BC already mastered a perfected casting of socketed joints; a bronze cast monetary knifes were brought from the Altai to the China's Shang Dynasty by the Zhou “Scythians” ca. 17th c. BC. The “IE”-cited AD dates of the term are ridiculous. See squeeze.

3.49
cause (v., n.) “origin of something, producing an effect, motive” (Sw N/A, F357, 0.04%) ~ Türkic köze:- (v.) lit. “stir up burning embers”, “get charred” (see char), used mostly metaphorically, Cf. Eng. “inflame (feelings, etc.)”. An “IE etymology” rated “of unknown origin”. The köze:- is a denoun verbal derivative of kö:z, kör, köre “flare up, ignite, catch fire”, a derivative of a verbal root kö- “burn”, Cf. Eng. coal. It phonetically echoes derivatives kön-, köy- “burn” and kol “coal” (see coal). The essence of the notion is “conflagrate, stir up, inflame, foment, instigate”. Out of 44 European languages, a Türkic original root kö:z- predominates with 14 (32%) languages, followed by an Old Europe Sl.-Gmc. urs-, ars- with 12 (27%) languages and a Sl. group príč- with 7 (16%) languages. The remaining 10 (23%) languages use their own versions of 9 native European words. Except for a Türkic, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is moderately motley. Cognates: Ir. cuis, chuis, Welsh achos “cause”; OFr. causer “cause”, MLat. causa (n.) “cause”, incaendefacio “torch”; Bulg. kauza (кауза) “cause”; Latv. celonis; Maltese kawza; Gujarati kojha (કોઝ) “cause”; Mong. shaltgaan (шалтгаан) “reason”; Tatar köze:- “cause”. The Latv., Gujarati, and Mong. appear to be derivatives directly from the word kol for “coal”, in line with semantic connection and skipping the “embers” stage. The “IE etymology” states a routine “of unknown origin”. Distribution of the word indicates both colloquial and global character, with uncounted allophones across Eurasia due to importance of the chore “ignite”. The EDT cites only 3 groups that use this verb: Turkmen (i.e. Aral basin, consistent with other geographical associations), Khakass (i.e. Enisei Kirgiz, another link consistent with other associations), and Koibal, a small off-Khakass branch of recent provenance; EDTL cites 13 forms of a Türkic belt. Historically and philologically, such “rare” words may be very helpful in diagnosing genetic origins not only of the English people, but also of the Ephthalite Huns (Gujaraties), Latvians, etc. The Ir. form with /sh/ could originate from few closely related words: kol “coal”, köz “embers”, and the like, attesting to their use prior to a Celtic departure fr. the E. Europe ca. 5 c. BC. A displacement of a native A.-Sax. intinga shows a demographic predominance of the Türkic-derived lingo in the Albion. Paradigmatic transfer of etymologically related triplet, a metaphorical cause and substantive char and coal indelibly attests to a common genetic origin from the Türkic milieu. See char, coal.

3.50
challenge (v., n.) “confront” ~ Türkic čalïš (chalish) (v.) “call to fight”, a challenge to a hand to hand match. An “IE etymology” offers pure nonsense, q.v. The “call to fight” challenge supposedly is recorded in Eng. from 1520s, but A.-Sax. cognates testify to a time preceding by far the advertized references. Ultimately from a stem čal-, talq- “strike, shove, thrust down” with cooperative and reciprocity suffix -ïš, lit. “fight each other”. In a modern lingo it corresponds to a bar-room “let's step outside”. The čal- also denotes a peaceful “strike a percussion instrument” and an explosive “flare up, ignite”. In Türkic traditions, wrestling and single combat were a crucial part of any festivity. In most European languages, “challenge” is rendered as a form of “call”, Cf. Sl. vyzov < zov “call”. In Europe, the čalïš ~ challenge is practically invisible: out of 44 European languages they carry 2 (5%) (Eng., Türkic), reliably attesting to a non-IE origin. Two groups predominate, an Old Europe Sl. -zov- “call” and a motley -fi- “fencing” with 9 (20%) languages each. The remaining 26 (59%) languages use their own 17 native terms. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is predominantly motley. Like most of the European languages, a dominant Sl. native base is amalgamated to a variable degree with Türkic languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. clepe, beclepe, clipian, yclept “challenge, lawsuit”, lit. “call”; OFr. chalonge “challenge, call to fight”; Mong. dejil-, dejile- “defeat, beat, overcome” (j ↔ č, ~ Sakha dneliy). A paucity of the non-Türkic cognates contrasts with semantic and phonetic bounty of the Türkic vocabulary. The paucity provides an ultra slender path for diagnostic tracing matching a slender European distribution. Distribution: Across the Eurasian Türkic Belt, with a minimal extension to the W. Europe. A suggested “IE” etymology of the word is strikingly frivolous. Etymology is ascribed to an unrelated Lat. calumnia “trickery” via VLat. calumniare “to accuse falsely” (see calumniate) with a reckless jump to OFr. chalonge “challenge” or an unrelated faux “PIE proto-word” *kel- “invocation, beguile, feign, charm, cajole, deceive”, and the like. Besides phonetically challenged, a semantic connection to an invitation for a clash on a carpet or in court is missing there. With an absence of a sane “IE” etymology, the Fr. chalonge directly ascends to the Türkic čal-/čalïš and some local Gaulic articulation. A parallel Ir. dushlan echoes the Türkic dushman “opponent”, a Gael. dubhlan is very similar, and the Welsh term (herian) is akin to “manliness”, Cf. German “manly, brave, strong”. The preserved auslaut suffix -ïš, reflected in the Fr. -onge, Eng. -enge, in the original substrate language could have had an allophonic form -ïch, -ïj, -ïg, -ïk, -ïkh etc., it is a suffix of reciprocity, transmitting the sense of “us, them” (go, fight, eat, etc.). A related allophone čalaŋ (chalang) “babbler, chatterbox” with a negation suffix -aŋ (see –un) is opposite of challenge for a nonchalant “unruffled, oblivious, dismissive”. Its suggested “IE etymology” fr. Lat. calere “hot” and Fr. chaloir “care” is most dubious. See calumniate, chalant, –un.

3.51
champ, chomp (v.) “chew noisily” ~ Türkic čap- (chap-) (v.) “noisy action”, including “chomp, chew noisily”. The origin of the Türkic čap-, with attested forms čар-, čat-, čïb-, čub- and probably more, comes not from chewing, but from a whipping, “whip, lash, click”. In an auditory sense that means “chat, click”. The verb champ corresponds to the original Türkic semantics of chatting and clicking associated with a whipping sound to control herds. By now, it is rather an international word among a sea of colloquialisms. Cognates: Balto-Slavic chav- (chavkat, чавкать) “chew noisily” (b/p/v ~ m alternation). Distribution: Across the Eurasian Türkic Belt, with accidental extensions to the rest of the Eurasia in many allophonic versions. An “IE etymology” is “probably echoic”; that is likely true, from a some very particular source. An absence of a champing echo in the “IE” languages points to a specifically Türkic echo vs. Romance mordendo, ronge, picar, Gmc. kauen, etc. The kauen is a form of the Türkic kev-, kevsa- “chew” (v.) preserved with somewhat derisive meaning, nowadays supplanted by a regular beißen. The Balto-Slavic forms, active in the Sl. languages, descended from the Türkic verb likely brought over to the British Isles with the A.-Sax. speech. No connection to champagne, jam (v.), champed, champing, Fr. “field”, etc.

3.52
char (v.) “burned, turned to charcoal”, (n.) “charred” ~ Türkic öčür- (v.) “quell, extinguish (fire)”. An “IE etymology” asserts “probably a back-formation from charcoal”, Cf. “red” is a back-formation from “red herring”. Ultimately a causative form of öč- “quell (a fire)”, semantically connected with o:t (o:d) “fire, anger (metaph.)”. The öč- is neutral to transitivity, attesting to its primordial origin. The Eng. compound charcoal is an allophone of a Türkic compound öčür kül “quenched coals” with anlaut ö- elided about a time of internalization. The importance of the charcoal for the incipient metallurgy can't be overestimated, entire forest tribes were engaged in supply and production of the charcoal for the metal industry. Out of 44 European languages, a Türkic original öčür- (> char-) predominates with 21 (48%) languages, followed by a Türkic-Romance group car- (< öčür-) with 5 (11%) languages for a combined 26 (59% ) languages, matching a level of a 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. The remaining 18 (41%) languages use their own versions of 16 native European words. Except for a Türkic, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European mixture is grossly motley, attesting that its lingoes fossilized long before the öčür- came to the European scene. Cognates: A.-Sax. cer (/č-/), cerr (/č-/), ceorr (/č-/), cierr (/č-/) “churn, turn, change”, charren “turn (to coal)”; Ir. charraig “char”, Scots char “char”, Welsh (torg)och “char”; Serb. chhar (цхар) “char”, Blr. char (чар), Maced. shar (шар); OFr. charbon “charcoal”; Lat. carbo “charcoal”; Mong. ečüd, ečül “douse, quench, end, quell”, еčüs “end”, ečül “quench, cease, go out, fade”; Tatar öčür- “char”. Distribution: Across the Eurasian Türkic Belt, with a massive extensions to the W. Europe, the Far East, and who knows where else since before the last glaciation. No senile “IE” etymology. No “IE” cognates, attesting to a non-IE origin. In a perverted sequence, the “IE etymology” ascends char to charcoal, failing to come up with a rational etymology. It also ascends char to an unattested faux “PIE proto-word” *ker- “heat, fire”, and “perhaps” to a strikingly unrelated MLGmn. schar “flounder, stagger, dab” (= “awkward walk, behavior”, “fish (type)” (n.), “wet (v.)” from the faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *skardaz “shard, potshard (n.)” and *skerana “cut (v.)”. The myopic nonsense demonstrates complete misunderstanding of the linguistic phylogeny and false preconceptions driven by a circular logics. In the process, it unwittingly “reconstructs” an allophone *ker- “heat, fire” of the original attested form of the Türkic öčür-. The run amuck runs from nowhere to nowhere. The A.-Sax. word was a stack of two homophones from two independent sources, one a Türkic “churn, turn, change”, the other a native “affair, business” unrelated to the notion “char”. The A.-Sax. c-- was articulated as either /č-/ or /k/; Eng. has preserved the quality /č-/ of the initial consonant. Very peculiar etymology allows to trace the word to its early ethnic origins. Char is a member of a four-word fire-related paradigm transferred from Türkic languages: öčür- “char”, öč “ash”, kül “coal”, “ashes, cinders”, kandil “candle”. A conservative probability estimate for the case of these four words (15 phonemes) accidentally appearing in two independent languages is infinitesimally small, one chance out of 10²⁵, one trillionth of 10 trillionth, for details see ash. Char is a member of a huge cluster of the European words starting with char-/kar- and dealing with burning: carbon, cremation, etc. The importance of the word carbon for the Eurasian languages can't be overestimated. Notably, in addition to an amalgamated or adopted form of the word carbon, nearly every Eurasian language has retained in continued use its own synonym. The adopted word is used as a wad of concrete nouns and verbs in the cultural borrowing portion of the lexicons. The words carbon and cremation are now truly international words. See ash, candle, coal.

3.53
chat, chatter (v., n.) “small talk, gossip, babble, gabble” ~ Türkic čatla-, čatu:la:-, čatı:la:-, satu:la:-, šatu:la:- (v.) “chatter, talk non-stop, chirp, gossip”. An “IE etymology” is mum on etymology, asserting “of imitative origin”, q.v. Ultimately fr. čat- (v.) “make thud (sound), noise, spread rumors”. The term may refer to any nature of a sound of chatter, chirk, chirp, chirrup, twitter, etc., of nature, beast, or human. The Türkic notion of “buzz, small talk” and the like can be expressed singly, reduplicated, or in combination of elements čatt, čet, čıt, čit, see chitchat. In Türkic vernaculars an alternation s/š (sh), č (ch), y is a regular dialectal event. A prominent expression of čat is coined in the term četük for “cat” that formed European, Asian, and African term cat with its many allophones, see cat. The root čit is likely unrelated to the word chit “improper girl” or to the word chattel “private movable property”, a derivative fr. a homophonic root čat- “gather, assemble” (see chattel), but formed the notion cheat “practice trickery or fraud”, that is “talk somebody into doing something for their own disadvantage”, and chatter “din, twitter, gossip”. The word is a wonder of a miracle, an unadvertised appearance in Europe, and explosive spread. Like a sudden fashions of funny costumes and wigs, of 44 European languages 12 (27%) adopted forms of chat - Gmc.'s, Romance, Sl. The other 32 (73%) languages retained 27 terms of their own native vocabularies. Cognates: A.-Sax. no references; WFris. tsjotterje “chatter”, koeteren “jabber”, Dan. kvidre “twitter, chirp”, Du. schateren, schetteren “chatter, blare”, koeteren “jabber”, Gmn., Luxemb. chat, Gmn. kaudern “gobble (turkey)”, Sw. chatt, Norw. chatte; Gal., Malt. chat, Sp. charla, It. chiacchierare, Cors. chjachjara; Serb. chaskanje (ћаскање); all “chat” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: In a range of articulations ubiquitous across Eurasian Türkic Steppe Belt, plus some extensions to some W. European areas. It is fairly clear that once the word landed in the NW Europe, in the neighborhood it spread like a fire, attesting to a large demographic mass and its linguistic uniformity. No “IE” etymology, a peculiar isle nearly exclusively in the NW family, thus clearly a loanword of a non-IE origin. The “IE etymology” thesis “of imitative origin” is useless without ethnologic specificity, a twitting in one language is cvrlikaní in another and a kukatene in a third. A connection with the chirping of the birds and cats miaul have endured, supporting an initial echoic origin of the čat. Cognates point to an original anlaut consonant that could develop into affricate or plosive. The č-/k- alternation parallels that of the form četük/cat. The words “chat” and “chitchat” entered Eng. as undifferentiated verb/noun. They are paradigmatic transfer cases along with “say”, “tell”, “tale”, “saga”, “message”, and other words related to verbal communications. Further derivatives arose as innovations in the course of Eng. evolution. Each word separately, and the systemic nature of the paradigmatic transfer indisputably attest to a Türkic linguistic phylum. See cat, chattel, chitchat.

3.54
check (v., n.) “examine, ascertain, mark” (Sw N/A, F396, 0.04%) ~ Türkic ček- (chek-) (v.) “separate, draw, identify, mark with markers (dots, ticks, checks, etc.)”, čik- “an alchik “dice” concave side”. An “IE etymology” asserts a ridiculous proposition, an origin fr. a chess game, q.v. A semantics of ček- is fuzzy, it denotes some 30 meanings, a “pull” (v.), “mark” (v.) and few other meanings are cited (G. Clauson, EDT 413). An OTD offers only key semantics, with “pull (v.)” and “mark (v.)”. The notion is eidetic with idioms “show me”, “check the box”, and “dot the i's”. The verb carries a bifurcated notion of taking toll with actions of picking and notching. It likely originated from counting on fingers, and then for marking similar objects. Literal and metaphoric derivatives, at times very remote, fit into bifurcated semantics. Concrete applications reflect realities of the times: “mark (with diacritics)”, “inspection (military)”, “pick (separate)”, “draw (gambling)”, etc. Eng. derivatives are semantically connected with “secure, verify” rather than “count”: bank check, checking account, hotel check in, checkup, rain check, double-check, spell check, checkout, checklist, checkpoint, paycheck, unchecked, checker, hat check, etc. Cognates: A.-Sax. ciegan, cegan, cegian “call, call out, summon”, ðywan “check” ? (č ↔ ð); Fr. eschekier, exchequer “treasury, fiscal department”; Cat. xecs “check”; Tr. ček “mark”, čıkıš “come out, profit”, čikšerü “pull (locative)”. Distribution: Ubiquitous across Türkic Eurasian Belt; just foursome among 44 European languages (Türkic + OFr. + Cat. + Eng.), indelibly attesting with an irrefutable return address to a “guest” status among the European languages. The EDT used the essential Türkic verbal root ček- 100+ times. The “IE” paradigm confuses the word ček- “draw, mark” with gaming semantics “threat, attack, block” of the homophonic check, checkmate related to OFr. eschequier “chessboard”, MLat. scaccarium “place for (chess piece) shah, king”. The Eng. terms of the “IE etymology” are inconsistent with the chess' meanings “threat, attack”, nor with the chess terminology (“checkmate” means “shah-mate”, shah is a “king”), nor with related name for the checkers game. The semantics of the Türkic ček- is a world away from notions specific to the chess lingo “check” and “checkmate”. In contrast, the Eng. terms are consistent with the Fr. eschekier, Eng. exchequer “fiscal department”, i.e. “money, treasury, lot”. For the ček- connotation “secure, verify” neither an Arabic nor Pers. shah (aka check mate “king is killed” make any sense. The check “chess” is grossly anachronic (ca. 1300) against the indispensible in trade and commerce since most ancient times the Türkic ček-. Thus, no “IE” parallels whatsoever. The misleading etymology profanes the great place this rich and productive word occupies in the Eng. language.

3.55
chew, chaw (v.) “manducate, masticate, ruminate” ~ Türkic kev-, gev- “chew, chaw, ruminate”. Ultimately a denoun verbal derivative fr. a homophonic kaw “dry grass”, i.e. out-of-season horse food, “dry”, “dead wood, tree”. The word came to us from a dawn of productive enterprising. It left an unmatched-long trail of derivatives and allophones like ku-, kug-, quɣ-, коу-, etc. The term was of a prime importance for people and their sustenance source. Managed herds of pre-domesticated wild horses survived on grass from under a cover of snow. The practice of grazing horses from under snow extended to the domestication time and well into the present. For a better survival of the herds they were driven to winter quarters in the warmer and greener lowlands by river deltas and lakes. For pastoralists, that was a practical solution: preservation of their herds without toil to fodder the animals. From the shades of the notion chew it appears that the word eat was primary and included the notion chew, and a notion chew was a later development connected with ruminants and rumination, complementing the initial notion. That conjecture is supported by the exceeding wealth of the nouns and verbs chaw, cud, quid that point to rumination rather than to human chewing. The conjecture is also supported by the Balto-Sl. and Pers. examples with forms for chaw connected with a related jaw. The word kev-/gev- has survived into the Eng. cow and Gmn. kaff. Via various paths, the Türkic notion of “chew” came to Eng. as a part of a wide food consumption paradigm: eat, cheek, chew, jaw, manducate. The k-/ch- transition is peculiar to Eng. and probably originated still in the Türkic milieu. Another Gmc. alternation is g-. Of 44 European languages a prevalent is an Old Europe Sl. ž- with 12 (27%) languages, followed by a motley Gmc.-Celtic-Türkic k-group with 11 (25%) languages, followed by a largely Romance motley ma- group with 10 (23%) languages and a largely Gmc. t- group with 5 (11%) languages. The other 6 (14%) languages use 6 of their own native terms. None of the groups can be rated as Pan-European, each one can profess an “IE etymology”. Cognates: A.-Sax. ceow(an) (with ch-) “bite, gnaw, chew” (unlike the A.-Sax. ligature cs- unambiguously denoting phoneme sh, the A.-Sax. anlaut c- depicts the phoneme ch without marking a modifier), cow (with ch-) “chaw, food”, cu, cu(e), cy, cus, cue, cu(n)a, cyna; cum “cow”; cubyre, cucealf, cueage, cuhorn, cuhyrde, cumeoluc, metecu “cow-shed, cow calf, cow eye, cow horn cowherd, cow milk, met cow” respectively, WFris. kogje; MDu., Du. kaf, kauw(en) (but Dan., Sw., Norw. tygg-), OHG hewi “hay”, kiuw(an), MLG keuw(en), LGmn. käww(en), Gmn. kau(en), kaff “chew”; Goth. hawi “hay”; (OCS) živo “chew”, Rus. kovyl (ковыль) “grass (type)”, kavaleriya (кавалерия) “cavalry”, Pol. zuc “chew”; Lith. žiau(nos) “jaws”; Lat. gingiva “gums”; Pers. jav(idan) “chew”; Pashto; žovạl “bite, gnaw”; Kuchean (“Tocharian B”) suwaṃ “eat”; Mong. qag “dry”, qawdan “dry grass”; Khalkha hagd “dry grass”; all “chew” unless noted otherwise. The cavalry is lit. a derivative of “(riding) a ruminate, chewer” with its rich trail of cognates. The “IE etymology” came up with few invented “proto-words” like *gyeu-, mimicking Gmc. roots and unwittingly inventing non-existing acoustically different allophones of the real Türkic roots. Among other fantasies are the faux “PWGmc. proto-forms” *keuwwan, *keuwan “bite, gnaw, chew”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kewwana , all crowned with the faux “perhaps” “PIE proto-forms” *gyeu-, *gyewh “chew”. All that nonsense adds nothing to the real etymological knowledge. All those oddballs are demonstratively unrelated to the bulk of the “IE” vernaculars or the “IE family”: these “reconstructions” are suspended in nowhere and are quite flagrant. A “restored Proto-Gmc.” form *kaf- “chew” is identical to the attested Türkic kev-/gev- “chew”; a parochial ideology can't swallow that. A truncated form qu- is used in A.-Sax., Gmn., and in Kipchak and Altaian, a version hu- in Khakass (EDTL v.5 169). The A.-Sax. forms attest to multiple articulations of the anlaut c-, lining them up with the Gmc. forms as opposed to the Balto-Sl./Pers. forms. The form champ with b-/w-/m- alternation attests to a connection with m- vernaculars. In Balto-Sl. and Pers. case the line-up of “IE” cognates appears to confuse “chew” with the word for jaw- (with allophones), in Türkic čügtä, čügde, čökdä “jaw” with the allophones of the Türkic kev-/gev- “chew, ruminate”. That creates a false correspondence and consequently a spurious assertion for k-/ž-/j- alternation. The forms for the word eat (Türkic ye) are shared by the Türkic and a number of “IE” languages, none of them include the notion chew, while the notion chew in the above languages was derived from two distinct concepts, one “ruminate”, and the other “jaw”, attesting to parallel and independent processes. The segregation between chew/chaw/chow and cud/quid appears to be artificial because their semantics is identical, and the forms are eidetic, given the fluidity of the second consonant or semi-consonant like -y. The -y is frequently a second form for a number of weakly articulated consonants. The allophonic cognates for the form cud are A.-Sax. cudu and cwudu, where ligature cw- stands for q- or dg-: ONorse kvaða “resin”, OHG quiti “glue”, Gmn. kitt “putty”. Besides Gmc. confines, these semantic derivatives of the original kev-, gev- find a parallel in the Sl. žvachka (жвачка) “cud, chewed mass”, a derivative of a Balto-Sl. žiau/živo. See eat, cavalry, champ, cheek, jaw, menu.

3.56
chill (v., n., adj.) “coldness, cold” ~ Türkic čı:la:-, čile-, čısdı: “drizzle”, čil (chil), syil, yel, ye:l (v., n., adj.) “wind, windy”, čilə (chile) “cool”, Bashkir halqïn “cold”. An “IE etymology” is thoroughly confused on the issue of chill and cold, q.v. The forms čil “wind” and xaltarä (v.) “freeze” are cited for Chuv. language, they are a sample of an anlaut cornucopia č-/s-/š-/y-/j-/dj-/z-/ž-/d-/Ø. A spread of akin forms and undifferentiated grammatical use attest to a most primeval origin of the word. Abundance of forms and semantic affinities numbering in dozens form a dynamic cluster in time and demographies. A CT is a y-type, a č-type is second in popularity (including Khakass), an s-type shows up in the Far East. In CT čil is vocalized ye:l with a semi-consonant, aka (EDT) “with usual phonetic changes” and few vowel variations. Individual languages have their own semantic extensions. The Türkic chill, cold, drizzle and wind are allophones, with alternation of the initial k-/ch-/h-/x-/g-, and probably more. The form xaltarä in some Türkic languages echoes a form katur- “freeze”, fr. the verb ka:d- “freeze” and noun ka:d “snow-storm, blizzard”; it is a sibling of cold . An underlying notion of the stem ka:d- is “harden”, hence the metaphoric “freeze”. Alternatively, xaltarä may be a derivative of ka:r “snow” (like in Kar Sea “Snowy Sea”) with -r-/-l- alternation typical for the Chuv. language. All the roots, the “wind/blow”, “drizzle”, “freeze”, and “snow” are phonetically and semantically connected with chill and cold (+ numerous other roots). In warmer climes, the notion čil/ye:l “wind/blow” was associated with “coolness”, and in northern climates čil/ka:d- “freeze” and “snow” were associated with “cold” and “chill”. The wind also stands for “scream” of the čil/ye:l. In Eng., the common form ye:l has produced words “yell” and “howl”, paradigmatically transferring the meaning of the wind's distinct “howl”, see howl, yell. The mechanism of metaphoric semantic extension, especially in the northern area with continental climate like that of the Chuvashes and their neighbors, fr. “wind” to “howl” and to “chill, cold” is identical. The notion of the cold has been preserved in the A.-Sax. and OE semantics for chill “feel cold, grow cold”. Cognates: A.-Sax. ceald (with ch-, cheald) (n.) “coldness, cold”, (adj.) “cold, cool”, (adv.) cealde (with ch-, chealde) “coldness, cold”, ofcalan (with ch-, ofchalan) “chill down”, Goth. kalds (adj.) “cold”, OHG. (adj.) kalt “cold”, Du. hаl “frozen ground”; OCS (adj.) hladn- “cold”, prohlada “cool (place, air, etc.)”, hlad, hlod (n.) “coldness”, (v.) ohladit- “cool down”; Lat. (adj.) gelidus; Hu. szel (sel) “wind”; Pers. caidan (< ka:d-) “chill”, catarrh (< ka:d-) “cold”; Skt. hladate “refresh”, prahladas “cooling down, enjoy”; Dravidian cali “cold”; Mong. höldöh “cold”, salki (ch- > s) “wind”, shivree “drizzle” (sh ~ š ↔ č). Sl. languages relay minor variations. The Skt. forms are barely distinct fr. the Sl. and Mong. forms both in phonetics and semantics. Distribution of the cognates is manifest, from its start as a Siberian NOP Y-DNA Hg., its incipience as R1a Hg., its offspring as R1b Hg., its spread in all four directions reaching Atlantic ca. 9th mill. BC and China in the 2nd mill. BC. It amalgamated with all encounters on the way. From a 5th mill. BC it made from a wayfarer to a horseman, and on to a carriage. Its ancient traces are marked by all kinds of kurgan burials. Distribution reflects a Corded Ware-type vernacular(s) that split and migrated westward, eastward, and southeastward, with a finger extending to the Apennines. The direction and timing of the split have been reliably traced, the Indo-Aryan migration ca. 2000 BC, the Apennine migration ca. 1500 BC, the Sarmat migration ca. 200 BC. Languages that carried diagnostic markers were not necessarily those named out in the titles of the periods. They could have been those of the displaced, displacers could superimpose over the displaced. Flashes of primary and secondary events are reflected in biology (genetics), archeology, and later in historical records. “IE etymologists” are thoroughly confused on the issue of chill and cold, offering conflicting asterisked “PIE proto-words” to jam reality into ordained ideological chimera. The “IE” assertions are faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *kal- and *kaliz “cold”, and a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *kali “cold”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *gel- “cold, freeze”. The “IE” confusion is precipitated by a second European line of non-cognate “cognates” derived from the Türkic stem for “frost, hoar” and, of all the words in the world, “pendant”. A primary word for “pendant” (EDT 826, silk- “shake, shiver”, salkım “pendant (adj.), cold, hoar-frost”) is a cognate of Eng. “sag”, something that is hanging, drooping, and swinging. It produced the name for icicles, precipitation, and for “shivering” and “freezing”. Etymological conflation of two terms with their own etymological histories does a disservice by using a postulate as a proof of that premise. Hence the confusing cognates: Lith. (adj.) šaltas “cold”, Hu. szel (sel), Osset. (n.) sald “cold”, Av. (adj.) sarǝta “cold”, i.e. the reflexes of the Türkic salkım, šarkım “cold, hoar, frost, pendant (adj.)”, Yakut šel “wind”, siel “hair, mane”, CT yelpi “wave, flatter, swing”, yelke “nape” (hair on the nape side, like horse mane), etc. An oldest attested word is a Middle Eastern-native Dravidian, held to precede by far the Semitic and Aryan migrations. The sil- line is synonymous with a parallel ye:l line. The Skt. vs. Av. languages are demographic components of the same migratory events. Naturally, a bulk of the population remained behind, they furnish markers of who, when, and where, in addition to the older clues datable by common genetic alleles. The NW European forms of the yel line bear their allophonic nature and a volatile nature of the anlaut consonant ch-/k-/h- grown in the linguistic ambience of consonantal anlaut dominance. They are eidetic with the analogous phenomenon typical for the Oguric languages, Cf. the same process for the homophonic “hair, mane”: CT (Turkmen, Gagauz, Turk., Az., etc.) ye:l, Chuv. čil, čilxe, Tuv. čel, Khak. čil(in), Yak. šel, šiel. The notion “hair, mane” reflects a visual aspect of the wind action (Cf. Romance pelo “hair”, Eng. pelt, i.e. something flattering under wind). The Ogur-type forms, and especially the Khakass (Enisei Kirgiz) form are diagnostic. The Ogur-type forms corroborate a thesis that the Hun and Scythian languages were of the Ogur-type. The Khak. form is consistent with the other forms of the Eng. Turkisms. The Chuv. form čilxe “mane” corresponds to the A.-Sax. form feaxe “hair, mane”, differing in the quality of the anlaut consonant and elided -l-. The Chuv. forms point to their coming from Asia to the Eastern Europe in the 7th-6th mill. BC with their dominant R1a Y-DNA allele and an archaic Türkic language. In the middle course of the river Itil (Volga) 8-6 thousand years ago they initiated the Middle Volga, Samara and Khvalynsk Pit Grave (aka “Kurgan”) archaeological cultures. That contravenes a presumptive association of Chuvash with a Far Eastern origin, where Mongols, Tunguses, and Manchu, and their relatives Koreans and Japanese, are marked by the Y-DNA group C. DNA links Chuvashes with the R1a Y-DNA Huns. That links Chuvash with a R1a Y-DNA modern Russians, who carry more native Chuvash blood than anything else. The Chuvash-Mongol linguistic similarities ascend to 93 AD, when 100,000 Hunnic families numbering 500,000+ people submitted to the ruling minority of Syanbi (pin. Xianbei 鮮卑) Mongols, essentially making the Hunnic language a language of the Syanbi. From the Eastern Europe, the R1a people expanded to the Balkans and to the heart of Europe, amalgamating with the local farming populations. Upon the arrival of their violent mounted cousins marked by R1b Y-DNA haplogroup, and after a period of the “killing fields”, a chunk of the western settlers retreated back to the Eastern Europe. See cold, howl, yell.

3.57
chirp (v., n.) “high-pitched sounds” ~ Türkic čïlra, (v., n.) “jingle, clink, ping, ring”, čiriɣ “sound (metal)”. Derivatives lead to a root čï-, či- “(specific) sound”. Presently there is no etymology other than a superficial “echoic”. An “IE etymology” asserts “of echoic origin”. That verdict is inadequate, same “chirps” produce different terms, 15+ different “chirps” in the European peninsula. A maze of echoic origins should have the same trail of origins as any other etymologically scrutinized lexeme to be credible. Out of 30 European languages, 16 use ch- type terms of a half-dozen varieties; 14 use non-ch- terms. Cognates: A.-Sax. cearcian (with ch-, chear-) “to creak, gnash”, ME chirken “chirp”; Sl. chirikat (чирикать), Sloven. cvrkljanje, Croat., Serb. cvrkut, Cz. cvrlikaní, Maced. čir, Pol. cwierkanie; Lith. čirškimas, Latv. čīkstet; Sp. chirrido, Port. chilro, Rum. ciripit; Est. siristama; Hu. csipog; Mong. jirgee (č ↔ j); Ch. zha (č ↔ j); Jap. tsuitta (č ↔ ts); but Gmc. Dan. pippe, Du. piepen, Sw. kvittra, Norse kvitre, Gmn. zwitschern; other European languages have for the word 12+ different roots. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Pacific; individual echoes should have a same scrutiny as any other etymologically scrutinized lexeme. The Eng. “chirp” distribution is very telling: “chirp” is very mobile and easily crosses linguistic barriers, it appears spottily in different European branches, has a spotty appearance in the NW Europe, spotty in the Slavic branch, and extends eastward along the Steppe Belt to the Far East. The harmonious correspondence between čïlra and chirp point to the Türkic milieu as a source for a common origin.

3.58
chisel (v., n.) “carve” ~ Türkic čiz- (chiz-), čizdür-, čiztür-, čarmala- čermele- (v.) “chisel, scratch, draw (depict), write”. Ultimately fr. čiz-, čïz-, -sız-, čar-, čer- and yaz-/jaz-, one of he two phonetically diverging basic forms in two geographical zones. A third form is particular: ir-/i:r- “notch, scratch”. Instrumental suffix -l is of European provenance, Cf. A.-Sax. cisel “gravel”, cecel “cake”. An Old Europe Sl. dol-, expanded by a motley retinue, is prevalent among 44 European languages with 13 (30%) languages, followed by a Türkic čiz- motley group with 11 (25%) languages, followed by a Gmc. group with 5 (11%) languages. The other 15 (34%) languages use 11 of their own native terms. None can be rated as a Pan-European, each one can profess an “IE origin” albeit the čiz- group is using Türkic root. Cognates: A.-Sax. none recorded, OFr. cisel “chisel, scissors, shears”; Croat chr- (crtanje), Serb. tsr- (цртање) “draw, draw lines”, Rus. cher- (чертить, чертеж, черта) “draw, drawing, line”, Slov. kre- (kresli); Hu. ir- “write” (s/r alternation); Mong. tsüüts “chisel” (ts ~ č); Ch. chokokuto (彫刻刀) “chisel”. There is practically no presence in the “IE” family, the word comes of a non-IE origin, any “IE etymology” can only be figmentary. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. A major presence in the Sl. and few other languages points to the Sl. as an eldest spreader with a notion “batter, beat”. Together, the Sl. dol- and the Türkic čiz- define a majority of the European contents. The standing “IE etymology” stops at a vanishing Lat., under a dubious assertion of an origin fr. a “PIE proto-verb” *kae-id- (v.) “strike”, which in reality is Lat. < Gk. cide < skotono (σκοτώνω) “cut, killing”, not exactly “carve, scratch”, nor a chis-, čiz-. Since a *kae-id- is not a member of 12-word Lat. dictionary for “strike”, the “IE reconstruction” of a Lat. word belongs to an unrelated alternate macrocosm, it is a fiction. The word “cut” is a reflection of a Türkic kıd-, kı:d- “cut” that reached Gk. and then was adopted by Lat. (Gk. was there first), see “cut”. The notion “carve” predates Lat. and Eng. by a long shot, the word came to Eng., and by the same token to Sl. (but not Balt.-Sl.) via independent paths. The OFr. likely gained the word fr. a Türkic milieu, either Alanic or Burgund. As indicated by the consistent initial ch-, the word came as a legacy. Like other survivors in Eng., it was a trade term below a radar of the grammarians. The stem čiz- “draw” has European siblings ris-/riz- and Skt. rikh- “carve, scratch, draw” (derivative rizan, Turkish resim, see write) that left a lasting trace in Gmc. and Sl. languages for the notions “draw” and “write”. The Skt. inlaut -kh- (-h-) is consistent with the s/h alternation typical for the Aral basin vernaculars, Cf. Lat. ignis vs. Skt. agnih “ignite”, Cf. Türkic yaq-, yak- “ignite”. A perfect phonetic and semantic match between the Türkic čiz- and Eng. chisel, an absence of “IE” European presence, and identical semantic developments to “draw (depict)” and then to “write” leave no room to doubt of a common genetic origin from a Türkic phylum. See cut, ignite, write.

3.59
chitchat (aka chit-chat, chit chat) (v., n.) “gab, schmooze, buzz, hum” ~ Türkic čit čat (v.) “make thud (sound), noise”. An “IE etymology” is etymologically perplexed and mum, but carries a reflexive hint in a chit “young of an animal, small child”, “blab”. The “chitchat” is a paired idiom typical for Türkic languages, Cf. balu baju “Hushaby!”, аč qïz “hunger and want”, and ca. 1460 others (OTD). The Türkic notion of “buzz, small talk” and the like can be expressed singly, reduplicated, or in combination of the elements čat, čet, čıt, čit, the form čit čat ~ chitchat is but one of them, synonymous with chat “talk idly, babble”, see chat, chatter. Another prominent expression of čat is contained in the term for “cat” četük that formed the European, Asian, and African term cat with its many allophones, see cat. The root čit/chit is likely unrelated to the word chit “improper girl”, or to the word chattel “private movable property”, a derivative fr. the root čat- “gather, assemble” (see chattel). It formed a notion cheat “practice trickery or fraud”, that is “talk somebody into doing something (for their own disadvantage)”, and a chatter “din, twitter, gossip”. No “IE” etymology, practically no presence in the “IE” family, thus obviously of non-IE origin. Cognates: A.-Sax. used c (~č) for both /ch/ and /k, q/; except for cicen “chicken”-like cases, articulation is unclear; Du. koeteren “jabber”, Dan. kvidre “twitter, chirp”; Mong. chatlah (чатлах) “chat”. The č-/k- alternation parallels that of the form četük/cat. A primeval connection with the chirping of the birds and cat miaul have endured for the birds, attesting to an initial echoic origin. The words “chat” and “chitchat” entered Eng. as a verb and a noun, without any phonetic or semantic changes; further derivatives arose in the course of Eng. evolution. They are members of the paradigmatic transfer series along with “say”, “tell”, “tale”, “saga”, “message”, and other words related to verbal communications. The compound chitchat is also a paradigm in its own right. Each word separately, and the systemic nature of the paradigmatic transfer indisputably attest to a Türkic linguistic substrate. A chance coincidence calculation similar to that for “chew” q.v. for the whole paradigm would produce a number thousands times smaller than the probability value P assessed for the “chew” paradigm, a positive impossibility. See cat, chat, chatter, chattel.

3.60
“” “” “” “” “”
chop (v.) “cut into pieces”, (n.) “(lamb) chop” ~ Türkic čap- (v.) “chop, strike (behead, with sword, whip)”, čöp (n.) “debris, scraps, piece of”. A myopic “IE etymology” offers “of uncertain origin” with some impossible “possibles” just for laughs, one of them a lustrous “possibly an onomatopoeia”. Ultimately fr. a root čö- “small, diminishing, lower” seen in numerous derivatives, Cf. Eng. “short, curt”, Sl. korotkiy (короткий) “short”, and ca. 30 of their European siblings (kurz, gearr, etc.). The English chap, chapp “crack, split, burst open” appears to be an allophone of the Türkic verbal stem čop-. The prime notions “chop, chippings” lists only 4 semantic clusters, but a loose semantic range is exceedingly wide: soften (in water); squeeze, wet, sediment, leftovers, residue, sludge, cracklings, scum, etc. A range of articulations is loose likewise: anlaut č-, ž-, j-, c, vowels -ö-, -o-, -a-, -i-, -ı-, etc. A Türkic noun-verb primacy is transposed in Eng. to a verb-noun. For a verbal stem, the OTD and EDT list čop as čap-, but G. Clauson observes that a surviving causative denoun verb čobart- “strip” is a product of the verbal stem čöb-/čöp- (EDT 398). The same with a passive verbal form čobul- “split, part”. Whether a primary form was a noun čöp “piece” or a verb čop- “chop, strip, part apart” is untenable. The surviving OTD and EDT attestations of the area and period corroborate sufficiently a G. Clauson's presumption of the verb's usage outside of a purview of the sources: čö:b (čö:p) “residue”, čöbik (šöbik), čöpür “debris”, čopra: “rubbish”, čobulmak “apple piece”, čaput/čapğut “quilted”, čaptur- “strike, ruffle”, čapıl- “stricken”, etc. In a G. Clauson's opinion, -b- was a primary, and -p- was a secondary articulation. That opinion too is untenable; the -p- form may help with diagnostic evidence. The Türkic čöp is a prominent internalized loanword in Europe. Of 44 European languages, a Türkic group čöp- with 7 (16%) languages and a motley group ha(ch, k)- with 7 (16%) languages dominate, followed by a Sl. group sek- with 6 (14%) languages, and a Sl. group kot- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 20 (45%) languages use their own versions of 14 native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” root; the European lexical mixture is fairly motley. Cognates: A.-Sax. scafan, sceafan “shave”; MDu. kappen “chop, cut”, Dan. kappe, Sw. kappa “chop, cut”, Gmn. schabracke “leather piece”; ONFr. choper, OFr. coper, Fr. couper “to cut, cut off”; Gk. tsipouro (τσιπουρο) “grape pomace”; Hu. sepro “sediment”; Ukr., Rus. chapra (чапра) “grape pomace”, Pol. сzарrаk “leather piece”; Osset. сürv, cirwae, ciwrae “sediment, grounds (beer)”; Mong. ceb, tsev “sediment, cracknel”; Bur. сüb, süb ditto; Kuman čöpre, čöp “sediment, bagasse”, čepure “bagasse”, cıbır, cibindirik “cracknel”, yibi “sodden”, Tatar. čüрrä “sediment”. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic barriers, with a decent imprint in Europe. There, the word is associated with the area populated by R1b Y-DNA-marked haplogroup. In the Eurasia this word is associated with the Türkic people marked with varied mixtures of the R1a and R1b Y-DNA haplogroups. No “IE etymology” whatsoever. There, etymology does not even reach a Lat. The three somewhat different phonetic forms indicate three different paths to Eng., Gmc., and Romance groups respectively. The čöp as “leftover pieces, leftovers, rubbish, sediment” also produced the Eng. chaff, probably via a separate path of a dialectal form čouml;:b. The English slightly denigratory chap “boy or man” is a reflex of the Türkic idiom čöb (kiši:le:r) “(human) rubbish”. The English chop (“chopstick”, lamb chop, etc.) is a reflex of the Türkic form čobul- “split”, Cf. čobulmak “slice (of apple )”. See chaff.

3.61
circle (v., n.) “ring, encircle” ~ Türkic sür- (v.) “surround, cordon off, besiege, pursuit, lead, drive”, sürkülä-, sürkïla-, sürgü:le:- (v.) “pursuit”. Under “IE etymology” a “circle” ascends to a Lat. circulus stopping short of its origin, q.v. The phonetic and semantic allophony is striking. The terms “drive, pursuit” are traditional Türkic methods of encircling hunt, they provide both phonetic and semantic unity. Türkic has numerous terms and derivatives related to encircling hunts, attesting to an ancient origin (hunter-gatherer society) and geographical spread of the terminology: abla-, avla-, er-, ir-, qačrus, qapsa, qov-, saɣïr, sür-, sürkïla-, sürkülä, sürus, and probably a few more. Of 44 European languages, two Türkic-derived sister groups cVr- and kVr- dominate with 22 (50%) and 16 (36%) languages respectively, or combined 38 (86%) languages. The remaining 7 languages use their own 6 native terms. If there is a Pan-European common term, it is overbearingly Türkic. The first European hunter-gatherers, and all later migrants undoubtedly carried over their own terms, but most of them were supplanted by amalgamated versions of the lingua francas. Cognates: A.-Sax circul, Dan., Du., Sw., Norw. cirkel, Icl. hringur, Gmn. kreis, kranz, zirkel, Yid. kurts (קרייַז); Basque zirkulu; Ir., Scots ciorcal, cearcall, Welsh cylch; Lat. circulus “circle, ring”, Fr. cercle, It. cerchio; Sl. krug, круг, Pol. okrąg, Slovak kružnice; Gk. kirkos “ring”; Hu. kör (< sür-), Mong. ergekh (эргэх) (< sür-). Distribution: Spans the width of the Eurasia, emphatically attesting to a non-IE origin. An “IE etymology” is non-existent. A speculated “IE” derivation of “circle” from “circus” is ridiculous. A hunting word qapsa “encircle, surround, surround on all sides” is etymologically connected with the Eng. “capture”. See capture.

3.62
clinch, clench (v.) “grasp, clutch” ~ Türkic qïlïnč (v.) “tie, link, brace, bracket, girdle”, from a stem qïlïn- “to come about, arise, make, appear”: be made, formed, appear, arise. Ultimately fr. qïl- “do, make, act, copulate”, qïl- “sharp”, qïl “barb, awn”, a derivative of a qï- “do, make” attested in derivatives. Judging from etymological explanations, the term qïlïnč is a tool, to grab and stabilize something in a device. Examples of the mentioned devices may relate to a weaving loom or a shaman's drum. A qïlïnč grabs and stabilizes a warp fabric or a drum; it acts as a stationary or a movable brace; it clinches, clenches, or clings. Like other technical terms, it was carried with, passed along, and internalized like any other internalized terms, cf. boss, chunk, derrick, ok, toilet. Seemingly appearing fr. nowhere, in Europe the term spread like a wildfire, apparently accelerated with an advent of technology and literacy. A single Türkic-A.-Sax. word metastasized into a series of daughter terms. In all cases, the Turkic form leads, of 44 European languages qïlïnč in “clinch” with 27 (61%) languages, in “clench” with 11 (25%) languages, in “cling” with 13 (30%) languages. The remaining languages use their own native 17, 33, and 31 native terms respectively. A common portion of the “Pan-European” lexicon is exclusively Türkic. Cognates: A.-Sax. (be)clencan, (be)clingan, clingan, clang “hold, cling, bind, stick together”, Dan. klynge, klinke (v.) “cluster”, knuge “clench”, klamre “cling”, Du. klinken (v.) “clench”, kleven “cling”, ONorse klengjask “press onward”, Norw. klamre “cling”, Fris., clinch, clench, Icl. lench, Luxemb. clenchen, OHG klinga “narrow gorge”, Gmn. klinke “latch”, clinch “clinch”, Yid. klintsh (קלינטש); Ir., Scots, Welsh, q.v.; Fr., Malt., Port., Sp. clinch “clinch”, Malt. clench; Bosn., Croat. klinč “clinch”, Sloven. klinču; Latv. klinčs “clinch”, etc.; Mong. kilagu, Khal. hialu “sharp (tool); ”all “clinch”, or clench”, or “cling” except as noted; the list is tiresome, with 51 European members. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic borders. Since at the time of the Celtic departure from the E. Europe in the 5th - 4th mill. BC the looms (2nd mill. BC) were not yet known. The Celtic migrants could not carry a concept of the loom from the Egipt. The pedestrian migrants' Ir., Scots, Welsh terms (clinch, clench, cling), like most of the cognate list, must be neologisms borrowed from later arrivals. An “IE” assertion of the word's origin from a “Proto-Germanic *klingg-” is etymologically useless, leading from nowhere to nowhere; such uncouth pretentions only hurt the thesis of a PIE paradigm. The Eng. word fell from a blue sky in 1560s, with no “IE” or any other origins. An intellectual influence of the late Ottomans or Tatars can be sensibly excluded. The word most likely survived in its pristine form in the context of wrestling matches, an eternal Türkic tradition along with the game of polo. A convergence of numerous indicators make an origin from a Türkic milieu unavoidable, and may hint that the Egyptian looms had a cultural predecessor elsewhere.

3.63
coach (v.) “drive, ride a coach”, coach (n.) “carriage” (Sw N/A, F1934, 0.00%) ~ Türkic köč- (köch-) (v.) “ride (a coach)”, Eng. coach (n.) “carriage, wagon”. A myopic “IE etymology” asserts an origin fr. a Hu. town Kocs, q.v. Ultimately “coach, migrate” (v.) fr. a base Türkic root qo-/qon-/ko:n- with notion “descend, stop, settle”, the -n- is a reflexive suff.; see come, go. The word is neutral to transitivity and noun/verb function, attesting to its utter archaism. It is a member of a cluster gi:r-/ki:r- “enter”, git-/kit- “leave”, göč-/köč- “move”, qo:n-/kön- “descend, stop, settle”, gö:q-, qoq- “go down, decrease, subside, fall off ” conveying different motion aspects relayed with means of phonetic synharmonism. The cluster points to a single consonantal phoneme root g-/ɣ-/k-/q- “go”, suffixed with a single consonantal phoneme č-/n-/q-/r-/t- to form grammatical aspects of the notion “move”. The single consonant word receded by far an appearance of a productive pastoralism. Initially it had to be a word of a time span from a roaming to a hunter-gathering economy. It is an ancestor of the Eng. come, go, etc. Such evolutionary scenario calls for batches of cognate lexemes diffused across Eurasian linguistic families. In the nomadic society, a derivative coach must have been a most popular word that defined a daily life, with a wide spectrum of semantic forms and extensions. Its traces are found in most languages with a Türkic nomadic component or directly affected by their steppe neighbors. For millennia, coach was a pinnacle of progress, a transportation, a home, a homely hearth, a focus of life, and a way of life. Sedentary people do not have nor need a trade lexicon related to professional nomadism. They have to borrow it from the nomads, thus the abundance of the Türkic terminology across Eurasia. Cognates: Eng. coachman, Dan. kusk, Du. koetsier, Gmn. Kutscher, Norse, Sw. kusk koucher; MFr. (16th c.) coche, Gmn. kotsche; Latv., Lith. kučieris; Serb. koch (коч) “home”, Bosn., Croat kočijaš, Pol. kосz “cart”, kосzу “wagon”, Bulg. gjoč “family”, kochiyash (кочияш), Cz. kočí, Ru., Serb., Slov., Slovt., Ukr. kucher (кучер); Cat. cotxer, Fr. cocher, Galician, Port. cocheiro, It. cocchiere, Sp. cochero; Pers. kuč “migration, striking camp, marching”; Hindi kochavaan; Est. kutsar, Fin. kuski, Hu. kocsi (~ Türkic köčür “transfer, move”); Basque kotxezainak; Brahmi köjür “to coach, move”; Mong. köčke “caravan”, köške “travel luggage”; Ch. ganche (赶车); all “driver, coachman” except as noted. Distribution: Allophones of the köch are known from Atlantic to Mesopotamia to lake Balkhash and to the Pacific. The depth of the attestations related to the carriage industry in the Eurasia, the distribution of cognates and a variety of phonetic forms attest to the antiquity and diversity of internalizing paths. An abundance of unacknowledged cognates in all diverse Eurasian linguistic families attests to grubbiness and manipulations within the “IE linguistic” cohort. The “IE etymology” “from a name of a Hu. village” is beyond laughable, it is a disgrace for the entire “IE” etymological industry. For a word that still occupies a major place in the European and Eurasian vocabularies, from transportation to home furnishings to tending to a home itself, that IE-centered “etymology” is most uncouth, brazen, and dishonest. Pretentions to have myopic horizons only uncovers a professional penury of the “IE etymology”. Serb. uses koch (коч) for their stationary homes, a calque from the Türkic mobile homes. The Ch. form ganche ascends to the earliest known form kang “cart, wagon” recorded in Sum., Cf. Kangly as a tribe and a coach. The Ch. kangchi “coachman” was internalized in Ch. complete with the Türkic instrumental suffix -chi. The Ch. name Gaoche 高車 for the northern nomads is a Türkic compound köch + -chi “coachman”. See Celt, come, gamut, go, hide, home, house.

3.64
coagulate (v.) “turn from liquid to thickened or solid state” ~ Türkic qoyul-, kogul- (v.) “thicken, inspissate (liquid), curdle, coagulate (of milk)” (passive), from a verb qоyï- “condense, coagulate, thicken”, from a koy- “sediment, clot”. An “IE etymology” boldly asserts an anachronic Lat. origin, q.v. The ultimate origin comes from a notion “squeeze, press, dry”, and is associated with preparation of curded milk products, from yogurt (curdled milk) to qurut (dried curd). A form kogul is an Ogur version of the Oguz qoyul, the -l is a passive suffix in Türkic and Lat.. An incomplete listing of forms numbers 17 root versions: goyu, hojïɣ, hoyuɣ, хoyu:, хoyuɣ, kojïɣ, кoyu, кuyu, qoyï, qoyu, qоyuɣ, qоyuq, quyï, quyu:, quyuɣ, quyuq, yava. The yava represents a poorly documented series of Chuv. forms. One of those forms reached Lat., initiating a European mini-enlightenment, its path is unknown. The Eng. curd/curdle < qurut is a relict. A confusion with ko:d “put, put down, abandon, give up” is an error (Clauson EDT 595). “Coagulate” became an international word in nearly every European language, while many languages retained their own terms for “thicken, curdle”, pointing to a pre-historical usage of milk (Celtic, Fennic, Gk., Alb., etc). The Turkic forms lead, of 44 European languages versions of qoyul- lead with 28 (64%) languages, an Old Europe Sl. gus- (гус(теть) “thicken” follows with 6 (14%) languages. The remaining 10 (22%) languages use their own native 10 terms. A common portion of the “Pan-European” lexicon is exclusively Türkic. Cognates: Icl. hlaupi, Gmn. gerinnen; Gael. gruth; MFr. coaguler, Lat. cogere “curdle, collect”, coagule, coagulare “cause to curdle”; Taj. qoyu- “thicken”; Mansi qoyu- “thicken”; Evenk qoyu- “thicken”; Azeri čürü- (chürü-); all “coagulate, thicken” except as noted. Distribution: From Atlantic to Manchuria, across Eurasia and across linguistic barriers. The “IE etymology” suggests an origin fr. an anachronous Lat. cogo “bring together, gather, collect”, from co- “together” + ago “do, make, drive”, a rare case of appealing to a real, non-asterisked “proto-word”. Firstly, yogurt, qurut belong to the Türkic, and not Lat. phylum, see curd , see Khak. idiom yuğrut koyuldi: “yogurt coagulated”. Secondly, yogurt and qurut are innate to the Türkic nomadic kitchen that ascends to a well dated time of horse domestication ca. 4th mill. BC, about 3 mill. before Lat. comes to the Apennine Peninsula and to the pages of history. That does not completely exclude Lat. from the picture: the Lat. predecessors could have come fr. a Türkic phylum, their pre-Apennine history is not known. A Lat. predecessors' origin from a Botai-type culture can't be excluded. An “IE” assertion of a coagulate “Doublet of quail (bird)” is sorely uncouth; the entire “IE” assertion is slippery. Türkic has allophonic forms that correspond to Lat. and Gmc. versions, qoyul- and čürü-. The lexical-semantic coincidence is perfect, the phonetic correlation with liquid -r-/-l- alternation is expected. The paths from qoyul-/qogul- to Lat. cogere, and from the Eng.-Gael.-Gmn. čürü- to curd/curdle/gruth/gerinnen are separate in space and time. Like the Lat. form, the Icl. form hlaupi is connected with the Türkic qoyul-, historical reasons point to a separate path: sheep herding was a main Norman means of subsistence, the opportunities for a lexical borrowing did not exist, and they did not need a Lat. loanword to be borrowed. See curd, cuddle.

3.65
comb (v.) “groom (hair), ransack (area)”, (n.) “toothed tool” ~ Türkic kem-, kemdï-, kemür- (v.) “gnaw, bite”. Ultimate semantics is “to bite something, ruminate”, forming allophonic forms gev-, kev-, kep-, kip-, keg-, and a good half a dozen more within a Türkic milieu. The -m- form may be a reflex of the -v-/-p- forms with m/b alternation. A root vowel is notoriously fluid. Since comb may stand for a tool and a crest on top of a human or fowl head or a helmet, the term is furcated. A semantic chain of bite > tooth, teeth > toothed > tool, scallop runs without an end, Cf. gear teeth, toothed wheel, etc. Of 44 European languages, a mostly Türkic-Gmc. motley form cam- predominates with 12 (27%) languages, followed by a strong Romance-Sl. group pe- with 9 (20%) languages, and a largely Sl. group ches- with 7 (16%) languages. The remaining 13 (30%) languages use their own 8 native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” or just an “IE” root. Cognates: A.-Sax. (ge)cemban, comb, camb, cambo, cumb, combol “comb, crest”, kemb, honeycomb, cumbol “sign, standard, banner”, cumb, coomb “valley”, flaeðecomb, fleðecamb “weaver’s comb”, horscamb “horse-comb, curry-comb”, etc., total 11 words; Eng. unkempt, Fris. kaam, Anglian comb, OSax. camb, MDu. cam, Du. kam, ONorse kambr, OHG camb, Gmn. kamm “comb”; Welsh cwm; Sl. kusat (кусать) (v.) “bite” (< Tr. kuyshe-), kushat (кушать) (v.) “eat” (< Tr. kushe-); Agnean kam “tooth”, Kuchaean keme- “tooth”; Dagur kem- “chew”, Baoan kamel- “bite”; Mong. kemi, Ordos keme “marrow”, Khal. χim, χəm, Kalm. kem “fatty marrow”, kemlx “gnaw (bone), draw marrow” (Cf. Eng. ham); Manchu kemin “bloody marrow”; all “comb” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: across entire width of the Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific across linguistic families, and in Europe exclusively within the Gmc. and Sl. groups. That excludes any uncouth “IE” speculations of the type like a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kambaz “comb” and faux “PIE proto-word” *gombhos and its faux “PIE proto-root” *gembh- “tooth, nail”. That kind of Munchausen tales is useless. Instead of unwittedly ornamented model, the “IE etymology” should have cited the direct, attested, and documented Türkic form gem- (v.) “gnaw, bite”. The Celtic Ir. cior, Gael. cìr, and Welsh crib/grib “comb” (all r ↔ s) echo the Sl. forms with r/s alternation typical for the Ogur/Oguz distinction. The uniformity of the Celtic forms bespeaks of the common origin from a point in the 6th-5th mill. BC E. Europe prior to the Celtic anabasis. The relicts kempt, cam, and the modern camshaft and their siblings are the modern versions of the cognates. The silent auslaut -b apparently is a handy discriminator from an acoustically different version of the final -m-. The peculiarity of the -m- form vs. a slew of other versions bears a certain diagnostic value.

3.66
come (v.) “arrive, reach destination, happen” (Sw N/A, F67, 0.38%) ~ Türkic qon-, ko:n- (v.) “come, reach destination, stop”, An “IE etymology” boldly asserts a Gmc. origin fr. an “IE” original, q.v. Ultimately fr. a polysemantic verbal root qo-, qon- (refl. suff. -n) “come to a destination”, “leave (something), put, put down, abandon, give up”, “all, together”, expressed in a wide range of concrete and metaphoric applications with a rich, exclusively Türkic-Gmc., trail in the European languages. No Sl., Romance trail in the European languages. The basic notions refer to separate aspects of reaching a destination: coming to a stop, staging a stop, reuniting at a stop. The basic form qon- has an allophone qam- “put down, knock down, lower” with the meanings of the sister form qod- “put down”, i.e. “settle for now”. It has survived and blossomed into numerous derivatives, ending with the Eng. gamut, gamma and come, cum, common, commons, commodity etc., see gamut. The split points to a relatively late differentiation of the form qam- into a specialized areal “come” and “put down”. The semantic raster extends further out, Cf. Kelt/Celt “newcomer”, camp “stopover” company, campaign “gathering”. The stem qon-/qam- is a deverbal verbal derivative, it carries a long trail of verbal and nominal derivatives rooted in the specific notion of reaching a stopping point destination. The word and its first derivatives must have arisen during an agelong hunter-gatherer period, long before the coming of a pastoral period. The form qon- must have formed before the other derivative verbs, the qop- “all, together” and qod-/qam- “put down”, which are the attributes of the base notion “come to a stopover” and its deverbal noun derivative “camp, stopover”. Of 44 European languages, a Türkic-Gmc. form can- predominates with 12 (27%) languages, followed by a strong Romance group ven- with 9 (20%) languages, and a Sl. group pri-, do- with 10 (23%) languages. The remaining 13 (20%) languages use their own 9 native words. There is no common “Pan-IE” or just an “IE” root. Cognates: A.-Sax. coman, cuman “come, approach, land”, OSax. cuman, OFris. kuma, Eng. cum “orgasm”, MDu. comen, Du. komen, ONorse koma, Goth. qiman, OHG queman, Gmn. kommen, Icl. kom; Lith. gemu “born”; Sl. konets, konec (конец) “end point” in a number of Sl. languages and allophones across Central and Eastern Europe; Bulg., Serb., Croat. qonaq “day of travel”; Mong. kono- ~ OTürkic kona- (Doerfer III 1539), konak “guest”, honača “overnight guest, visitor”; Chuv., Mari hana “guest”; Bur., Khalka honog “day and night” < Tr. конок, honuk ditto; Bur. honoso “overnight stay, lodging”; Ch. guolai (过来); Jap. kite (来て); all “come” except as noted. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Pacific, across linguistic barriers. A borrowing of konak “guest”, etc. in different languages see Doerfer q.v. No attested “IE” common word, no European common word, q.v. In the European lexical spectrum, a Lat. veni is but one of many etymologically unconnected words. The uncouth “IE” speculations of the type like the faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kwem-, the faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kwemana, the faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *kweman (v.) “come”, and the faux “PIE proto-root” *gwa- “go, come”, the faux “PIE proto-form” *gʷemt, *gʷem- (v.) “step” are not needed. The fictions explain nothing, lead from nowhere to nowhere, they pretend to look informed, but only display a myopic depth and parochial vision. A hypothetical PIE fantasy in lieu of the continent-wide attested qon-/qam- is not needed. The two Gmc. forms co- and cu- attest to an amalgamation of -o- and -u- dialects, still present among Türkic languages. The Goth. qiman and Lith. gemu illustrate a general fluidity of the vowels. The -m-/-n- alternation is a regular effect of amalgamation with local articulations, whether of Türkic or Gmc. variety. Persistence of the specific -m- form among the Gmc. languages points to its initial linguistic uniformity and thus a compact spread. Aside from the come, European languages retained a sister form qod- “put down” that developed into the now international words code, codex, and their -i- versions codify, codicil, coding, codicology, etc. The massive presence of the of the Türkic derivatives in Eng. and other Gmc. languages attests to numerous parallel cases of paradigmatic transfers of the semantic allotropes ascending to the verb qo-. Of those, a paradigmatic transfer of the derivative qon-/qam- is a particular case. They incontestably demonstrate a genetic origin from a Türkic milieu. See Celt, gamut, go.

3.67
con (v.) “steal by deceit, swindle”, conman (n.) “swindler” ~ Türkic kun-, qun-, xun- (v.) “snatch, steal, rob, carry off”, with literal and metaphoric applications. An “IE etymology” boldly asserts of a later days and derivative origin, q.v. Semantically and phonetically con is allophonic to Eng. cunning “shrewd deceptiveness” of a root cun- and a suffix -ing. No recorded A.-Sax. or “IE” trail, but a re-appearance of the word in the American English slang on the other side of the pond points that for ages it lurked under a radar of grammarians, Cf. bogus junk, use, vouch, etc. Distribution is peculiar: only 5 (11%) words of the 44 European languages are related to phonetic con-, conning (Türkic, Eng., Ir., Welsh, Yid.). An Old Europe Sl. group dominates with luk- and xitr- forms with 9 (20%) languages, and a Romance group trails with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 25 languages use their own native versions of 22 words. There is no common “Pan-IE” or just an “IE” root. European languages are as motley as they come, every piper sings its own song. Cognates: A.-Sax. none, Gmc. none, “IE” none; Türkic kun-; Eng. con; Ir. cuasach, Welsh cyfrwys, Yid. kumen (כיטרע); vague references to Nenets group “and other languages”. Distribution: Türkic Eurasian Steppe Belt extending to the Siberian tundra, Celtic Albion and Ireland islets; traces to N. America. With quite ingenuous artistry, on purely phonological differences, the “IE etymology” ascends the siblings con and cunning “skillful in deception” to different roots. Those pseudo originals carry incompatible semantics and a temporal distance (“lateral time”) in millennia: “confidence” vs “to know”. In the first case it is exploiting a stripped prefix con- “with” (intensifier), i.e. “with (fidelity)”, OFr. conceveir, Lat. con(cipere), con(ceptus) “take, hold”. These conjectures are laughable, they portray a Türkic qon-“swindle” as an “IE” com-/con-/co-“with”, and a Türkic kap-/qap- “hold, capture” as an “IE” faux *kap- “grasp”, see com-, keep. In the second case it portrays Türkic köni- “verity, truth” as an “IE” fictitious *gno- “know”, see know. Every “IE” suggestion is an unwitting flop. The phonological difference between -u- and -o- should not be overrated, in Türkic -o-/-u- interchanges are routine, they could signify two different paths. Phonetic and semantic match is as close as they come. The accent shift from a generic to a stealth mode is a minor modification since the semantics of “snatch” carries an implied shade of “deceit”. A derivative konurčuk for a “doll”, lit. “pretender (toy)”, illustrates an application bridging the notions of “deceive” and “purloin (by deceit)”. The absence of recorded attestations for con and cunning in the Gmc. languages is consistent with numerous other lexemes that came to linguistic attention on another continent, no more tamed by a “correct” English, Cf. boss, OK. A possible storage closet for these words was cockney, the Türkic köken “ancestral, motherland, native place” that referred to a motherland's language, or what was left of it. A.-Sax. had 9 words expressing a notion “deceit” (bepaecung, beswic, dwild, fleard, folcwoh, forleornung, leasbrednes, listwrenc, lotwrenc), of which just one had survived to English (swindle, A.-Sax. swice). The word con is an another survival, via Celtic and possibly, but not necessarily, via A.-Sax. path. See boss, cockney, com-, cunning, keep, OK.

3.68
confer (v.) “bestow” ~ Türkic ber- (v.) “carry”. See bear (v.) for polysemantic meanings and cognates of ber- . Cognates: MFr. (con)ferer “give”, with extensions “converse, compare”, Lat. (con)ferre “bring together”, with extensions “compare; consult, deliberate, talk over”, fr. Lat. prefix com- “together” + ferre, an allophone of Türkic ber- “bear, carry, give”. The Lat. prefix com- of Türkic origin (see com-) came to Eng. with Lat. loanwords (confer, conference, conferee, etc.) unrelated to English substrate, while indelibly illustrating the Turkisms' via Lat. path to English. Related conference. See bear (v.), bestow, com-, give.

3.69
crunch (v., n.) “crackle” ~ Türkic qurt-, kürt- (v.) “produce crunching sound, crunch”, karč, qarč, qurč, qars, qars (n., v.) “crunch, crackle”. Etymology: no “IE” original source claimed, “probably of imitative origin”, hence supposedly no cognates, but... Ultimately fr. a verb quru-, küry- “dry” formed with a deverbal noun suff. -t, adj. kurut “dried”. European spread of the notion “crunch” is peculiar. Of 44 European languages, a Türkic form qur- dominates with 26 (59%) languages, it is shared by a motley mass of Celtic, Sl., Romance, Gmc., Baltic, and few other languages. The other 17 (41%) European languages use their own 12 native words. Other than Türkic, there is no common “Pan-IE” or just an “IE” root. Cognates: Fris. crunch, Yid. khromtshen (כראָמטשען), Du. kraken, Gmn. knirschen, krachen “crunch”, knistern, knacken “crackle”; Ir. gearchor, Scots crog; Balt. (Latv.) skraustet “squeak, rattle”, (Lith.) skrudeti “crack, flake”, Sl., OCS hrst, hrust (хръст, хруст) “crunch”, “scrunch” (< Tr.), “crackling bug”, Rus. krut (крут) “dry cheese” (< Tr.); Ukr. khruskit (хрускіт) “crunch”, Pol. chrustač́ “crunch” (< Tr.); Fr. croquer, Sp. crujido, Cat. cruixit, Port. crise; Gr. vrouchos (βροῦχος) “crackling (bug)” (< Tr.); Mong. khuurai, üirmeg “dry, crunch”; Jap. kuranchi (クランチ); borrowing of kurut into Pers., Mong., Mari (Doerfer III, 1472); all “crunch” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Eurasian-wide, from Atlantic to Pacific, and ubiquitous in Europe compatibly with the Türkic Steppe Belt. The “echoic” Türkic qurt (ɣurt with glottal ɣ-) and similar forms suggests a Türkic source of imitation, further supported by numerous Balto-Sl. reflexes. The claim “of imitative origin” is quite offbeat in that this echoic crunch is mostly confined only to the northern Europe north of Italy and the Eurasian steppe belt. The -č/-nč/-ch/-nch is a Türkic denoun suffix forming synonymous nouns, it has survived intact in Eng. crunch turning into an integral part of the Eng. root, and with various allophonic morphemes is visible in Balto-Sl. forms. The appearance of prosthetic anlaut s- in some forms is consistent with a process of adaptation of other loanwords into a Baltic family. Of the European forms, the Sl.-Pol. form chrasc (xrasch) is closest to the English crunch, it may had been an A.-Sax. form before it became a Pol. form. Semantic extension to anything that is conspicuous by a scrunching sound is an ordinary process congenital to all languages in endless variety of forms; in Sl. such extension formed a word hryashch for “cartilage”; the Eng. came up with crush, crackle, etc. The late record (17th c.) attests that like many other Turkisms, it was a “folk speech” lurking beneath a literary language.

3.70
cry (v., n.) “shout, howl, sudden loud utterance” (Sw N/A, F1438 0.01%) ~ Türkic gürle-, kürle-, kürlen-, čarla:- (v.) “cry, roar”, kür (n.) “cry, shout”. Alternatively orla-, orlaš-, urla- etc., “cry”. A myopic “IE etymology” offers a routine “of uncertain origin” and “possible” with few impossible “possibles”. Ultimately fr. an adjectival generic root kür “strong” applicable to numerous subjects and names, Cf. “thick” etc. Türkic verbs are formed with versions of a denoun suffix -la, Eng. verb/noun forms are undifferentiated (anthimeria). A primordial origin, for example, may ascend to a crow caw “qarr”. Usually etymologically attributed to different origins, all related forms are consistent, suggesting a long prehistory and plenty of mutual influence that ruffles any notion of a separate etymological source for each one. Out of 44 European languages, predominates a version of gürle- with 31 (70%) languages, exceeding by far a level of a 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. The remaining 13 (30%) languages use their own versions of 9 native European words. Except for the Türkic, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; a native European mixture is motley, attesting that its lingoes fossilized before the versions of gürle- came to the European scene and supplanted most of the native words. Cognates: A.-Sax. ceir, cier, cerm, cearm, ceorm, cierm, cirman, cirm (with possible /c-/ ↔ k-, q-, or /ch-/) “cry, shout, outcry”, Fris. kriete, OSax. hragrа, Dan. græde, Du. krijten, krijsen “shriek”, Sw. grata, Norw. grate, OIcl. skrikiа, Goth. kreitan “cry, scream, call out”, hrukjan (v.) “crow”, LGmn. krieten “cry, call out, shriek”, Gmn. kreißen “cry, wail, groan”; Gael. gairm “cry”, one of candidates for Eng. “cry”, MIr. grith “cry”, Welsh gryd (n.) “scream”; Cimr. сrусh (~ Tr. kürč); Sl. krik (крик), kukareku (кукареку) “cock-a-doodle-doo, rooster's cry”; OFr. crier “shout, scream, proclaim, publicly announce”, Lat. quirritare “squeal (pig)”, queror “complain” (≈ croak, scold), VLat. quiritare “wail, shriek”, MLat. crido “shout, cry out, proclaim”, It. gridare, OSp. cridar, Sp., Port. gritar; Balt. (Latv.) krikа (Lith.) kryksti,; Gr. krike (κρικε), kravgí (κραυγη); Ar. qara’a “aloud” (Cf. Quran), Heb. gaar “shout”, kara “cry”; Ugarit. qr' “call, invoke”; Akkad. karu “call, invite”; Pers. gerye “cry”; Skt. krandana “cry, lamentation”; Nenets karga “scold”; Mong. khertsgii (v.) “crow”, karija “scold, berate”, all “cry” unless noted otherwise. The OSax., Goth., OIcl., Cimr., Lith., Latv., Sl., Gr., Nenets, Mong. forms ≡ qarqï. Distribution covers Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific and to Arctic Sea. It traces a spread of the Celtic Kurgan people from the E. Europe to Iberia, their incursion to the Apennines, and an independent overland path from the Steppe Belt to the Baltic and on toward Albion, a distinct path of the Türkic Kurganians. On top of the positively “of uncertain origin”, the “IE etymology” offers quite a few scenarios, like an anachronic faux Frankish “Proto-word” *kritan “cry, cry out, publish” with a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kritana “cry out, shout” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *greyd- “to shout”, or a Lat. queror “complain” or quirritare “squeal (pig)” fr. a faux (Lat.?) onomatopoeic “Proto-word” *quis “squeal (pig)”, or a “help of the Quirites”. In all that nonsense one moment is probably right: an ultimate origin is likely onomatopoetic; instead of a late Gmc. swine's squeaking, oinking and “khru” grunts, probably it came, while still on the African soil, fr. a birdie's caw “qarr”. An Eng. battle cry in A.-Sax. sounds beadu ceir and in Türkic something like batten qarqï, with second -q-, if any, assimilated to palatal or elided. That idiom highlights a Türkic Saka component in A.-Sax. and in Celtic, Gaulic languages. It excludes the faux “PIE” *qer-/*qor-/*qr- as a viable vehicle for Eurasian distribution. A sense of weeping is a much later innovation, probably recycled on religious grounds. The root qar- is specific to a certain group of Türkic languages - specifically mentioned are “Tatar”, Chuv., Tuvan. The term “Tatar” was a Russian moniker for a multi-lingual political entity, like “American” or “Canadian” “languages”, it is largely Kipchak and Bulgar. The OSax., A.-Sax., and similar forms are distinct reflexes of the Türkic kür- with its dialectal allophones. By the time Gmc. languages coagulated, the word was already internalized across much of the Eurasia. A Türkic origin is inescapable. See call, gabble, say, tale, tell.

3.71
cuddle (v.) “nuzzle, embrace for comfort, hug (a baby)”, (n.) “cuddle” ~ Türkic kod-, koy- (qod-, qoy-) (v.) “cuddle, lay in embrace”. Ultimately fr. kod/koy (qod/qoy) (v.) “put, put down”. An “IE etymology” offers a routine “of uncertain origin” and bravely suggests a few “possibles” and “probably”'s. Türkic has dialectal allophones of kod (n.) in the forms qon, qoyïn, qoyun (EDT 2 *ko:ñ “bosom, quiet, coy”) and in the allophones godak, godal, godik, godek “infant, suckler, adolescent”. With a passive suffix -l the kodul-/koyul- matches Eng. form “placed, nuzzled”, with quite a few more meanings, one of which is a kind of “pacify”. Turkish has two forms, apparently coming from two dialectal groups, koynuna and kucak (kujak), originating from the same root kod, with a meaning “breast, bosom, embrace, hug”. Overall, Türkic has a near endless line of allophonic terms related to “cuddle” from multilingual (ca. 80 languages) synonymous forms and their literal and metaphoric semantics. Out of 44 European languages, a version kod- predominates with 7 (16%) languages, followed by a Gmc. group ku-, knu- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 33 (75%) languages use their own versions of 23 native European words. Except for the Türkic kod-, there is no common “Pan-IE” root; a native European mixture is super motley, attesting that its lingoes fossilized before the versions of kod- came to the European scene supplanting few native words. Cognates: A.-Sax. cull, coll (v.) “embrace” (recorded with elided -d- or -y-), MDu. kudden, Yid. kadal (קאַדאַל); Ir. cuaille, Welsh cwtsh; Latv. cwtsh; Cors. coccola (cc = k). Distribution: With all the paucity of the European forms, Eurasian spread extends across Türkic Belt with few “guests” in remote spots. The Ir. and Welsh cognate “guests” point to a Celtic anabasis running fr. E. Europe via Africa, Iberia, and eventually to the NW end of Europe, a call fr. a 5th mill. BC. No “IE etymology”. The best, not too enlightening nor insightful attempt suggests “at first a nursery word” without a clue on where, when, and whom was the nursery located. The myopic guesses call for re-examination of the entire paradigm. The English pra-mothers had Türkic bosoms and gave Türkic hugs to their nestlings. A Türkic origin is indelible, it can't be shaded by any trickery.

3.72
cull (v.) “pluck, pick” ~ Türkic čul- /chul/, yul- (v.) “pick, pull out, pluck”. An “IE etymology” bears no inkling to an “IE” origin. Among allophonic forms yul-, yol-, čul-, etc. (ca. 8 forms), stands out a Khakass (aka Enisei Kirgiz) čul- paralleling other Eng. Turkisms of Khakass origin, q.v., and ǯulq- “jerk, pluck, yank, snatch”. Cognates: OFr. cuiler “pluck, select, collect”, Lat. colligere “select, choose”, probably also related to Lat. coleus “strainer bag”; Basque hilketa; Yid. flikn, kaling (קאַלינג, פליקן); Mong. julga, ǯulga “cull, pluck, evulsion”; Evenk nul- “skive, scour, scrape” (~ Sakha sul- ditto, ~ sului, sül); all “cull, culling” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic to the Far East, with incidental solitary “guests” in Europe (Türkic Tatar, Eng., Basque, Yiddish). Distribution positively attests to a status of a Türkic “guest”, apparently first documented in the west quite late, and in Lat. By that time, all European languages had their own livestock practice and fossilized terminology related to culling. Instead of any hints on any “IE connection” are suggested wild speculations based on some phonetic consonance. The “IE” speculations exploit various late derivatives with vague semantics. Notably, A.-Sax. has an overabundance of 12 stems to express “pluck (v.)” (alucan-, aplue-, gad-, luc-, nim-, pluc-, plyc-, pull-, traeg-, twic-, upateon-, utabre-), of words from numerous dissimilar languages, but it does not have the Eng. stem for cull-, attesting that the cull- lived beneath and independent from a strata of written records. Like many other Eng. Turkisms, the cull- belongs to the lexicon that largely escaped literary language and appeared suddenly and fairly late in the body of the Eng. vocabulary. The perfect phonetics and semantics attest to a heritage nature of the Türkic vs. Eng. forms. Eng. colloquial terms used in some trade lingos are “reject, discard, cast away”.

3.73
curdle (v.), curd (n.) “coagulate, coagulated liquid, milk” ~ Türkic kurt, qurt (n.) “curd”, “in some north-central, north-western languages” (EDT 648). An “IE etymology” via a “perhaps” suggests an “ancestor of Gaelic gruth (“press”)” or a q.v. Türkic languages also have a prevailing allophonic form kurut, both are derivatives of a verb kuri:- “dry”, and ultimately fr. a verb kur- “fix, set in order” used in physical and metaphorical contexts. Alternatively, curd may be a verbal form of a noun ko:r “curd” with verbal suffix -t/-d that reverted to a noun use. The -l- in curdle is a verbal suffix of passive voice, “curdled”. A cured NY steak is dried, not healed, fr. kuri:- “dry”. European distribution is peculiar, some motley linguistic masses cross linguistic barriers, others' mass is a pile of single forms. Out of 44 European languages, versions cur- and cog- (~ coag-) dominate with 12 (27%) and 11 (25%) languages respectively, followed by an Old Europe Sl. group zgr- with 6 (14%) languages. The remaining mass of 15 (34%) languages use their own 14 native words. The first two groups obviously use loanwords fr. external sources; the mass of natives is larger than individual masses of copycat loans; only the small Sl. group can pretend to represent the European lingo. Curdle is a “guest” in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. crud, Fris., Sw., Norw., Luxemb., Icl. curdle; Ir., Scots curdle, Gael. gruth; Gmn. gerinnen, Yid. kurdle (קורדלע); Malt. curdle; Rus. kurt, krut (< kurut); Mong. χuru “curdle, curd”, Bur. hurkhan ditto; Kalm. hursï ditto; Manchu χuru (< Mong.); all “curdle, curt” except as noted; references to loanwords in Pers., Mari, Rus., Afghan (Doerfer III 1472, p. 458). Only Gael. and Gmc. have preserved a version of a native Celtic word carried fr. the E. Europe to the west. Distribution: Fr. Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic borders; minor presence in NW Europe. Distribution attests that the word is non-IE, and any assertions of a “reconstructed PIE word”, “from a PIE Proto-word” *greut- “press, coagulate” are a bold and shameful overt sham. The “IE etymology” also suggested an origin fr. “urge, coerce”, which is an unsuitable metaphoric and not physical expression, and uncouthly suggested a connection of the milky crud with “crowd”. An imaginative trip to a fantasyland substitutes for a sober analysis to cover for myopic horizons. A metathesis of A.-Sax. crud “press, drive” ascends to the verb kuri:-, q.v. The presence of the Celtic form attests to the existence of the word in the 6th-5th mill. BC N. Pontic area, thus horses were milked millenniums before their postulated domestication. The Türkic-Eng. precise semantics and perfect phonetics attest to a common origin, and the Gaelic form attests to the origin in Neolithic times, prior to the Celtic migration ca. 5th mill. BC.

3.74
cure (v., n.) “fix, mend, heal” ~ Türkic qur-, kür- (v.) “fix, set in order”. Both Eng. and Türkic verbs have a wide range of meanings, without knowing a subject an exact meaning cannot be determined. The term “cure, curing (food processing)” also ultimately ascends to the Türkic verb kur-, but originates from a derivative kuri:- (v.) “dry (i.e. fix by drying)”. It refers to a process of hardening or solidification by cooling or drying, which covers not only a traditional conservation of food by drying, salting, smoking, or heating, but also cures concrete and plastics. In some metaphorical sense a medicinal usage may be part of it, an extension of “take care”, but a Türkic concept “heal” is much younger than qur-, and is expressed with a root em-. The “cure” by far outpaces any of its synonyms in the European languages. Across linguistic borders, out of 44 languages, it is used by a motley group of 11 (25%) languages. The other 33 (75%) languages use 20 of their own native terms. That distribution attests to its “guest” status in Europe. To pin down a timing of its origin, it was suggested that “possibly” a notion “fix” originated in rising yurts, incompatible with Mong. tatah “rise yurt”. However, it is equally applicable to rising the preceding pit-house-type “long houses” that were a staple of the Türkic abodes from the Hunnic Neolithic times and beyond, ascending to a cave time. Cognates: A.-Sax crudan “press, hasten, drive” (< aka “fix”); OFr. curer, OSp. guarir, Fr. guérir, It. guarir, Lat. curare, cura; Mong. quri-, qura- “gather” as “organize” (troops, march, battle, resistance, camp” etc.); all “fix, care, concern, trouble” unless noted otherwise. Some semantic extensions are astounding: secure (Lat. se + cure), curable, incurable (Lat. curabilis), sinecure (Lat. sine + cure), procure (pro + cure), scour (Lat. ex + cure), manicure (mani + cure), curator, curate (cleric), cure (cleric), curia, and more. Distribution: from Atlantic to the Far East, across linguistic borders. An “IE etymology” is erroneous in confusing two independent homophones. While the first has numerous noun derivatives, the second has only one English noun, curing “solidify”, see curdle. The linguistically scattered European distribution attests to a patently non-European origin, a loanword status. A spectrum of semantic extensions in Eng. attests to a path separate from that of the Romance languages, and separate from the A.-Sax. lexicon, where “cure” supplanted a native “heal” and an Old Europe lacnian (lek-). A Romance path may be via Alan/Gothic (Visigoths) and Burgund, 1st mill AD. A late Scythian/Cimmerian path via Jute and Frisian could be a possibility. A phonetic and semantic match leaves no room to doubt a Türkic origin. See curdle, cure (food), yummy.

3.75
cure (food processing) (v.) “harden or solidify” ~ Türkic kuri:- (v.) “to dry (i.e. fix by drying, usually by smoking or heating)”. The Türkic word originated in food processing, ultimately ascending to the Türkic verb kur- (v.) “fix, set in order”, widely used in physical and metaphorical senses. It is a member of an extensive lexical conglomerate that denotes a range of cultural memes: belt, time, dry, grouse, build, insect, and ca. 26+ more; nearly each one denotes clusters of sememes, and every one comes in a range of dialectal spellings. Cognates: Balto-Sl. (Lith.) kuriu “to heat”, karštas “hot”, (OCS) kurjo “to smoke, cure”. Both Balto-Sl. forms are semantically identical and practically exact reflexes of the Türkic word. The English term refers to a process of hardening or solidification by cooling or drying, which covers not only the traditional conservation of food by drying, salting, smoking, or heating, but also extends the meaning to cure concrete and plastics. The “IE etymology” is erroneous in confusing two independent homophones, cure (food processing) and cure “fix, mend, heal”. For example, kurgan is a derivative of kur- (same verb base, here meaning “fix, organize, arrange”), the same with kurultai “arrange (family) ties”. They are not related to kuri:- “dried, hardened”. While the first has numerous noun derivatives, the second exclusively denotes only one Eng. noun, curing, and a handful of peculiarly distributed cognates in Tr. and Balto-Sl. languages. Inability to understand homophonic nature of the words is a result of circular logic unable to recognize reality in conflict with dogmatic scenarios. See cure (fix).

3.76
count, counting (v., n.) (Sw N/A, F893, 0.01%) ~ Türkic köni, qoni (v., n.) “measure, veracity (size)”, könilig (adj.) “fair, true”. An “IE etymology” is absent, q.v. Ultimately fr. a verb kön- “straiten, correct, rectify, right way, move straight, directly”, etc. It apparently ascends to a beginning of a trade exchange, to a Çatalhöyük time. In the European lexicon, the form kön- occupies respectable grounds, 12 (27%) of the European vernaculars, followed by a Gmc. tell- group with 6 (14%) languages, and a Sl. group with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 22 (50%) languages use 16 of their own native terms. Since the kön- and tell- are Türkic, the Türkic fraction stands at 18 (41%), approaching a level of a 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. Irrelevant for the overall picture, some of the remaining 22 (50%) languages may also reflect a Türkic synonym of köni. Except for the Türkic kön- and tell- , there is no common “Pan-IE” root. The European mixture is very motley, attesting that its lingoes fossilized before the versions kön- and tell- came to the European scene supplanting the native words. Cognates: A.-Sax. reccan, reckon, recche “count, account”, Sw. räkna (~ recon); Ir. comhaireamh, Scots cunnt, Welsh cyfrif; Sp. contar, It. contare, Cat. comptar, Port. contagem, Gal. contar, Cors. cunta, OFr. conter, conte “count, calculations, reckoning, add up”, Fr. compter, Lat. computare < kön “count” (n ↔ m) + putare “clean”, i.e. “accurate, true measure” “count, sum up, reckon together”; Basque zenbatu; Mong. kemjüür, kemjih “measure, fair, true”; all “count” except as noted. Distribution: Ubiquitous along a Türkic Steppe Belt extending to the Far East, with a substantial isle in the W. Europe consistent with a Celtic spread. The myopic “IE etymology” blunders with a Lat. computare < kön “count” (n ↔ m) + putare “clean”, i.e. “clean, accurate, true measure”. It is reinterpreting it as a com “with, together” + putare “reckon” fr. “prune”, equating that with the “count, sum up, reckon together”. A prefix produces a substantive, a semantic miracle repeated over and over by the “IE etymology”. The term evolved independently from a different root (vs. Lat. numer-, duc-, calc-, etc.). An “IE” assertion of an origin from a faux “PIE Proto-root” *pau- “cut, strike, stamp” for a motion “count” is absurd. The hoax is a substitution/reinterpretation jugglery. Given 13 other very normal ways Romans could say “count”, where the word “count” is not one of them, a phonetic transition from computare to count is inconceivable. Apparently, Lat. received the word fr. Celtic speakers, and adjusted it to the Lat. users. None of the “IE” pseudo-etymology is credible or is needed to lead to a Romance verb “count”. The other Eng. word tally for “count” ascends to a primordial Türkic stem tili/tele/dili “tell”. The attested köni, qoni “measure” works without any tricks. The trio count, tally and quantity constitute an indelible case of paradigmatic transfer testifying to a common origin from a Türkic phylum. See quantity, tally, tell.

3.77
cut (v., n., adj.) “separate” (Sw N/A, F537, 0.02%) ~ Türkic kıd-/kı:d-, kıy-, qïj-, kes-, keš-, geč- (v.) “cut”. An “IE etymology” rates it “of uncertain origin” with a pile of giddy “perhapses”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a ket, get (n.) “breach” which points to a primordial single-syllable homonymic noun-verb root ke-, ge- with a noun suffix -t. The word developed a few of nominal and a range of verbal extensions ultimately leading to a notion “cut”: (n.) gap, hole, notch; (v.) break off, split, cut, cut off, gouge, etc. Some of them may have evolved at a primordial stage. Eventually that developed into grammatized lexicons above (geč-, kıd-/kı:d-, etc.), adorned with suffixes (d- intrans., -š noun, -s causation, etc.), modifications, and spread among distinct Türkic languages increasing a variety of forms. A spectrum of vowels in various languages suggests that the original vowel was of front quality: ka-/ke-/kı- (kï-)/ku-, probably weakly or vaguely articulated. Hence the raster of forms found in base forms and derivatives: kad-, kaf-, ked-, ker-, kes-, kıd-, kıf-, kıy-, kut-. Some other viable variations escaped records: e.g. we do not know a quality of the vowel that stands behind keor- (A.-Sax. spelling ceor- “cut, separate”). Variation in the second consonant points to alternations: -s/-r typical for Oguz/Ogur vernaculars, Cf. Heb. chereb (xereb) “knife”. Sound change d ↔ z is typical for numerous Türkic languages (and Gmc. in Europe), -f may be a rendering of -ð/-þ; and -d is regularly changed to -y (Cf. badram/bayram/mayram “feast”). All these forms are acoustically allophonic. Phonetic variation is well pronounced in the derivatives: kadıš “strap” (lit. “a cut”), kıftu: “scissors” (lit. “cutters”), kaftan “coat, robe”, (lit. “scissored”), kedir-, kedriš- “cut a strip”, kert- “cut a notch”, kıd-/ kıy- “cut, separate”. The form kut- is an allophone of the kad-/ked-/kıd-. European footprint of surviving forms for cut is modest, 5 (11%) of 44 European languages (Türkic, Eng., Ir., Scots, Norw.), it follows a Sl. group with 6 (14%) languages. The other 33 (75%) languages use their own 18 native terms. There is no shared “Pan-IE” term; a modest Sl. group is the largest. Cognates: A.-Sax. ceor-, (be)ceorian, corfen, ceorfan, curfon, cyrffi, (s)cieran, (s)ciran, (s)coren, (s)cearon, (s)cearp, (s)ceoran “cut, separate”, ceorfaex “axe”, ceorfsaex “scalpel” (+ non-cognate forms: snaedan, sniðan, ðwitan, toceorfan); MSw. kotta “cut, carve”, Sw. kuta, kytti “cut, knife”, kata “cut, chip”, ONorse kytja, kutta “cut”, kuti “small knife”, Norse kytja, kutta, kutte “cut”, kuti “knife”, Icl. kuta “cut”; MIr. gearr, gerr, Scots kut, kit, gearradh (s/r ) (but Welsh torri, dorri); OFr. couteau “knife”; Akkadian kes-, kas- “cut, chop, break, shorten, abbreviate”, käs- “separate into small pieces” (an earliest record of 28-24 cc. BC); Ar. (< Akkadian) re: “cut”: kasap, kısım, kasım, kısmet, etc.; Heb. gedud “cut”, geduda “incision”; WMong. kidu- “cut”, Mong. khutga “cutter, knife”; all “cut” unless noted otherwise. Cognates include innumerable derivatives of “cut”: A.-Sax. ceorfaex “axe”, ceorfsaex “scalpel”, Eng. carve (v.) “cut a mark”, cutter, cutlery, ONorse kuti “knife”; OFr. couteau “knife”; Rum. kutsit “knife”; Türkic kert (v.), OT kingirak (> Gk. akinak) “knife”, kezlik (dimin.) “small knife”; WMong. kituga “knife”, Dongxiang quduyo “knife”. Distribution extends from Atlantic to the Far East; an “IE” portion is but a tiny dot isle on the map. Cognates cut across linguistic families to a degree that the word was claimed to be a Nostratic ancestor. The notion “cut” probably precedes by far a Neolithic economy associated with fine stone cutting tools, it had plenty of time to disperse its phonetics long before the Celtic anabasis to Iberia. In an upside-down airing, the Scots kut, kit is claimed to come fr. a N. Gmc. origin, albeit the Celtic migration fr. the E.Europe is well-traced and dated, while the Gmc. anabasis origin, route, and timing is yet a speculative matter. The Celtic terms are consistent with the Türkic terms, they attest to an origin prior to the 4800 ybp (2800 BC) arrival of the Neolithic Celtic carriers of the R1b Hg to Iberia via Near East and N. Africa. In all languages the verb “cut” is a prime, all other grammatical forms are derivatives. A “PIE” origin is delusory. On top of a “presumed” faux “A.-Sax. Proto-word” *cyttan “cut” are suggested a faux “NGmc. proto-word” *kut- “cut”, and a faux “perhaps”, “related to” “PG Proto-word” *kwetwa “meat, flesh”. Or a brazen hoax “of uncertain origin” and “perhaps” a faux “PG Proto-word” *kutjana, *kuttana “cut” which has nothing to do with another faux “PG Proto-word” *kwetwa “meat, flesh” nor with an unrelated ONorse kvett “meat”. That pile of absurdities has to be gently rescinded. The Eng. semantic raster mirrors that of the Türkic (e.g. cut me a deal, cut them off, cut corners, cut it out, etc., for withdraw, change, abandon, etc.). It is a member of a paradigmatic transfer complex, attesting to its Türkic heritage. See carve, curt, short.

3.78
dash 1 (v., n.) “move quickly” ~ Türkic daš- (dash-), taš- (tash-) (v.) “erupt, burst over an edge (like boiling milk)”, with prime connotation “sudden spill, burst”. The word is “IE etymology”-rated “of obscure origin” and “somehow imitative”, q.v. It comes in a series of vaguely related homophones: 1) “overflow, run”, 2) “outer, outside, appearance, far”, 3) “beat, hit”, 4) “drag, hyphen”, etc., in practice discriminated by agglutinated suffixes. A three-phoneme verb is highly polysemantic, the dash 1 packs two semantic rubrics, of 11 and 4 clusters, and averages about 2 meanings per cluster, thus about 30+ total meanings per a first homophone (e.g. 1. overflow, cross bounds, (water) rise, run away (about milk, water), 2. spill, pour out, (water) rise, gush, 3. arrive, add, 5. boil, boil away, etc.), see daš 2 “appearance, look”, daš 3 “beat, hit”, daš 4 “drag, hyphen”. That leaves out a Türkic daš, taš “stone” and a dart (v., n.) “draw, draft, dart”. Not Türkic but Eng., has a dash (v.) “break into pieces”, apparently a neologistic extension of the notion “burst, boil over”. A Dan. daske, dash “beat, strike”, Sw. daska ditto also relate to the notion “break into pieces”. An Eng. dashboard “splashboard” is a neologistic relict of a faded base. Of 44 European languages, a miniscule group da-, de- of 6 (14%) languages leads with 3 Türkic entries (Türkic, Ir., Scots) and 3 “guest” entries (Eng., Fris., Yid.), followed by a Sl. group lih- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 34 (77%) languages use 31 of their own native terms. A “guest” status of the daš in Europe is certain. Cognates: A.-Sax. dollic, dolwillen “dash, rush”, Fris. dash ditto, Yid. dash (דאַשינג) ditto; Ir. deifir, Scots deoir, (but Welsh rhwyg); all “dash, rush” unless noted otherwise. Various extensions with semantics of “sudden, eruptive move” are later innovations: race run “dash”, brilliant act “dash”, etc. Distribution: extends from Atlantic to the end of a Türkic Steppe Belt. Unlike other meanings of daš-, the notion “erupt, burst” does not bear any references to loanwords in other eastern languages. The “IE etymology” is not even attempting to claim the word or invent a suitable descent, a bravest claim is a ridiculous “somehow imitative”. A passage “probably from a Scandinavian source” does not carry any water: the Celts came to the NW Europe before a Scandinavian's migration ca. 1750 BC with a Battle Axe culture of the Pontic–Caspian R1a - R1b Hg. steppe herders. Perpetuation of particular polysemantic word with its particular semantic meanings is a positive attestation of a genetic heritage. The word presents a uniquely huge case of paradigmatic transfer: without any changes, Eng. inherited a mass of the Türkic daš semantics; a proportion of later innovations and extensions is fairly modest. In such massive case of paradigmatic transfer, chances for odd coincidence are nil. See dash 2 (n.) “outer, far”, dash 3 (v.) “beat, hit”, dash 4 (v., n.) “drag, hyphen”.

3.79
dash 3 (v., n.) “beat, hit” ~ Türkic daš- (dash-), taš- (tash-) “beat, hit”. The word is “IE etymology”-rated “of obscure origin” and “somehow imitative”, a pure nonsense. Ultimately one of the pleiad of homophones of dash, dash-, a denoun verbal derivative fr. a base notion “carry, drag” loaded with 10 semantic notions. A notion daš (n.) “dash, hyphen, hyphenate, hyphenation” is an extension of the base notion “carry, drag”; it is a late development predicated on an existence of bound books, see dash 4 (v., n.) “drag, hyphen”. Cognates: see dash 1 (v., n.) “move quickly”. Distribution: extends from Atlantic to the end of a Türkic Steppe Belt. An Rus. ion of the “IE etymology” of a “probably from a Scandinavian source” is a dubious non-statement, at best it points to an undifferentiated in time Türkic-Scandinavian lexical continuum seen in a shared R1a/b Hg. A systemic paradigmatic transfer of daš lexical complex indelibly attests to an origin from a Türkic milieu. See dash 4 (v., n.) “drag, hyphen”.

3.80
dash 4 (v., n.) “drag, hyphen” ~ Türkic dašu- (dashu-), tašu- (tashu-) “drag, hyphen, punctuation mark”. For the “IE etymology”, the word is non-existent. Ultimately a semantic derivative of the notion “drag” expressing “continue, go to the continuation”, a late development predicated on an existence of bound books. It belongs to a corpus of the root daš words, the final -u, -a do not have a defined grammatical function. In the sense of “hyphen” the word is notable for its universal spread typical for a neologistic lexicographic dispersion. The corpus of the root daš was adopted in Eng. nearly in its entirety, albeit in somewhat truncated scope and with few novel semantic extensions. Such literate case of paradigmatic transfer of an entire verbal and semantic corpus is a rare event in Türkic substrate in Eng. See dash 1, 2, 3, 4.

3.80
deem (v.) “think, recon” ~ Türkic demek (v.) “think, mean, believe, suppose”. An “IE etymology” suggested how to replicate a Türkic root te:-/de: with a copycat mock “PIE root”, q.v. Ultimately a semantic derivative of a base te:-/de:/-diy-/tejän “tell, say”, the same base that developed an Eng. tell “tell”, relaying a kernel notion of “speech” and “thought”. The deverbal verbal form shows in the verbal suffix -mek “make” for the root te:-/de:, lit. “tell-make/act”. The verb is held as one of the oldest Türkic words. Unlike the tell “tell”, demek “deem” is not used in direct speech, but in conjunction with an impersonal form of the verb, e.g. “I deem that ~ in my opinion... (John came, it will be raining, etc.)”. For transposition of Eng. say and tell see say. Semantic spread extends to two dozen (!) immediate derivatives and numerous grammatical functions. Apparently, the form similar to demek (inf.) was internalized on the Gmc. and Sl. scene as a root dem- with morphological adoption for local use. The Gmc. extended usage focused on the notion “mean”, as in “I mean that”, the Sl. usage centered on the notion “think, thought”. Of 44 European languages, a decent group dem-, dum- of 12 (27%) languages leads, followed by a Romance group consi- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 28 (64%) languages use 20 of their own native terms. A “guest” status of the deem in Europe is certain, other than Türkic-Eng. demek ~ deem, there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. Cognates: A.-Sax. deman “tell, deem, think, consider, judge”, dem, demend, demere “judge, ruler”, OFris. dema (v.) “judge”, OSax. domian, Icl. telja “deem”, MDu. doemen, ONorse dma, OHG tuomen, Goth. domjan, doms (v.) “deem”, (n.) “opinion”; Ir. deir, Gael. duil “deem”; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) duoma, duomat “thought, think, believe”, Sl. duma, dumat (дума, думать) “thought, think”, Rus. de-, deskat (де-, дескать) “as though, as deem(ed)”, Bulg./Bolg. demek “think”; Gk. θῡμός “thought, spirit”, Skt. dhumas “thought”; Gujarati dharavum (ધારવું) “suppose”; Mong. üzeh, üdeh “see, deem”, duu “song”; all “deem” unless noted otherwise. Distribution extends across a width of the Eurasia, covering only a smattering of the “IE” languages, and reliably excludes both “PIE” and “PG” origins. No suitable “IE” parallels, the “IE” etymological divination on PIE “set”, “put”, “doom” are totally inapplicable, a mock “PIE root *dhe-” unwittingly mimics the attested Türkic te:-/de:. Geographic distribution and phonetic dispersion attest to a long history ascending to a 2nd mill. BC (Aryan migration), Corded Ware period (3rd mill. BC), and a Celtic anabasis fr. E. Europe to Iberia via Africa ca. 5th-4th mill. BC. The entire trio of the Eng. “say, tell, deem” speech-related lexicon constitutes an indelible case of a paradigmatic transfer, inextricably attesting to a common origin from a demographic milieu of the Y-DNA R1a/b Türkic Kurganians. See tell, say.

3.81
delve (v.) “cut into” ~ Türkic del-/tel-, deš-/teš- (v.) “pierce, punch, break through”. An unstoppable “IE” etymology came up with “perhaps” a faux “PIE root”, q.v. The -l- and -š- forms are about equally spread, frequently in the same languages, and even formed a paired jingle a la delik-dešik “Swiss cheese”. Its many reflexes in “IE” languages were dutifully noted and cheerfully explained away. On a European scene the Türkic del- is first with a modest 7 (15%) languages, followed by a Sl. Old Europe kop- with 6 (14%) languages. The remaining 31 (71%) languages use their own 23 native words. The Türkic del- is a humble best to represent a Pan-European “IE” line, attesting to its “guest” status in Europe. Apparently, by the coming of the “guest” del-, the native Europeans had their own terms fossilized and resistant to a newcomers' supplanting. Cognates: A.-Sax. delfan (v.) “dig, dig out, burrow, bury”, delf, gedelf “digging”, dælf “ditch”, OSax. delban, WFris. dolle “dig, delve”, Du. delven, MHG telben “dig”, LGmn. dölven “dig, delve”; Balt. (Lith.) delba “crowbar”; Sl. (Pol.) dłubać, dłuto “chisel”, (Cz.) dlabati “gouge”, dlato “chisel”, (Russ.) dolbit (долбить) “gouge, crack, peck, pound”, doloto (долото) “chisel”; Tr. telik/tešük “puncture, hole, aperture”; all versions of “dig” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: extends across a width of the Eurasia, covering a smattering of the “IE” languages, and reliably excludes both “PIE” and “PG” origins. All European cognates are Gmc./Balt./Sl., solely N. European, that should have been a salient message to the “IE” philologists. No “IE” cognates, the “PIE reconstructions” are unattested quasi-scientific fantasies and speculations: “perhaps from a (faux) PIE root *dhelbh- doloto, chisel”, or a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *delbana (v.) “dig” fr. a faux “PIE proto-word” *dʰelbʰ- (v.) “dig”. With the continent-wide attested Türkic archaic form del-, a later attested development deš-, and the historically attested westward migrations of the Hg-s. R1a/b from Siberia, no parochial speculations are needed or justified. The “perhaps” Rus. ions should be quietly retrieved. The word belongs to a host of sibling lexemes shared exclusively by the Gmc., Balto-Sl., and Türkic families. Notably, the sibligs tel- and teš- are noted in the same body of literature, attesting that the archaic sound change l ~ š lingered in the Oguz languages. The form -l- was attested in the Ogur Karluk language of the Huns, and the form -š- is present, for example, in the Chuv. The suffix -fan/-ban/-ben and its truncated (Sarmatian) forms -ba/-bi/-v, specific to the Gmc./Balt./Sl. groups, is a palatalized reflex of the Türkic suffix -pan that forms participles: digging, piercing. The consistent use of the combination of the Türkic root and suffix is a binding case of paradigmatic transfer, vividly attesting to a common origin from a Türkic scene.

3.82
descend (v.) “move lower, plunge, fall, go down” ~ Türkic düš- (v.) “lower, fall, pour”. An “IE etymology” myopically suggested a Lat. origin replicating a root te:-, de:- with a copycat mock “PIE root”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a düš- “fall”; the Türkic düš-/tüš- “fall” in its various renderings defines the action. A model for a compound “descend” universally consist of two elements, “down + move”, in a direct or reverse sequence. The “move” portion is specific for each language; in Türkic, a stand-alone dü-, tü- has not survived, its derivatives point to a generic sense of action mirrored in the Eng. do, dash. A prime notion “fall” forms 4 extended semantic clusters, another 10 clusters are secondary, and a massive 15th cluster provides numerous grammatized services: complex verbs, auxiliary, etc. With a suffix -an/-en the stem düš- fills numerous applications: voice, participle, reflexive, noun, plus grammatical forms with a nasal suffix -aŋ/-eŋ rendered -an/-en in Gmc. languages. A Türkic original form düšen covered most of the practical needs. The Türkic düš- served as a base for the Lat. prefix de- “diminish” which propagated to the local languages within the sphere of Lat. cultural influence (Cf. Lat. pre- fr. Tr. bir “one” etc.). Among 44 European languages the Türkic-based motley form düš-, des- leads with 8 (18%) languages, followed by a Gmc. ned- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 32 languages use their own 24 native words. Other than a Türkic-based, there is no “Pan-European IE” line, attesting to its “guest” status in Europe. Cognates: Fris. delkomme “descend”, Luxemb. (d)erofkommen; OFr. descendre (10th c.) “go down, fall into, originate in, dismount”, douche (v., n.) “shower, spray”, Sp. descender, Port. descer, Lat. descendere “come down, sink”; Rum. dušis “stumbling”; Mong. tülge, tölge “fate”, dülüre “come off, break” (of a glued), (š ↔ l), Bur. tülgü- “arrive, enter, show up” (š ↔ l); Kor. tilda, tida “enter, cost (of money), taken ill, come (time)” (š ↔ l); all “descend” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: widespread distribution across the Eurasian Steppe Belt from Atlantic to Pacific. In a bulk of the European “IE” languages the word is absent. The de- “down” is an allophone of the Türkic adverb düš- “down”. The “IE etymology” interprets the Lat. form descandere as a composite of de- “down” + scandere “climb, jump”. Using a Lat. “climb” for “descend” is a nonsensical idea. The Lat. element -scandere functions only as an auxiliary verb to augment a main, the Lat. adv. de- “down”. A Lat. origin does not hold any water, it must be tossed out. Lat. was only instrumental in popularizing a Türkic word for a very limited audience. The “climb” is a derivative of “spring, leap, ascent” with cognates like “hasten, leap, jump”. That is a totally uncouth logic for notions of falling and going down. A Lat. etymology unwittingly leads to another Türkic stem, sön- (v.) “die down, disappear”. Two Türkic siblings, sön- and siŋ- (sin-) “sink” have overlapping meanings of original allophones that gained individual semantic overtones. The sön- does not mandate disappearance from the view, and the siŋ- implies that it is stronger on disappearance, that's how we have sinks and not songs in our houses. Unwittingly, descandere leads to another series of cognates: A.-Sax. senc(an) “sink, plunge”, saeg(an) “sink, settle”; OFr. (des)cen(sion) “descent” ~ Lat. (des)cen(dere) “descend”; Sl. sig(at), sgin(ut) (сигать, сгинуть) “plunge, disappear”. An evidence suggests that Lat., and Sl. are using a Türkic word obtained independently of each other via different paths. In all cases the grammar, phonetics, and semantics are pinpointed and exact. Since it is not shared by other Gmc. languages, the Eng. word came a separate path The Lat. form, if it is a Classical Lat. and not LLat., also demonstrates a separate path, it could not originate neither fr. Fr. nor Eng. The notion of descendant “originate in” has already been recorded in the OFr. form, positively excluding an Eng. innovation. The A.-Sax. form eventually conflated with its OFr. allophone. See toss.

3.83
dip (v., n), deep (n., adj., adv.) (Sw N/A, F1038, 0.01%) ~ Türkic tüb, tüp, düb, dip, düyp (n.) “bottom”. An “IE etymology” bravely invented an “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a notion “root” (n.), hence homophonic cognates denoting roots and tubular structures, and foundation, substrate: tuber, tube, tablet, table, (bath)tub, type (impression), type (precursor), typing, etc. The polysemantic word carries 10 semantic clusters, from “bottom” to “pile” (63+ meanings) and a line of grammatical postpositions. A slew of Türkic derivatives include a notion “submerge”, “go under water”. Eng. internalized the word without changes. European assemblage is peculiar: of 44 European languages, a Türkic dip- dominates with 13 (30%) languages, followed by Sl. off-Türkic divergent variations dub-, glob-, hlob- with 12 (27%) languages. Combined, two groups cover 25 (57%) languages, matching a level of a 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. A Romance group follows with 8 (18%) languages. The remaining 11 (25%) European languages use their own 8 native words. If there is a common “Pan-European” word, it originated fr. a Türkic archaic lexicon, it is a nomadic “guest” to a “IE” European family. Cognates: A.-Sax. diepan “immerse, dip”, deop “deep”, OSax. diop, OFris. diap, Dan. dyb, Du. diep, ONorse djupr, Goth. diups, OHG tiufi, Gmn. tief, teufe “deep”; Ir. domhain (b/m alternation), Welsh (Cimr.) dwfn “deep”; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) dugnas (< dubnas) “bottom”, dubus “deep”, dubti “immerse, dip”, dauba “ravine”, (Latv.) dubens, dibens, dibins “bottom”, dubt “immerse, dip”, dauba “ravine”, (OPruss.) padaubis “valley”, (OCS) duno (< dbno) “bottom, foundation”; Brahmi tüp “bottom”; Mong. (Kalm.) töb “foundation”; Akkadian dibdibbu “water clock, clepsydra”, reduplicated, an earliest record of 28-24 cc. BC; all “deep” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: The word was internalized by an amazing scattering of diverse populations across entire Eurasia, across linguistic barriers, and by all Gmc. and Sl. languages. Some demographic events are datable, traceable by genetic markings of migratory flows. There is a rare conversion among Celtic languages with the Welsh in concert with the Ir. and Scots forms. Given their peculiar individual migrations, such uniformity points to the very deep common roots ascending to a Celtic departure fr. the E. Europe ca. 5th - 4th mill. BC. The “IE etymology” is not palatable. It suggests a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *deup “deep”, a faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *deupaz “deep”, and *dupjana “deep”, and *daupijana “dip”. All that poetic circus only parrots the Türkic attested dip widely spread across Eurasia, and is preceded by the Celtic, Akkadian, Brahmi, Mong., and Goth. predecessors which in their own distinct ways tacitly internalized the Türkic dip. The circus unwittingly recycled a slightly distorted clone of the Türkic tüb, düb, dip. The “proto-words” must be a neologism (Leiden, 2013): during the scientific apotheosis of the Aryan-race cleansing the Proto-Judaic Akkadian word could not have survived as a “PG proto-word”. Since “deep” is an extension of the notion tube (< “root”), all cognates of the tü:b “tube” belong to the host of cognates. An Eng. assemblage of the derivatives of the Türkic prime notion “root” magnificently attests to their common origin from a Türkic linguistic milieu. See table, tablet, tuber.

3.84
divide (v.) “split, separate, fraction”, divvy “apportion, deal, share” ~ Türkic til-, dil- “divide, cut to pieces”. An “IE etymology” bravely suggests an “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a lost primeval root ti-, di-, probably a generic action word like the Eng. “do”, with a passive and medial verbal suff. -l: til-, dil- “divide”. The archaicness of the root is attested by a homonymic noun-verb pair and a neutrality to transitivity. As a “guest” to Europe, the til-, dil- is a champion: of 44 European languages the siblings dil- and div- carry a motley pack of 33 (77%) languages, of them with form dil- 23/44 cases, and with div- (l ↔ v) 9/44 cases. The remaining 11 languages use their own 11 native words. The Türkic-based root is an only candidate for a common “Pan-European” term. There is no “IE” terms in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. daelan, (to)dælan, Goth. dailjan, Sw. dela, Da., Norw. dele, Du. (ver)delen, OHG teilen, Icl. deila, Norse divide, Du. delen, Yiddish tyyln; Ir. deighilt, Welsh darni (r ↔ l); Lat. divide, Rum. diviza; Gk. diaírei (διαίρει); Balto-Sl. (Latv.) dalit, (Lith.) dalyti, (Sl.) delit (делить), (Pol.) dzielić, (Lusatian) zelis (jelis), (Serb.) dilum “part”; Mong. čilügen “split” (< tilü), Kalm. dil “win”(< “cut, split”); numerous roots are preceded by a native prefix; all “divide” unless noted otherwise. The l > v transition juxtapose Gmc. vs. Romance forms; in Pol. and Lusatian an initial d-/t- form is dz-, j-, a Gk. transition is l ↔ r. Distribution: widespread across the Eurasian Steppe Belt from Atlantic to the Far East. The European loans apparently came from the Sarmatian tribes; the Gk. and Ir. point to independent paths. Lat. is possibly an allophone of Ir. with gh > v transition, probably via a local intermediary. The Eng., in addition to divide and divvy, has derivatives deal, division, till (booty for division). An “IE etymology” guestimated a faux “PIE proto-form” *(d)uid- “separate, distinguish” and a “PIE word” *dwoh “divide?”. That enterprising is not needed, it contributes nothing, leading from nowhere to nowhere. The antiquity of the substrate and cultural borrowing is attested by various derivatives developed in the individual languages. Türkic has synonyms for “divide”, a bӧl- (e.g. parse) and kes-, they found their way into the languages of diverse linguistic groups from the Europe to the Far East. Paradigmatic transfer of a series of lexemes, including a homophone til- “tell” attests to a common origin from the Türkic phylum. See deal, division, do, tell, till.

3.85
do (v.) “make, act, perform, cause, put, place” (Sw N/A, F24, 1.89%) ~ Türkic tur-, dur-; Chuv., Uig. – a truncated form tu- (v.) “do, act”. An “IE etymology” asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. The CT polysemantic verb tur-, dur- conveys among other derivative notions “intent or readiness to act, duration or permanence of actions”. The t-/d- alternation is usage-specific: the anlaut t- forms a rising/going aspect vs. the d- a down/stopping aspect. It is a general grammatical function verb and an auxiliary verb of action, eidetic to the Eng. pair to do (infinitive case). “Among Turkic verbs with grammatized functions, tur-/dur- occupies a special place in terms of richness, universality, and diversity of its grammatical application” (EDTL v.3 299). The word carries 14 semantic clusters, from “stay” to “intend” (116+ meanings), +6 clusters of grammatized meanings with open end functions, +a cluster of distinct meanings with named specific suffixes. Apparently, each Turkic vernacular scooped words from a common well for its particular needs. Likewise, the Eng. closely reflects the universality of the lexeme while not carrying over a full wealth of concrete applications, nor reflecting a wealth of its conjugations. Türkic has a complimentary stem tö-, tü- “make, made” (vs. do), Cf. törü- “happen to occur, emerge, be born, appear, give birth”, törüt “create”, törči “happen, occur, undertake, initiate”; törči also serves as auxiliary verb exactly like the Eng. do, with a similar complement of functions: “make, engage, carry out, carry on, get done, proceed, cause to happen, engage in, comport, execute, finish, complete action” with idioms and nuances. In a lineup of the European languages the word “do” takes a leading place: a potpourri group of 11 (25%) languages (Türkic, Eng., Fris., Du., Sw., Yid., Irish, Scots, Rus., Czech., Latv.). That attests to a status of a Wanderwort, a wondering loanword. It is followed by Romance and Sl. groups, with 8 (18%) and 6 (14%) languages respectively. The remaining 19 (43%) languages use 13 of their own native words. If there is a “Pan-European” common word in Europe, it is a non-“IE” Türkic “guest” to Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. don (-n reciprocity suff.), dide, didon, dyde, dydon “do”, doere “doer”, OSax. duan (suff. -n), OFris. dua, Du. doen (suff. -n), OHG tuon (suff. -n), Gmn. tun (suff. -n); Gk. ντουρμα “enduring”; Sl. (Rus.) torg (торг) “market (livestock)”, (Bolg.) durdisvam (дурдисвам) “be, stay”, (Serb.) dur, dura “stop, stay”, durbak “stop and look”, durmadan “incessantly, constantly”, durun orda “stay there”; Alb. dur, dura “stop, stay”; Balkar turku “corral”; all “do” unless noted otherwise. Türkic cognates include a form tu. Distribution: is typical and peculiar: the width of the Eurasian Steppe Belt plus a smattering in some European corners. A dreamed up “IE root” *dhe- “set, put, place” is a flight of fantasy derived solely from the Gmc. roots mimicking the Türkic original. A suggested semantics of the “IE root” trails an aspect of the Türkic tur-, dur- “stand (physically or to stop)”. That specificity trivializes and utterly distorts a majestic role the service word “do” holds in Eng. and Türkic languages. The “stand” is only one of 116+ conc. meanings, while as an auxiliary verb, the “do” is universal. The “IE” pretentions of ownership are ludicrous, built on faux material: a verbal faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *don, faux “PGmc. proto-form” *dona, faux “PIE proto-word” *dʰeh “put, place, do, make”, faux “PIE “reduplicated” proto-word” *dʰedʰehti < *dʰeh- “put, place, do, make”. That just parrots an attested Türkic tur-, dur-, tu- ignoring its auxiliary service function of an action verb. The reality can't be hidden, overridden, or erased. Any misleading claims should be gently retrieved. As for a supplementary claim of a proposed Brittonic pedigree, the Brittonic is a Celtic language which in the 3rd mill. BC came to Europe via an African path after leaving the E. Europe millenniums earlier. The Celts brought along their versions of the Old Türkic vernaculars, still detectable millenniums later in non-supplanted Celtic lexicons. The Celtic languages ultimately ascend to a S. Siberian nest of the R1a/b Hgs. provisionally dated by a 22,000 to 25,000 ybp (R1a) and 18,000-14,000 ybp (R1b). The series of act, do, make, and a host of other action lexemes form a case of paradigmatic transfer, inescapably attesting to a common origin from a Türkic phylum. See act, make, kin, to (prep.).

3.86
don (v.) “put clothes on” ~ Türkic don-, ton- (v., n.) “put clothes on” (v.), “clothes” (n.). An “IE etymology” suggests some loony versions for an “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately it has to be fr. an inchoate root do-, since -n is a reciprocity suff.: “do yourself” > don (v.) “dress (yourself)”. Nearly forgotten, the word is pretty much active in idiomatic expressions: “it donned on me”, “don an evening dress”, etc. A European spread attests to a certain loanword status: the word dispersed across linguistic borders, a positive attestation of a loanword status. Of 44 European languages, a motley group do-, don- of of 11 (25%) languages dominates (Eng., Turk., Yid., Du., Fris., Luxemb., Lat., Lith., Rus., Sloven., Ukr.). The remaining scattering of 33 (75%) languages use 21 of their own native terms. Other than the Türkic-Eng. don, there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. Cognates: A.-Sax. (onscry)dan “to clothe”, (scry)dan “vestry”; taken from the church lingo, scrydan is “sacral vestments”, tunece, tonice “garment”; Ir. guna “clothes”, Welsh (ao)dach “clothes”; Rus. oden (одень) “don” (imperative); Bolg. donove “attire”; Lat. induo “don”, tunica “tunic”, toga “drape”; Gk. chitоna (χιτωνα) “tunic”; Pers. pufidan “wear, clothe”; Khotanese thauna- “clothe”; Kannada (u)ḍuge (ಉಡುಗೆ) “don”; Brahmi tom; Mong. daashinz (даашинз) “clothes”, tonug “horse harness”; Kor. deuleseu (드레스 /tirisi/) “clothes”, Jap doresu (/donese/) “clothes”; Tat. tyŋ- (v., n) ditto; all “don” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: across Eurasia and linguistic families, and a positive oddball within the “IE” family, attesting to a loanword status in the “IE” languages. No credible “IE” etymology. A first offered folk-type “IE” etymology, a neologistic “contraction of do on” is spurious and laughable. It implies that an honor of being a proto-word belongs not even to, say, a Brahmi but to a newbie Eng. Thus, after millenniums of being donned, a name for dressing has been invented. A second, a reference to doff, dup, dout does not lead anywhere. It is unconscionable that an abundance of the cognates on the European peninsula and across Eurasia went unnoticed. The etymology from an unattested “PIE root” *(s)teg- “cover, roof, roofing material” semantically echoes the notion “cover, clothes”, and at best is likely a 3rd c. BC allophone of the don, ton. The first consonant is fairly consistent across Eurasia, the second consonant is more fluid, attesting that the original -n- might have had a peculiar articulation, Cf. ñ, ñ, ŋ. The Tat. form corroborates that conjecture. The t- (OTD)/d- (Eng.) shift is a strictly dialectal variation, both forms coexisted from early times. G. Clauson (EDT 512 on) notes record the form don- (vs. ton-) specifically to Azeri, Turkmen, and Ottoman Turkish, i.e. roughly the Aral-Caspian interfluvial. That is consistent with other pointers to the Aral area origin of the Gmc. forms. Curiously, like the Türkic generic agach “tree” became the Gk. acacia for a specific type of trees, so the Türkic generic ton/toŋ “dress, clothing” became Lat. for specific types of dress. The word falls into a pattern of paradigmatic transfer as a member of a baker's half-dozen dress terms, directly attesting to a Türkic origin. See belt, cowl, robe, sari, sash.

3.87
drag (v.) “pull”, (n.) “hindrance, impediment” ~ Türkic tar-, tart-/dart-, tarït- (v.) “pull, drag, draw”. An “IE etymology” asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. The form tarït- and its contracted form tart-/dart- form intensive aspect of the base tar-. The verb is neutral to transitivity, attesting to its origin prior to a rise of a grammatical transitivity. The verb is very polysemantic, numbering 10 main semantic fields, plus 15 semantic offshoots, plus a scattering of 17+ single senses in separate sources, plus uncounted subsenses. A listing of distinct semantic meanings numbers 128 entries before conjugations. It is likely a Türkic, and possibly one of a world's semantic champions. The mind-boggling semantic spread points to its amalgamative origin from once independent languages. The base meaning of the root tar- is “pull, drag, draw”, shared by most of the Türkic languages, it alone has 30+ distinct semantic flavors. The other main senses of the main semantic fields are “drag on/trail”, “continue/last”, “jerk/yank”, “weigh”, “ponder”, etc. Numerous words form idioms. In the processes of an immediate inheritance, and direct and secondary loanword acquisition, such prodigious polysemantic word had to leave a stupendous trail in daughter languages and a series of culturally impacted languages. The Gmc. languages were immediate beneficiaries of the inheritance, Cf. Eng. drag, draw, dredge, dregs, drive, tardy, trace, track, tract, tractile, traction, tractor, tradition, traffic, trail, train, tram, trammel, trap, travel, traverse, trawl, tray, tread, truck, retard, and more. The whole shmear probably started with a pair of logs dragged by draft animals with rollers and wheels added millenniums later. In snowy and swampy areas where wheeled transport does not work, the original Stone Age technology lasts well into the 21st c., now mostly in sledging and logging. Time has expanded semantic range with an explosion of derivative innovations related to pulling, like the northern runners and the southern rollers, and then the wheels. They ascend to the Stone Age technologies. The published cognates are but a small and selective sampling. An attempt to trace all cognates of the 128 meanings would be a gargantuan task. Of 44 European languages, dominates a motley group tar-, dra- of 15 (34%) languages, followed by a mostly Romance group arras- with 5 (11%) languages, a motley group sle- with 4 (9%) languages, and a motley group vil- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 16 (36%) languages use 11 of their own native terms. Other than the Türkic-Eng. tar-, dar- there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. The lexeme's motley ethnical lineup attests to a Türkic non-“IE”, “guest” or a Wanderwort in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. dragan, draege, drogon, droh, drohnian, drohtnian, trog, troh, ðroh, trugon “drag, draw, protract”, daerst, daerste “dregs, refuse”, droht “condition of life”, drohtað “mode of living, conduct, environment, society, condition, employment, vocation”, drohtnian, drohtian “behave, associate, live, continue”, trod, trodu “track, trace”, OSax. dragan “carry”, OFris. drega, draga, ONorse draga “draw, drag, pull”, dorg- “fishing tackle”, OIcl. draga “drag, pull”, dorg “fishing tackle”, Goth. dragan “carry, drag”, draibjan, dreiban “drive”, OHG tragan “carry, bring, lead”, Gmn. tragen “carry, bear”, darge “fishing tackle”, MDu. draghen “carry, bring, throw”, dorg- “fishing tackle”, Sw. drag “to tense, draw”, drag “long narrow depression in soil (trace, trail)”, dörj, dorj “fishing tackle”; OIr. tarla “pull”; Lat. trahere “draw”; Gk. travixte (τραβηξτε) “pull”; Rus. doroga (дорога) “trail, road, way”, doroga, dorojka (дорога, дорожка) “fishing tackle”, droga (дрога) “beam (between wagon axles”, drogi (дроги), drovni (дровни), aka rozvalni (розвальни), volokusha (волокуша), volochuga (волочуга) “sledge, stone-boat”, drojka, drojki (дрожка, дрожки) “light carriage”, tarabit, tarabanit (тарабить, тарабанить) “drag, pull”, tarabarka (тарабарка) “traverse, crossbeam” (Türk. compound with ber- “bear, carry” and diminutive suffix -k), tarak (тарак) “pole, rod (for drying nets)” (Tat. tartyq, with instr. suffix -yq/-ïq), tarantas (тарантас) (Tat. taryntas) “long-base wagon”; Pol. dorozka “light carriage”, darka “fishing tackle”, taratatka, taradajka, taradejka “wagon”, таранкат “trail, lag, linger”, tarambuchit “cling, annoy” (Fr. tarabuster “cling, annoy”); Skt. dhrajati “pull, slide in”; Fin. tarttu- “seize, catch”, tork(k)o “fishing tackle”, Mordvin targa- “pull”; ODravidian tor, dor, tallu “push”; Nenets tartaɣaš “pull”; Kalmyk, Mong., Manchu tatxa “drag, pull, pull over” (tata- < tarta-); Kor. talda, tada (달다) “weigh, weighing” (< tara-, < tan-); Chuv. turt- “pull”; Alb. tartis “weigh, weighing”. The first consonant tends to wobble between d- and t-, like in Türkic languages, the first vowel wobbles between -a-/-o-/-ö- and zero. Numerous words carry traces of the Türkic suffixes with -g/-ɣ/-k/-q for forming conjugations, declensions, and derivatives. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic borders. Any claims to an “IE origin” and “PIE proto-words” are doomed by the spread of the word across linguistic families and continent-wide vast geography, impossible without mobile Türkic nomadic pastoralists spreading the word across Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific. Forsaking its creed concept of the “proto-wording”, the “IE etymology” invented a slew of different “proto-words” pleading a special case for each special instance descended from a primeval notion of dragging a sledge or a fish out of water. The ethereal cornucopia includes the faux “PIE roots” *dhregh- “draw, drag on the ground”, *der-, *dreb- “run”, *do- “give”, *drou-, *deru- “firm, solid”, *pag-, *pakslo- “fasten”, *drogon “wheel”; the “PG roots” *draganan “draw, pull”, *tred- “tread, step”, *trep- “snare, trap”, *traujam “flat wooden board with a low rim”, “OE roots” *dreaht, *dræht, and the “VLat. roots” *tragulare “to drag”, *tragere *traginare “to pull”,*tardivus “slow, sluggish”, *transfricare “rub across”, *tripaliare “to torture”, *tripalium “instrument of torture”, and many more. Notably, the VLat. inventions are demonstrably anachronic, since they refer to the post-Latin words of the New Era and can add nothing to etymological tracings. Instead of ascending to a base root connected with various aspects of the notion “pull, drag, draw”, this industry manufactures individual “proto-words” rammed to fit into a narrow linguistic window. The distribution of the word in the Northeastern Europe points to the amalgamation within the Corded Ware (3rd mill. BC) archeological culture. The Celtic form is significant in that the Celtic Kurgans arrived to Europe in ca 2800 BC, 800 years before the time of the Aryan southeastern migration. The consonance of the Far Eastern forms with the Türkic tar- corroborates that the Zhou-type “Scythians” at the turn of the 2nd millennium BC reached the Pacific belt and amalgamated with the local populations. Without demography of the physical carriers conveying cultural influence, there is no place for the faux “PIE” root *dhregh- to penetrate innumerous far-flung alien languages. There is no other alternative for the Stone Age-technology society to spread the word across Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific except for the mobile Türkic nomadic pastoralists. Of the recorded Türkic 128 meanings based on the root tar-, quite a few words from the other 9 main semantic fields had to be disseminated across the languages of the Eurasia and leave their traces in the local languages, like the notions of the weighing and measurement cited for the Alb. and Kor. languages. A realistic etymology has wide-open fascinating perspectives.

3.88
earn (v.) “deserve by efforts or actions” ~ Türkic ar-, er-, jer- (v.) “tire, weary”, “get tired, get weary”, i.e. “after hard labors”. An “IE etymology” asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a notion “overwork, overstrain” of a base notion ar-, a:r- “tire, fatigue” with a sibling form da:r- “narrow” > “difficult, with difficulty”. A reflexive form arïn with Ogur prosthetic initial consonant g- and a reflexive suffix -(i)n produced synonymous Eng. forms earn ~ garner “earn”. In antiquity and middle ages, the literary examples of the notion “earn” regularly dealt with politics and military affairs, never referring to any granaries, harvests or autumns. In Europe, the roots of the line (X)ar- “earn” dominate in a range of vernaculars with 20 (45%) languages, followed bay a Romance group gan- with 7 (16%) languages. The remaining 15 (34%) languages use 13 of their own native terms. Other than a Türkic-Eng. (X)ar- there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. A dominance with a motley ethnical lineup attests to a Türkic “guest” status of the non-“IE” lexeme in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. earnian “deserve, earn, get a reward for labor”, OFris. fer(tsjinje) “earn”, esna “reward, pay” (r ↔ s), Du. ver(-dienen) “earn”, Gmn. ver(-dienen), Luxemb. ver(-dengen), Yid. far(-dinen) (פאַרדינען); Pol. (z)ar(abiać) (rab- “work” < rabota (typ.)), Bosn. (z)ar(aditi), Croat. (z)ar(aditi), Maced. (z)ar(abiti) (зарабити), Serb. (z)ar(aditi) (зарадити), Slvt. (z)ar(obiť), Ukr. (z)ar(oblyati) (заробляти), Rus. (z)ar(abatyvat) (зарабатывать), Blr. (z)ar(ablyats) (зарабляць); Lith. (uz)dir(bti); Basq. ir(abazi); Gk. (k)er(dízo) (κερδίζω); Hu. erni “worthy, deserving”; Sum. ir ditto; all “earn” unless noted otherwise; non-grammatical prosthetics are included with a root; brackets are intended to highlight a root. Distribution: Across Türkic Steppe Belt with quite a few “guests” in widely scattered Eurasian spots. Attempts to cook an “IE” origin lead astray to unrelated phonetic ringers and creative fictions. The “IE” etymology for earn, garner is sorely fictitious, first connecting it with an unattested “PIE” fictitious root for “grain”, and then evoking an A.-Sax. rinnen, iernan, irnan “run”, or “or a back-formation from (archaic regional) earning”. The last closes a loop: earn < earning. The whole enchilada is laughable; the verb with the semantics “earn, garner” was etymologically confused with the noun “harvest” and its verbal version “harvest” conflated with “autumn”. There are a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *aznon “harvest work, serve” (based on r ↔ s evidence), a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *aʀanon (“?”), a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *azanona (“?”, r ↔ s), a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *rinnana (“?”), and complimentary faux “PIE proto-root” *es-en- “harvest, fall” (r ↔ s), and a faux “PIE proto-word” *her- “move, stir, rise, spring”, and *azno “labor”. A pile of indigestible galimatia has no connection with the notion “earn, garner, deserve, reward”, or its attested Sum. antecedent ir “worthy, deserving”. The Sum. ir and Hu. erni, like the Türkic “having labored hard”, provide a direct semantic correspondence and phonetic match, and take the word earn from a peasant labor to a larger world of contracts, mercenaries, and obligations that reflect the substance of the word: “earned salary”, “earned living”, “earned trust”, “profited from laborious activity”. The forms earn and garner attest to two separate demographic paths, one Oguz and the other Ogur, which brought to English two forms of the same word. They grew to two distinct shades of the same notion. The documented pair of Türkic ar- and Sum. ir “earn” provide sufficient evidence for an origin fr. a Türkic milieu.

3.89
eat (v.) “to eat, devour, consume” (Sw N/A, F545, 0.03%) ~ Türkic ašа- (ashа-), ye- “eat” (v.), a suggested variation dye-; aš “food” (n.). An “IE etymology” falsely asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately, all forms probably ascend to a single-vowel word, a what is now ı: “vegetation”, as a generic appellation for any plant and then food. The tail of the ı: (or e-, a-, etc.) is formed by suffixes, mostly borrowed and non-active; at the times of of internalization they were incorporated as a part of a root. A Türkic suffix -ta/-tan/-ten/-zen/-sen is a marker related to grammatical person and tense. The synonymous ye- and ašа- have nuanced semantics, ye- is a mundane, and ašа- is a dignified act of eating, Cf. Sl. otkushat, potchevat (откушать, потчевать) “dine” vs. kushat (кушать) “eat”. The anlaut y- (j-) in ye- is prosthetic; various prosthetic consonants and palatals show up in numerous cognates. Türkic has a form yedi/ye:di: with conjugational suffix -di, that suffix is widely used as an indefinite form marker by the “IE” languages with the roots in the Eastern Europe of the 3rd mill. BC, Cf. Gmc. it/et, Gk. edo (ἔδω), Lat. edi, Skt. atti, “eat”, Sl. yesti (jести), eda “food”, see edacity. The ašа- has a tint of nobility; thus the Eng. eat and Gmn. essen constitute a bifurcated paradigmatic transfer of the same notion, semantically akin to an English usage of thou vs. sg. you. A second member of the Türkic idiom aša- ič- “eat and drink” > ðič has been preserved in the A.-Sax. ðicgan and ge-ðicgan (with -ch-) “drink” and “eat”, another case of paradigmatic transfer. The immense variety of forms and the Eurasian spread attest to a supremely long history of amalgamations, Cf. modern Türkic forms aš-, ye-, ij-, či-, i-, e-, ije-,'im-, em-, em-, če-, cie-, či-; European aš-, ät-, eat, ed-, es, et-, ies-, it-, ith-, ja-, jes-, jie-, jis, sö, yes-, yis, ya. Of 44 European languages, a heavy collection of ašа- clones dominates with 28 (64%) languages, followed by a modest Romance group man- with 5 (11%) languages. The remaining 11 (25%) languages use 8 of their own native terms. A motley lineup of the clones of the Türkic ašа- evinces to a non-“IE”, a Türkic origin of “guest” word: Türkic (Tatar, Bashkir, Gagauz, Bosniak, etc.) ašа-, Sw. äta, Eng. eat, Lat. edo, Yid. esn (עסן), Gmn. essen, Latv. est, Hu. eszik, Du. eten, Luxemb. iessen, Fris. ite, Ir., Scots ithe, Basque jan, Pol. jesc, Slov. jest, Bosn. jesti, Croat. jesti, Sloven. jesti, Malt. jieklu, Czech jist, Est. sö, Rus. yest (есть), Blr. ёsts (ёсць), Ukr. yisty (їсти), Maced. jadat (јадат), Serb. jesti (јести), Bolg. yajte (яжте). Other than the versions of Türkic ašа-, there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. Cognates: A.-Sax. et (v.) “eat”, OFris. ita, OSw. etan, MDu., Du. eten, OHG ezzan, Gmn. essen, ONorse eta, Goth. itan; Baltic est, ist, emi, edu; Slavic forms isti/ests/jести/jėsti/jisti/jesc; Skt. atti “eat”, ye:k “devourer demon”; Arm. utem (Türkic 1st pers. sing), Gk. edo (εδω), esthio (εσθίω), estho (εσθω); Lat. edi; Chinese chi (吃); Mong. ide- (syn. asara, another Turkism, Cf. Gmn. essen); all “eat” unless noted othervise. Distribution: Ubiquitous across a Türkic Steppe Belt with quite a few “guests” in widely scattered Eurasian spots fr. Atlantic to Pacific. The distribution of the forms across families points to an unequaled reach across Eurasia. A pretentious “IE etymology” builds an air castle using its deliberate myopia as a tool for constructing a deceptive “IE” paradigm. In a course of a sloppy falsification it created a series of faux predecessors inventing precursors on a fly. Those are a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *etana “to eat”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-forms” *etan and *at, and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *eta “food, thing to eat”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *ed- “eat”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *hedti “eat”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *hed- “eat”. All that scholastic nonsense is useless, it does not add a single poppy seed to etymology, it is merely provocative, and needs to be gracefully retracted. The spread of the word is impressive, with terminal points in Western, Northern, and Mediterranean Europe in the west, India in the south, China and Manchuria in the east, and the Eurasian Steppe belt in between. The spread of the forms it- (at-, et-, ut-)/id- (ad-, ed-, ud-) may point to an original form it-/id-. The modern Türkic form ye- is a contraction; that links Eng./Gmc. forms with Mong. form via some intermediaries like the Scythians (Cf. Gk./Lat./Sl. form), Khakass or the Eastern Huns. The Gmn. form essen (v.) may alternatively be a desiderative form ye:se:- of ye- “want to eat, hungry”, or ascend to the Türkic noun aš (ash) “food”, verb aša:- “eat”. The Skt. ye:k is peculiar and diagnostic, it is a component of a duo of Skt. Buddhist terms of Türkic origin, a Türkic ye:k “demon” lit. “devourer”, and yakša “demon” lit. “gluttonous, desirous to englut”. They complement the Skt. Buddhist bhüta “ghost”, in Türkic ičgek (ičkak) “drinker, vampire”. The significance of the duo is that these Skt. Buddhist terms use terminology carrying transparent Türkic etymology, complete with the desiderative suffix -ša, with minor phonetic adaptations, and semantic field expanded from concrete nouns to generic concept. These Skt. Buddhist terms set an upper dating limit of 6th c. BC, they provide attestation to the form of the Türkic lexemes (ye:) at the time of their adaptation. The terms may be much older than Buddhism, which likely used an inherited Skt. lexicon to express a new concept. The Chinese word is likely a reflex of the Scythian Zhou component in the Chinese language. The Türkic prosthetic consonant ch-/j- in ye, i.e. či, če, cie, či, Slavic jести, jėsti, jisti/jesc “eat”, eda “food”, and Chinese form shi (去), with Türkic transposed prosthetic -j-/-y- in ij, ije, point to the Ogur form i/e > ye/chi/che, vs. Gmc., Balt., Slavic, Skt., and Arm. unadulterated i/e forms. The multi-faceted aspects of paradigmatic transfers impress with their attestations of traceable and vivid Türkic genetic connection. See chew, edacity, vampire.

3.90
eke (eke out) (v.) “live from day to day, with difficulties, hardship, precarious” ~ Türkic ek- (v.) metaphorical “eke out”, “with efforts and strain”. An “IE etymology” falsely asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a polysemantic verb ek- “till (farming work)”, and Cf. iki “two, secondary”. The verb is Common Türkic, but the specific notion “till, hard work” are known only in some languages, which allows a demographic tracing. The verb numbers 5 semantic clusters and a fairly compact semantic spectrum, from “sow, till” to “get rid”. Türkic derivatives include verbs eklä- (erkla-) “apply efforts, strain”, eksï- (eksü-) “diminish, reduce, lack”, eksük “shortage, loss, inadequate, defective”, eken “indefinity, being, while”, erki: “perhaps, uncertain, doubt”, etc. They carry a notion of precarious transitivity. Semantics includes “supplementary, supplemental, additional, extra, further, addendum, extension”, etc., Cf. an A.-Sax. eaca “increase”. Parallel derivatives carry a notion of sourness, applied in metaphorical and physical context; that conflates sourness and hardship: ekši:- (v.) “sour, acid, tart”, ekšig (adj.) ditto. An ekin is a deverbal noun with notions of insufficiency and sourness, acridity (> Eng. “augment, increase”); the suffix -in is retained in the Gmc. languages as a part of a root. The ek- words echo a stem erk- denoting “force, power”, reflected in the unit of energy/work erg and in the Gk. ergon (εργων) “work/task”. Other than some conflation and phonetic homophony, the stem erk- is not related to the stem ek- and its Eng. sibling eke, albeit in some languages it is articulated with a prosthetic -r-. Cognates: A.-Sax. echen, ecan, eacan, eacian, ieċan /ietsan/, at-, be-, ofer- weaxan (v.) “increase”, eaca (n.) “increase” (vs. native waestme, waestmas (n.) “increase”), OFris. aka, OSax. okian, Dan. öge, Sw. öka, ONorse auka, auki, Norw. Bokmål øke, Norw. Nynorsk auka, Icl. auka, OHG ouhhon, wahsan, Goth. aukan, wahsjan “increase”, auk “also”, Gmn. wachsen; Lat. augeo, Kor. ekta- (v.) “harrow” (< ek “till”), all “augment” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Atypically, out of the entire Eurasian spread the acknowledged cognates are confined to the flecks of Gmc. and Kor. languages. Distribution attests to a non-“IE” origin of the word. The myopic “IE etymology” claims a Gmc. and “IE” origin, and supports that with a line of “probably” surmises. Those are a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *auk, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *auk (presumably “to grow, increase”?), a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *aukan “increase”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *aukana “grow, increase”, or a faux “Pre-Gmc. proto-form” *hew “away from, off, again” + *g(ʰ)e (“?”), and faux “PIE proto-forms” *aug- “increase”, *hewg- “enlarge, increase”. Given the attested material, that kind of rogue ingenuity is useless, there is no need to reinvent a past when that past is documented, nor does it explain the attested Kor. cognate. An original singularity of the notion ek/eke across Eurasia probably comes fr. a Türkic specifically nomadic aversion to hard labor generally, and a tillage particularly. A toil was escapable by a trade and a force; annual trades and raids were a nomadic norm for millenniums. The few Türkic ethnicities that practiced tilling, like the Cuv. (aka “till”), tended to extend the meaning: pour, plant tree (v.), graft, engraft, beget, etc, and in the west ― “eke out, augment”, etc. On the European scene, the aversion semantics is replaced with a positive desire: “augment, increase”. It is fairly profound that the Kor. farmers used a Türkic farming word. The affinity is supported by a farming semantics of the form *aug-. The allophonic *aug- “grow, increase” is rated as an allophone of ek-; instead of a hardship, in Eng. it bears a sense of deficiency. The semantic and phonetic analogy would add Lith. augu, augti, aukštas, Lat. augmentum, augere, Gk. auxo (αυξω), auxein (αυξειν), Skt. ojas-, vaksayati, all expressing “grow, increase, supplement” to the above cognate line-up. The uniqueness of the semantics, near-perfect phonetics, a farming connotation, and a peculiar spotty distribution makes the Türkic origin indisputable. Given the uniqueness of the word, a chance coincidence is a blunt impossibility.

3.91
fart (v., n.) “expel intestinal gases through anus, flatus ventris” ~ Türkic burt-, burut- (v.) “expel intestinal gases through anus, smell badly”. An “IE etymology” asserts an “of imitative origin” and a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately a verbal denoun derivative fr. a noun/verb base bu/buru/pu “vapor, steam”, see steam, cloud, mist. Clones of bur- are ubiquitous in Europe, of 44 European languages, clones of Türkic bur- dominate with 35 (80%) European languages in an endless parade of articulations from a range of incompatible languages. That attests to the loanwords' “guest” status on a level of today sharing of a term “computer”. The remaining 9 (20%) languages use 8 of their own unsupplanted native terms. Cognates: A.-Sax. feortan “fart”, OHG ferzan, ONorse freta, Dan. prut; Rum. bășina; Lith. perdzu; Russ. perdet (пердеть) “fart”, bus, busenets (бус, бусенец) “drizzle, mizzle, fog”; Serb. bug, bugi, bugija “vapor, steam”; Gk. perdein; Skt. pard; Fin. pieru, Est. pieru; Punjabi pharata; Mong. bug “vapor, steam”, Kalm. bug “vapor, steam” + “a demon of steppe, of fog”; Ch. pi (屁); all “fart” unless noted otherwise. The Lat. bombulum also belongs to this lexical cluster derived from some mill. BC pre-migration forms of bu, bur, and burut-. Distribution: Ubiquitous across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Pacific, including places where a Gmc. boot never stepped in. Phonetic modifications correspond to the linguistic families of the recipient. The myopic “IE” etymology gives an empty claim of a “of imitative origin”, which does not work across a span of Eurasia. The Türkic bu, bur is vapor, gas, hence the Sl. par (пар) “vapor, stream, gas”; the verb burt- is a derivative of the stem bu, bur, no need for any “imitative origin”. The myopic “IE etymology” claims a Gmc. and “IE” origin, and proclaims a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *fertana (“fart?”) and a faux “PIE proto-form” *perd- (“fart?”). These pseudo-scientific claims fail to see the Mong. and Ch. cognates; they are not needed for the attested term that covers many times over the teeny Gmc. blob on the Eurasian linguistic spread. The Kurgans took it to Central and Western Europe with the first (5th mill. BC) and the following waves, in the 2nd mill. BC the Gk. and Skt. have spread the word southwest and southeast. Together, the A.-Sax. feortan and aeðm, the Türkic burt- and osur-, and the English fart constitute a “farting” transfer paradigm, categorically attesting to the genetic connection of the three languages. The Türkic bu, bur is a spectacularly productive stem playing on a number of steam properties: boiling, bursting, whirling, burning, purging, and the like, it was especially productive for the terminology of the ordinary cooking. Ultimately, derivative cognates of bu, bur are principals like bake, boil, breath, bullion, fart, fire, fog, mist, murky, purge, pyre, (see highlighted entries) and trivia like burp, puke, and possibly turbulence (see turn and boil).

3.92
feel (v., n.) “physical or emotional sensation” (Swadesh N/A, F174, 0.13%) ~ Türkic bil- (v.) “know, understand, perceive”, and “learn, discern, detect, probe, scout” . An “IE etymology” asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. In both subject languages the underlying prime notion is “to know, perceive”. Of 44 European languages, a Sl. group chuv- is a notch ahead with 10 (23%) languages, followed by a Gmc. feel and a Romance sen- with 9 (20%) languages each. The remaining 16 languages use 11 of their own terms. There is no shared “Pan-IE” term, Europe is a linguistic conglomerate of 4 linguistic segments. One of the segments, the feel, is a “guest” in Europe, it came fr. a distant Siberia. Only Ir. and Scots came with their native vernaculars, the other members of the last segment use internalized loanwords. Cognates: A.-Sax. felan “feeling, perceive, touch” with a notion of “perceive through senses of not any special organ”, OSax. (gi)folian, OFris. fela, ONorse falma “grope”, Du. voelen, Dan., Norse føle, Sw. känna (calque), OHG vuolen, Gmn. fühlen, Icl. finnst, Yid. filn “to feel”; Ir. airigh, Scots faireachd; Lat. palpare “feel, touch”; Mong. bilig “knowledge”; Ch. ganjue (感觉) (calque). Distribution: Ubiquitous across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Pacific, including a Gmc. enclave in Europe and the rest where a Gmc. boot had never stepped in. Still, a myopic “IE etymology” came up with a line of delusions, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *foljanan “feel”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *folijan “feel?”, and “possibly” the faux “PIE proto-forms” *pal- “touch, feel, shake, strike softly” or *pel- “thrust, strike, drive”. That reverse ingenuity is not needed, the link between notions “know” and “feel” of the same Türkic root bil- is attested and documented. The A.-Sax. synonymous fredan (frod “wise, old”) and the Sw., Ch. “feel, perceive” are formed out of the same notion “know”. That link documents an ancestral linguistic connection between the Türkic and Gmc. phylums ascending to a Stone Age, to the time of a Battle Axe and Corded Ware cultures. A transition from a plosive labial to a fricative labial b > f is endemic to the Gmc. group. In Türkic languages, the notion feel fr. the notion know is expressed by four roots, bil-, sez-, tartil-, tuj-. The tartil- is an extension of tart- “pull, guide”. The Türkic developmental model is shared by the Gmc. and Sl. languages, the Sl. chuvstvovat (чувствовать) “feel” is a derivative of chu- (чу-) “to get wind of, smell, hear”, i.e. “know”. While the Lat. palpare ascends to the Türkic bil-, the Lat. sensum “feel” is an offspring of the synonymous Türkic root sez- “come to know, to learn, to feel”. The “perhapses” of the “IE etymology” essentially resign to a no meaningful etymology. The English verb feel “feeling (v.)”, a progeny of the A.-Sax. lexis, is a 15th c. articulation of the Türkic bil-. The Gmc. forms, consistent in transitions b-/v-/f- vs. the Italic b-/p- transition, point to independent paths and timing. Italic b-/p- transition follows a trail of Türkic vernaculars, it has a special diagnostic value. Another utilization of the root bil- with the semantics “able” serve as a suffix -able in Eng. innovations like suitable and doable, the last a compound of two reflexes, the tü “do” and bil- “able”. The Eng. forms conflated with the Lat. Turkisms of the same word bil- “able”, the Lat. -abilis, -ibilis, the Eng. -able, -ible. A case of paradigmatic transfer of the discrete meanings of the same root attest to a common genetic origin from a Türkic milieu. See feeling.

3.93
find (v.) “discover” (Sw N/A, F156, 0.11%) ~ Türkic ind-, yind- (v.) “find”. An “IE etymology” asserts a Gmc., Sl., and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. in, i:n “voice” with a list of 11 semantic clusters, from “call, summon” to “turn attention to”, totaling 30+ meanings. A derivative form inde denotes relevant notions “worry”, “question”, “search”, “search for”, “demand”, etc. A common Gmc. prosthetic anlaut f- is a common trait of articulation, a routine trait of internalization. A Türkic counterpart yind- of the form ind- bears a prosthetic anlaut glide semivowel y-, consistent with the Oguz (ind-)/Ogur (yind-) divide. The Ogur form is associated with a western Türkic phylum, particularly with the Sarmat area of the northern European antiquity. In all Gmc. forms the Türkic anlaut glide y- is replaced with voiced or unvoiced labial fricative v-/f-. A similar process is typically observed in the Sl. Turkisms. Of 44 European languages, a Türkic-based -ind- dominates with a motley contingent of 12 (27%) languages, followed by a Sl. group nait- with 9 (20%) languages and Romance group tro- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 19 languages use their native 16 words. Other than the Türkic-Eng. there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. A motley ethnical lineup attests to the ind-/find- status as a “guest” in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax., OSax. find(an), OFris. finda, ONorse finna, MDu. vinden, OHG findan, Gmn. finden, Yid. gefinen (געפינען), Goth. finþan; Welsh ffeindi; Lat. inveniet; all “find”, all consistent with the modern English form find. Distribution: Ubiquitous across Eurasian Türkic Steppe Belt; Lat. and Gmc., islet prongs in Europe. Consistency of the internalized forms of ind- > find points to a single focus of internalization that spread to close-knit demographic communities (Eng., Fris., Dan., Du., Norw., Icl., Luxemb., Gmn.; +Yid., Welsh, Lat.). The Welsh form attracts attention: an oddball among Gmc. languages, it was suggested to be connected with with a Balkan Türkic tribal name Vlah aka Vlach, Wallach, of disputed origins. A convoluted “IE etymology” offers a slue of faux “PGmc. proto-forms” and corresponding faux “PIE proto-forms”: a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *findan “come upon, discover”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *finþana “?”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *finþan “?”, a faux “PIE proto-root” *pent- “tread, go”, a faux “secondary verb” of the same “PIE proto-form” *pent- “go, pass”, *pontohs “path bridge”, and a reference to a “Grimm's Law” change of -th- to -d-. All that myopic artillery only distracts from a transition of ind- to find- along the paths typical for Gmc. internalizations, Cf. face < yü:z, ñü:z; father < ata; faith < but, büt; foot < but; folk < bölük; etc. There is no need for the useless faux substitutes and a gibberish semantics of they type “tread, go, pass, bridge” unrelated to the notion “find, discover, search, seek”. There is no need for the useless “PIE root” *pent- “tread, go”. To make things even sillier, the “IE etymology” does not cite a single word meaning “find” outside of the Gmc. group, Cf. Lat. inveniet, Welsh ffeindi, demonstrating that the word does not belong to the “IE” family at all. The phonetics, consistent with the Ogur/Oguz alternation, is quite perfect; semantics is unambiguously precise. That leaves no room for doubts about the origin of a Gmc. word from a Türkic linguistic milieu.

3.94
gab, gabble, gibber, jabber (v.) “speak chattering, blabbering” ~ Türkic gev-, kev- “chew”, gap-, gep-, gapir- (v.) “speak, conversation” (Gadjieva N.Z, Koklyanova A.A., 1961, 365). An “IE etymology” asserts an Old Norse origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a metaphorical base notion kev- “chew” in two aspects, “speak clearly, think”, and “gabble, garble, misarticulate”. A base notion comes in a range of similar monosyllabic forms, keb > kev, keg, gey, köb, kö:b, ke:b, kob, kög, keg, kеm, käb, käp > kösä. It is neutral to a noun/verb function and to a transitivity, attesting to an archaic origin that extends to a current Eng. trait. The traits point to pre-grammatical times, possibly originated still in Africa. Verbs are formed with a verb-forming archaic suff. -(V)r; more recently – with verbal suff. -le and frequentive suff. -(V)š. One of the three listed metaphoric meanings, a pertinent gǝ:w(üše)- “keep repeating the same” with a frequentive suff. -(V)š corresponds to “chattering, blabbering”. A complementing gev- “speak clearly, think over”, and gev- “misarticulated (speech)” must have been discriminated somehow, but there are no pointers to that. In a negative aspect, the terms have a facile (loose) articulation. They carry a shade of quality or derision. In Eng. “my child has learned to say (Tr. söy/söyle)” is an improper form of “my child learned to talk (Tr. til/tili)”, so in Türkic instead of improper söy/söyle “say” or til/tili “tell” a proper use is gap-/gapir- “my child learned to gabble”. Cognates 1: Dan. gebabbel “chatter, babble”, Du. gabbelen “chatter, babble”; Pers. gep- “boastful speech”; Ar. qavl- “word, expression”; Mong. kebi- “chew”, kewχǝ “chaw”, kebil- “craunch”; Osm. geviš (< kebiš) “ruminate, chew cud”; Chuv. kavle “chew”;Kyrg. babıroo, ebiröö “bug me, annoy”. A second series of cognates is of local provenance and of much later times. It mimics the “chatter” as a mock. Each rendition conveys its own spectrum of very basic notions, intersecting at Dan. and Du. Cognates 2: A.-Sax. gabban “scoff, mock, delude, jest”, Saterland Fris. gabbelje “mock”, NFris. gabben “jest, sport”, ONorse gabba “mock, make fun of”, Dan. gebabbel “chatter, babble”, Du. gabbelen, gebabbel “chatter, babble”, MDu. gabben “mock”, LGmn. gabbeln “mock”, MLGmn. gabben “jest, have fun”; Scots gab “mock, prate”; OFr. gaber “mock, jest, brag, boast”, Fr. bagou “sales pitch, throat”?. Bifurcation brought about two linguistic prongs, each with its own reality and distribution. Distribution: Cognates 1 – From the Baltic via Türkic Steppe Belt to the Far East, across linguistic borders; Cognates 2 – NW Europe isle, predominantly Gmc., with a Lat. prong, possibly spread via a Battle Axe culture. To its detriment, a myopic “IE etymology” stops at isolated Gmc. neighborhood, reaching its horizons at a vague “Scandinavian source”. It ignores the Dan. and Du. evidence. It forgets that a destination is “chattering, blabbering” and “keep repeating the same”. It invents fictitious “PIE proto-words” and dubiously speculates with a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *gabbona “to mock, jest” and a faux “PIE proto-form” *ghabh- “split, forked, gape”. That ingenuity is not needed, it misleads, it can't replace the trail of attested material. The A.-Sax. had 4 native words for silly, foolish, empty talk. The Türkic “gab” etc. supplanted those 4 words. That attests to a change in a demographic composition, to an influx of a considerable proportions, i.e. a “guest” with its own lexicon. The spread, morphology, and phonetic and semantic variations within the Türkic linguistic family attest to an innate Türkic origin. That is affirming that the Ar. qavl- “word, expression” and the Pers. gep- “boastful speech” are probably late loanwords, albeit the Hg. J Arabic Y-DNA genes were a first to cross fr. Africa to Eurasia. The deverbal noun form gibberish, syntactically spelled in a reciprocal-cooperative Türkic aspect form giperiš (giperish) “chat, chitchat”, is indistinguishable from an Eng. form. The attested phonetic variation of the allophones gibber/jabber is consistent with the common Oguz/Ogur phonetic variation of the anlaut consonant, and with an imperative inflection of the verbal stem gib- > gibber. In a feat of paradigmatic transfer, Eng. has five communication words related to call, cry, gabble, say, and tell. They are clones of the Türkic qol-, qar-/čar-, gap-/gapir-, söy-/söyle-, and til-/tili- respectively. The lexical group constitutes a prominent case of paradigmatic transfer, indelibly attesting to its origin from a Türkic phylum. See call, cry, tale, tally, tell, say.

3.95
gaggle, cackle (v., n.) “goose talk” ~ Türkic qaɣ quɣ (v., n.) “goose talk”, metaphorically “cry loudly”. An “IE etymology” asserts “possibly” an Old Norse origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a goose call rendered qaɣ quɣ which formed a noun derivative kaz “goose” that included gander, swan, and duck; a final -s/-z is probably a relict of an archaic verbal suff. -sï. The Türkic qaɣ quɣ dominates in Europe and across Eurasia, taking 31 (70%) of the European languages, and leaving the remaining 14 (30%) languages to use their own native 12 terms. Other than the versions of the Türkic qaɣ quɣ, there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. Cognates: A.-Sax. gos, ges “goose”, goshafoc “goshawk (falconry)”, MEng. gaggle, gagelen, Fris., Norw. kakkel, ONorse gagl, Du. gagelen, Dan. kagle, Sw. kackla, OIcl. agl, MHG gagen, Gmn. gackern, Yid. kakl; (Balt.) Ltv. gagat, kikinat, Lith. gageti, gagu, kakti; (Romance) Fr. caqueter, Sp. cacareo, Port. cacarejar, Rum. cotcodăci; (Sl.) Rus. gogotat (гоготать), kazy, kazy “lure call for geese”; Cz. kejhat, Slv. chichotat, Croat. kikotati, Maced. klukaam (клукаат); Fin. käkättää, Est. kakerdama; Gk. kakophonia, kakophonos “harsh sounding”; Alb. kakarisin; Osset., Yass (Hu. Alanic) qäz “goose”; Kurd. qaz, qäz “goose”; Afgh. käz “wild goose”; Urdu qäz “goose”; Yagnob. (Neo-Sogd.) qoz “goose”; Mong. gogotat, Mong. qaz, galayun “goose”; Kor. geowitte (거위떼); Jap. kari “wild goose”; except as noted, all referring to a geese call and by extension to a female talk. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic borders, spread across N. Europe to Mong., Kor., and Jap. The standing “IE etymology” offers inconceivable “one of the many artificial terms invented in the 15th c.”, a patented nonsense given that the cognates are spread across N. Europe to Jap. They congregate in area demarcated by particular historical distinctions, and except for the Far Eastern languages are marked by a substantial presence of the Kurganians' R1a/b haplogroups. The notation of “possibly of imitative origin” for gaggle is not any better, the question is not the dimly enlightened news of the echoic origin, but where this echoic origin came from, and where it spread to. In the post-4th mill. BC there was only a single known entity, of the Türkic Hg. R1a/b, dynamic enough to spread a single term across Eurasia between uncounted isolated linguistic groups.

3.96
gaze (v., n.) “stare” ~ Türkic gör-, kör- (v.) “see, gaze” (+qara-, baq-), göz, köz (n.) “eye”, Cf. közin körüp “gaze with eyes”. A third member of the homonymic verbal triplet is giz-, gez-, kez- (v.) “walk, wander, roam, travel, i.e. onlooking, observe”.. A fourth member is göster “host, guide” showing around, see guest. An “IE etymology” asserts “possibly” of Scandinavian origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. göz “eye”, fr. a root gö-, kö- modified by archaic suffixes -r, -z/-s. In its 13 semantic clusters, the polysemantic noun göz renders 60+ (!) entries, from an “eye” to a “pound (weight)”, all related to a conceptual notion “hole”. An s/r divide settled the -z form as a noun vs. the -r as a verb, with some mystery of detail. An affinity of the forms öz, kör- “eye, see” is apparent. The adjectival version “agaze” splices the Türkic göz/köz with an A.-Sax./Gmc. prefix a- to mark the verb as momentary, a single event, Cf. abide, arise, awake, ashamed. A Sl. prefix za- serves the same function, Cf. zaglyanut (заглянуть) “glance in”. Only 2 European languages know the word gaze, göz (Eng. + Türkic), an atypical case, since a majority of the Türkisms are prominent in a European lexical lineup. Such oddity points to a “guest” status of that particular loanword. Of 44 European languages, the Sl. (po)gleg and Gmc. blik- lead with 4 (9%) languages each, followed by a Gmc. stir- and Sl. zur- with 3 (7%) languages each. The remaining 33 (75%) languages, incl. Eng. and Türkic, use 28 of their own native and borrowed terms. There is no shared “Pan-IE” term, the nomenclature is as atomized as they come. Cognates: A.-Sax. gor(ian), goret(tan), goret(tung) (with -r) “gaze, stare”, caes, ceas, ces, cys, ceos(an) (with -s, < göz, köz “eye”) “seek, choose”, Goth. (au)gö “eye”, geisnan “scared, aghast” (us-geisnan ditto), Norse, Sw. gasa “stare, gape”, Fris., Gmn. kieze “choose”, Du. kiezen “seek”; Ir. cas “see” (with k), Welsh ceis(iwch) “seek”; Sl. glаzet (глазеть) (< глаз “eye” < köz “eye”), Serb. göre “looking”, coz “eye”, Bolg. guzen “attentive”; Turkish gözünü (with -s) “eye (look)”; Hu. keresni “choose”; Osset. cozbaw “flattery, fawn, fawning”; all “gaze, stare” unless noted otherwise. An absence of the Far Eastern Mong., Tungus, Manchu, Ch., etc. cognates attests that their base lexicons fossilized before an appearance of the Türkic tribes in the Far East, i.e. before the late 3rd, early 2nd mill. BC. Distribution: Türkic Steppe Belt, a minimal presence in Europe except for a Balkan area with Türkic and Bosnyak (< Khakas: Pečenek) loanwords. The meanderings of the Oguz and Ogur tribes are well known, the extensive pre-historical migrations have been reliably detected and genetically traced. A myopic “IE etymology” comes on a level of “probable's” and “perhapses”, a level that does not scratch a surface; it means “we don't have a clue”, bringing the subject to the investigators' level in more than one aspect. As far as the etymology goes, there is no there there. The semantics “to gaze” of the Türkic gezer/gizer/kezer is quite natural, especially so since the prime meaning of the verb gez-/giz-/kez- is “travel, wander”, nowadays called sightseeing and tourism. The semantic extension from “see” to “seek” and “choose” was predicated by the ingrained semantics of the native word for “see” in the receptor languages, Cf. 20+ semantic extensions for the “see” in English. The prime notion of the word giz shifted to “wonderer”, its kinship with the göz/gör- “seer/gaze” is retained as a metaphorical expression. Ligatures -ae-, -ea-, -eo- and the like reflect a millenniums-long struggle that attempts to express rounded vowel with means of the Roman alphabet, which makes the English spelling a curious wonder. The modern coexistence of dichtonomy köz and kör among Türkic languages attests to a stability of the phenomenon across millenniums. Particularly, it passed the melting pot of the Corded Ware culture of the 3rd mill. BC exemplified by dichtonomy across the Gmc. languages. The Celtic examples suggest a primacy of the -s- form, at least in the E. Europe at times prior to a Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration. The Eurasian spread, largely limited to the Türkic and Gmc. families, attests that host populations along migratory paths had well-established terms for “eye” and “see”. The carryover of the duplex köz/kör- constitutes a case of paradigmatic transfer, indelibly attesting to a common origin from a Türkic phylum. The Türkic origin is preeminent, there are no other contenders. See gist, guest.

3.97
get (v.) “obtain, receive”, getter (n.) “who gets, gains, obtains, acquires, begets, procreates” (Sw N/A, F42, 1.03%) ~ Türkic get-, göt-, ket-, köt- (v.) “bring, carry, deliver”. An “IE etymology” bravely asserts a “PGmc.” and “PIE” origins, q.v. Ultimately fr. a primeval verbal root ge- “come, happen” with a line of derivatives formed with once active suffixes -l, -m, -r, -t, -v, -z, and a few more, Cf. gel-/kel- “come” in Kelt, Celt (n.) “newcomer, comer, arriver” formed with verbal suff. -l and abstract noun suffix -t, see port; Cf. ge(l)tir- > getir-, keltir-, kelür- “bring”. The causative form geltir assimilated to getir ~ ötir, modern Turkish infinitive form götmek “bring, carry”, lit. “bring, get make”. That etymological observation has already been made in early Turkology, laid out or contributed by J. Zenker (1866), L. Budagov (1871), H. Vambery (1878), W. Radloff (1910), M. Räsänen (1969), (cited by EDTL v. 3, 31). Whether original or by assimilation, firmly established is the existence of the root get-/göt- “bring, carry, deliver”. A counterpart to a positive form göt- is a negative git- (Clauson EDT ke:ter- 705) “leave, disappear”. Git- is confusable with kel- “come”, (q.v., and Clauson EDT ketür- 706, keltür-, kel- 716, etc.). Overlapping with Eng. in prime meanings, get- has rich and fuzzy semantics from “fetch” to “translate”. It lacks an universality of the Eng. word, an auxiliary plus about 36 meanings. In Eng., the semantics of the word expanded from a generic “receive, obtain, bring” to include a narrow “get (understand) an idea”, a local assimilation. There is no shared Pan-European or “IE” term, the European nomenclature is as atomized as they come. Indeed, the Eng.-Türkic term is a “guest” in Eng., carried from the depth of the E. Siberia over some centuries by a horsed relay. For a notion “get”, of the 44 European languages, a Celtic-Gmc. group fa- leads with 8 (18%) languages, followed by a Romance group with 6 (14%) languages. To the remaining 30 (68%) languages that use 19 of their own and borrowed terms belongs a petite Eng.-Türkic group get with 2 (5%) languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. giet-, gotten, gat, gitsian “attain”, beget, (be)gietan, (be)geotan “get, find, acquire, attain, receive, take, seize, happen”, gitsian “attain”, (for)gietan, (for)git- “forget”, almost exclusively in compounds (vs. Scandinavian fa- < Celtic Ir. fhail, Scots faigh, Welsh gael); ONorse geta, gatum, very broad meaning, OSw. gissa “guess (metaphoric)?”, Goth. gatilon “attain, obtain”, gatiuhan “bring, take, draw, lead”, Dan. gæt, Gmn. geitzen; Hu. gondolom “I get it”; Serb. djuture “wholesale, drove, in droves”; Rum. gjoture ditto; Alb. kuturu ditto, Rus. gurt, gurtom (гурт, гуртом) ditto (Cf. Turkish götürü); Kor. gat-ayo (같아요) “I get it”; all “get” unless noted otherwise. The word has survived in the Balkans as a trading term on a wholesale supply of delivered goods. Sited as cognates the variations of ges- “guess” are inapplicable, they exploit a colloquial semantic extension of the get to shift from a direct “obtain, receive” to a metaphoric “don on, cached, get it (idea, news, etc.)”. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, with a nominal presence in Europe except for a Balkan area with Türkic and Bosnyak (< Khakas: Pečenek) forms. Distribution screams of a non-IE origin. A stipulated faux “PIE proto-root” *ghend- and a faux “PGmc. proto-word” *getan are flimsy fictions, calques of the attested Gmc. forms and the clones of the attested Türkic forms. The newly reinvented “PIE” and “PGmc.” suffix -an (~ -en) is not a chance coincidence either, it is a relict from the Türkic morphology (-an, -än) for the effect of base intrans. verb (EDT xivi, OTD 658). Both the Türkic root and the suff. components were internalized into the Gmc. languages. Clauson noted a phonetic aspect of a -d-/-t- to -y- transition within a certain group of pre-13th c. Türkic languages, with -y- presumably a later form. That process pertains to the Gmc. languages, demonstrating zonal furcation into a more western get- and a more eastern gei-, gey-. See Celt, give, God, Kelt.

3.98
gird, girt, girdle (v.) “put a waistband on or around”, girdle (n.) “sash, waistcloth” ~ Türkic qurša- (v.) “gird, begird, encircle”, qur (n.) “sash, belt”. An “IE etymology” bravely asserts a “PGmc.” and “PIE” origins, q.v. The stem forms 16+ semantic clusters extending from girdle to garden and far beyond, it includes celebrities Kurgan, Kur/Gur/Chur (royal title), and a trail of mundane vocabulary on anything encircling or encircled. A complimentary qür-/gür- extends vocabulary and emphasizes some words. A synonymous Türkic term is bel- “belt”, see belt, and kušak “gird” () The Türkic loanword qur- predominates in Europe with 13 (30%) languages; grouped with bel-'s 3 (7%) languages, they account for 16 (37%) of the European languages. Sl. group pas- is a close second with 11 (25%) languages, trailed by a Romance group cin- with 7 (16%) languages. The remaining 13 languages use versions of their own 5 terms. If there is a “Pan-European” common word in Europe, it is a non-“IE” Türkic “guest”. Cognates: A.-Sax. gyrdan “put a waistband, belt on or around; encircle, surround”, begyrdan “gird, clothe”, geard “hedge, enclosure”, forgyrdan “enclose, encircle”, gyrdel “girdle, belt”, gegyrdan, gyrde “gird (sword)”, ongyrdan, ungyrdan “unbuckle, unfasten”, ymbgyrdan “gird about, encircle, surround”, OSax. gurdian, OFris. gerda, gerdel, WFris. gurdzje, girdzje, Du. gorden, gordel, ONorse gyrða, gyrðill, Sw. gjorda, gördel, Goth. gards, garths, OIcl. gerði, Icl. gyrða, OHG gurtan, gurtil, Gmn. gürten. gürtel “belt”; Welsh gwregysa; Gmc. and Sl. cognates of garden, court, yard, and curtain; Sl. grad (град), gorod (город), gorodit (городить) (v.) “enclose, surround, enclosed, surrounded”; Chuv. karta “fence”; Alb. garth “gird”, ngërthej “bind, tie”; Balt. (Lith.), OSax. “enclosure”; Gk. korthílai (κορθίλαι); OHindi grhas “house”, ghira “encircle”, Av. gǝrǝδo “cave”, Arsi oasis (aka Tokhar B) kerciye “palace”; Phryg. gord; Mong., Kalm. bus “hoop, ring” is a semantic mirror of Türk. parts of yurt; Türk. derivatives and allophones yarïndaq, qur, qursaɣ “sash, belt”, kurgan “built kurgan tumulus”, qurla- (Cf. garland), qurša- (v.) “girdle”, qursaɣïl “be surrounded, enclosed”, etc.; all related to “gird, encircle, enclosure” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic eastward along Turkic Steppe Belt and spread out environs. A nominal presence in Europe except for a Balkan area with Türkic and Bosnyak (< Khakas: Pečenek) forms. Distribution also screams of a non-“IE” origin. An “IE etymology” suggests a few grotesque ancestors: a faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *gurdjan and *gurdijana (v.) “gird” and their ancestors faux “PIE proto-forms” *ghr-dh-, *gher- (v.) “grasp, enclose” and *gʰerdʰ-, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *gher- “grasp, enclose”. Mimicking the attested and traceable Türkic originals, they confuse “grasp” with “gird, encircle”. A myopic take failed to note a salient case of paradigmatic transfer of the roots qur “sash, belt” and bel “belt”. The pretentious ersatzes lead from nowhere to nowhere; they are a disgrace. The A.-Sax. begyrdan “gird, clothe” is lit. a compound of 3 Türkic lexemes: be (bol) + gird (qur) + dan (don) ~ “be donning a gird”. A paradigmatic transfer of 3 Türkic words in one 3-syllable compound should have woke up any unconscious etymologist. The widely shared and still active agglutinated Türkic suffix -t/-d forms abstract nouns. The distribution of the allophones and derivatives points to an origin of the verb qur- to at least 5th mill BC (Celtic departure from N.Pontic at or before 5th mill BC, Celtic in Europe 2800 BC, migration to India 1500 BC, Phrygian migration 1200 BC). Accordingly, that dates the Türkic abstract noun suffix -t to at least 5th mill BC, i.e. to the early stages of the nomadic massive expansions to Europe. The gird and belt are parallel constructions from their respective stems qur-/gur and bel “belt, waist” respectively. Together, they present a paradigm transfer case attesting to an inheritance from a Türkic phylum. The bel happened to be just one of 12 synonyms for “belt”. See belt, court, curtain, garden, guard, yard.

3.99
give (v.) “gift, grant, bestow, confer, lend, impart, present, hand over, pass” (Sw N/A, F145, 0.16%) ~ Türkic qïv-, qïw-, guv-, kïv- “give, bestow, bless”. An “IE etymology” inaptly asserts a Gmc., and “IE” origin, q.v. A notion “give” is a part of a Türkic canonic idiomatic prayer qut qiv “(God, almighty) give happiness, blessing” where qut denotes “soul, life” and positive “happiness, blessing, grace, well-being, luck, success, happy lot”. A transition of qut to gut and Gott is a Gmc. internalization. An archaic qut started as a basic “food, survive”. The qïv “give” part is a request, prayer, appeal for a beneficial assistance in earthly needs; the other needs were covered by reincarnation. The qïv is synonymous with bağıš- (/baish/ with silent -ğ-) “bestow, confer, present” and ber- “give, hand over, grant”. In a Lat. calque annuit the notion “give (blessing)”, “nod assent, anoint, favor, bless” is imprinted on the USA currency. The literal notion “give” had to coagulate long before a fuzzy sacral notion “bless, give blessing”. It can be timed at least to the first signs of Tengriism attested by the first cairn kurgans about 6th mill. BC. Some Türkic Sprachbunds sacramentalized the word qïv- “give”, replacing it with lay metaphoric meanings of other words (Cf. ber- “bear”). Other Sprachbunds (Cf. Gmc. gib mir “give me”) continued its use in its lit. sense. The Türkic trifecta of terms is a hierarchy of qïv- “bless, confer”, ber- “give, bring, bear”, bağıš- “bestow, grant”, with qïv- a most dignified and ber- a most mundane. In religious contexts qïv-, kïv- is used as “bestow (a fortune)”, a relationship akin to the Eng. sg. you vs. thou. With little change in semantic accents, Eng. has internalized all three words, give, bestow, and bear, (Cf. dignified bestow and mundane give; the bear is more “carry” and less “give”). Of 44 European languages, a motley group da- dominates with 24 (55%) languages (Sl., Romance, Balt.), followed by a “guest” group giv- (Türkic, Gmc.) with 10 (23%) languages. The remaining 10 (23%) languages use 4 of their own native and borrowed terms. This is a rare instance when a European language has a “Pan-European” spread. It points to an early period of first African Y-DNA Hg. I adventurers crossing to the Eurasia and spreading their lexis to the later newcomer migrants to the Eurasia. The word da- may be a first known word of the Eurasia. The later newcomers and migrants helped to spread the word from Atlantic to Pacific. A Bible tells that for the next 40,000 years that was an only language till in order to make peoples powerless, the Babylon Tower event formed innumerable demographic entities to re-educate folks to speak their own languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. geaf, giefan “give, bestow”, WSax. gief, OE giefan, OFris. jeva, ONorse gefa, ODan givæ, OHG geban, Goth. giban, MDu. gheven, ME yiven, Du. geven, Gmn. geben; Mong. qubi (n.) “lot, destiny, fate” (< Tr. gobï “luck; empty, hollow, useless, unsuccessful”), qubiɣa- “divide, allocate” (but “give” - a Sl. nadad), Bur. xübi “lot, fate, fortune”, Khal. huw “fate, lot”, Kalm. xüve “portion of smth.”; all “give, bestow” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From Atlantic to Pacific, with spot presence in Gmc. Distribution screams of a non-IE origin. The myopic “IE etymology” cites cognates only for a Gmc. group. That is profoundly misleading (otherwise called falsification or machination), Cf. expressions: Eng. give me, Gmn. gib mir, Tk. kiver min, Turk. kiv bana (m/b alternation), Az. mənə kivmək. A fictitious “PIE” surrogate *ghabh- “give or receive”, and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *geban and its clone a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *gebana “to give” are mechanically derived from the Gmc. forms. Contrary to all contraindications they are brazenly assigned to a whole “IE family”. Etymologically, all that kitchen is unsustainable and needs to be gently rescinded. For the etymology of kiv-, G. Clauson waded through a series of cognates and analogues, in both sacral and secular fields, only incidentally referring to the embarrassing word qïv- “give”. The OTD cites qïv- as a noun “fortune, fate”, but immediately cites expression qïvčaq (v.) qovï (n.), lit. “given (bad) fate”. The form qïvčaq positively attests that qïv- is a verb formed with exclusively deverbal adjectival suffix -čaq. Qovï is a grammatical noun with possessive 3rd pers. sing. and pl. suffix -ï: “given, bestowed (deverbal adj.) (bad) fated” (denoun adj.). The expression lit. means “unfortunate” ( adj.), i.e. “(his, their) bestowed (bad) fate”. The same is attested by the expression qutadmaq qïvadmaq “be, become fortunate”, where qutadmaq (n.) is “fortune” and qïvadmaq (v.) is “given”. Or expression qutluɣ qïvlïɣ “lucky, fortunate” where adjectival suffixes -luɣ, -lïɣ indicate possession of property: “lucky” + “given”. The word qïv “give” probably existed long before the primitive etiological figments crystallized into a harmonious system of Tengriism, which gave it a sacral connotation of “bless, send fate, give fortune”. That premise correlates with the first Tengrian cairns and kurgans of the Middle Volga, Samara, and Khvalynsk archaeological cultures dated by 8-6 thousand years ago. An A.-Sax. deverbal noun giefu, giefe (n.) “gift”, giefe, giefes (v.) “grace, favor” carried a sacral underpinning of the verb qïv-, kïv- “give, bestow (grace, blessing, supreme favor)” documented in the sources (i.e. formulaic kïv kut “give grace, fortune”, see God). That is a case of paradigmatic transfer (See gift). In the eastern languages, the verb kiv- historically had a notion of expressly gracious form “bestow” vs. a mundane “give”. It can be asserted that the initial semantics of the qïv-, kïv- was a mundane “give”; similarly to a use of archaic oration in other religions, starting with Sum., in the milieu of the eastern languages it shifted to sacred connotations. Traces of the gracious notion are clearly seen in the archaic Gmc.: “give, bestow; allot, grant; commit, devote, entrust”. In the internalized Gmc. languages “give” did not carry over a sacral connotation, attesting to its Gmc. origin from the western Türkic sphere, outside of the eastern Türkic languages. Suffixes -an/-en, documented in the Gmc. forms, are reflexes of the Türkic verbal suffix -an, -än (-n, -ïn, -in; -un, -ün) marking an active verbal voice. In the past, the origin of the word give remained conjectural at best, defying all attempts to find it. The word give is a member of paradigmatic transfer of a large group of Türkic sacral terminology that attests to its common origin from the Türkic linguistic community. A very presence of these words in English is a clear attestation of a genetic inheritance, a significant evidence on the linguistic scales. See bear, bestow, gift, God.

3.100
go (v.) “move” (Sw N/A, F57, 1.08%) ~ Türkic git-, kit-, ket-, ked, keδ-, kej- (v.) “go”, with notions “leave, depart, pass, disappear, die, refrain”, and as auxiliary verb of action. An “IE etymology” brazenly asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, albeit noting defective verb and cognate list, q.v. Ultimately fr. a primeval verbal root gi-, ki- “go” with a line of derivatives formed with once active suffixes -d/δ, -l, -r, -t, -v, -z, and a few more, Cf. gel-/kel- “come”, Kelt “(new)comer”. It is nearly synonymous with it-, yit- “go, go in front, lead”, see itinerary. Both words were falsely appropriated into an “IE” arsenal. In modern English, past tenses of go (went < Türkic maŋ-, maŋla-/baŋ-, baŋla- (v.) “stepp(ing), stride” (m/b alternation) and be (< Türkic var- (v.) “be”) come from entirely different verbs, probably results of amalgamation. Of 44 European languages, a largely Sl. group iti- leads with 13 (30%) languages, followed by a mostly Gmc. (+Türkic) “guest” group go- with 11 (25%) languages. The remaining 20 (45%) languages use 16 of their own native and borrowed terms. The Sl. Y-DNA Hg. I was a first to cross fr. Africa to Europe, and had a priority in spreading its 40,000+ years old lexicon to the later migrants to the Eurasia. If there is a “Pan-European” common term in Europe, it is a Sl. term, by ca. 30,000 years ahead of the now dominating Europe Y-DNA Hg. R1 Türkic “guest” from a heart of Siberia. Cognates: A.-Sax. gan “go, advance, depart, happen, conquer” (but witan “go” (> went)), gaed (past tense), OFris., OSw. gan, MDu. gaen, Du. gaan, OHG gan, Gmn. gehen; Fin. kiita “hurry”; Tokhar B käl-, kel- “bring, lead”; Mong. kür- “arrive, approach”, Kalm. ketrxǝ “go by”, ketüre-, ketere- “leave” (< Tr. kät- “leave”); all “go” unless noted otherwise. In a large fraction of the Türkic vernaculars went on a transition of initial and inlaut k > č (//ch/). The form it-, yit- has produced OIr. synonymous eth-, ethaim “go, I go”, Ir. (bo)(i)thar “(cow) road”, Gaul. eimu “we go”; Goth. iddja; Balt. (Lith., Latv.) eiti, eimi, iet, eimu, iemu, eit, eisei; Sl. idya, ida, iti, idu, isi, issti; Lat. iter “way”, Skt., OHindi eti “goes”, Skt. jihite “leave”, Av. eiti; OPers. aitiy, Gk. adeia (αδεια). Distribution: covers the width of the Eurasia, crossing linguistic barriers, incl. most areas an “IE” foot did not trod. That positively refutes any claim to an “IE” origin. The forms' homogeneity across families (Celtic, Türkic, Skt., Gk., Fin., Tokhar, Mong.) points to a pre-2000 BC origin from a single linguistic node. A faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *gaian “advance, walk, depart, leave, happen, take place, conquer, observe, practice, exercise”, and a faux “PIE proto-form” *ghe- “release, let go” are a folk-type hyper-hypothetical speculations mimicking the attested Türkic forms. Other than a parade of intentional myopia, that nonsense contributes nil to the etymology of “go” and need to be gently rescinded. The Goth. forms are eidetic with Sl. and Balt. forms. They may reflect a panic confusion of the “killing fields” time that left enduring footprints. A Türkic prosthetic anlaut consonant g-/k- points to the Ogur form it > git, from which developed the Gmn., Skt. and Chinese 去 (shi) forms. The Türkic deverbal suffix -t is is a marker of deverbal nouns, see port. The Goth., Skt., OInd., Av., OPers., and Gk. forms point to an alternation i-/e-. The form baŋ- is idiosyncratic because its many CT homophones are confusing and unsustainable; that makes it a potential diagnostic trait. Both Eng. and Tr. have preserved a semantics of intention. i.e. “I am going to do something”. The Celtic forms follow a Türkic grammar and attest to an existence of the word prior to the Celtic circum-Mediterranean anabasis of the 5th-4th mill. BC culminating in “killing fields” and long-range conquests. The Chinese word is likely a reflex of the ca. 1700 BC Scythian Zhou component. A peculiar uniformity across Eurasia rules out an origin from any of the “PIE-type” hypothetical kernel locations, leaving the Türkic nomads as agents of dissemination. A paradigmatic transfer of the synonymic words for go and be across languages vividly attests to a common source from a Türkic linguistic milieu. See itinerary, port, was.

3.101
gore (v.) “wound by piercing” ~ Türkic göreš-, kӧreš- (v.) “penetrate, fight, kill”, güreš-, kӧreš- (v.) “kill” (Robbeets M., 2004, #62), göreš, kӧreš (n.) “battle, war, fight, quarrel”. An “IE etymology” myopically asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. an adj. kür, gür “brave, mature, superior, eminent”, etc., popular across numerous languages from illiterate times. The Türkic derivatives göreš-, kӧreš- etc. have a wide spectrum of fairly close articulations, ca. 21 for a verb and ca. 20 for a noun; that reflects a degree of demographic dispersion. A paucity of the Türkic pinpointed semantics compensate for the heap of articulations: “fight, battle, quarrel” are the only meanings. In contrast, the A.-Sax. gar “spear, dart”, gore “piercing”, gara “corner, point of land, cape” are only a few of the many semantic extensions. The basic forms göreš-, güreš- and küräš- are connected by invisible ties (Cf. A.-Sax. garraes “battle”) with the kür, gür “courageous”, and the title “Kur, Gur, Chur”. They all came from a same ultimate origin, and settled in a raster of languages. Of 44 European languages, a motley group with Türkic gor- dominates with 24 (55%) languages, matching a level of a 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. The remaining 20 (45%) languages use 14 of their own native terms. Other than a Türkic-based, there is no shared “Pan-IE” term. Cognates: A.-Sax. gar “spear, dart”, garcwealm “death by spear” (wealm < Tr. öl “death”), gara “corner, tip (of cloth, land)”, garbeam “spear-shaft”, garberend “warrior”, garcene “bold in fight”, OFris. gare “cloth wedge, gore”, Du. geronnen, Sw. göra, Norse gørr, Gmn. gehren; Heb. ngoah (לִנְגוֹחַ); Ir. goire “gore”, Scots gorren “pierce, stab”, Welsh gornio; Ru, Ukr. kol- “pierce”, Bolg. gjureš “gore”; Lith. kraujas; Lat. cruore, Sp., Fr., It., encornar “gored”, Sp.guerra “war”; Gr. gkor (γκορ); Finn. hurme, Hu. har-; Azeri koy; Arm. aryun (արյուն); Georg. gori (გორი); Guj. gora (ગોર); Ch. geer (戈爾); Jap. goa (ゴア) “gored”, korosu “kill, murder”; Kor. go-eo (고어); all “gore” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Ubiquitous across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Pacific, including a Gmc. enclave in Europe. This most ancient word is one of the early infiltrators into European languages. The amazing Eurasian distribution covers numerous linguistic families indicating widespread borrowing and a true mobile source not replicated till the Information Age. Cognates are found in nearly every Eurasian language save for relatively few. The uniformity of the forms points to a raster of loanwords spread from a linguistic node. A self-serving Gmc. and “IE” etymology with a line of delusions claims a patent on an origin. Those are the faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *gaizon- “?” and *gaizaz “?”, and the faux “PIE proto-forms” *ghaiso-“stick, spear” and *gʰoysos “?”, and a claim that “triangularity” is a “connecting sense” of all that soup. I.e. the war, the fight, the bravery, the battle, the titles, all supposedly descend from a sharp tip of a spear or a sharp end of a land plot. An audacity of that nonsense is striking. A spatial distribution of the allophones and derivatives points to an origin of the verb göreš- “fight” fr. at least 5th mill BC, Cf. Celtic departure from N.Pontic before the 4th mill. BC, Celtic in Europe 2800 BC. Its presence in the Celtic group attests to its presence in the Eastern Europe at 6th-5th mill. BC, way before 2-3 mill. later the first Kurgan waves ventured to the Central Europe. The göreš- must be one of the most ancient known Türkic lexemes introduced into European languages by people marked by a Kurgan R1b Y-DNA marker. The distribution traces the spread of the Celtic people from Iberia, their incursion to the Apennines, and an independent overland path from the steppe belt to the Baltic and on toward Albion, a distinct path of the Kurgan people. The phonetic homophony is striking, and semantic match is perfect. In nearly every language has developed a nest of derivatives connected with wound, blood, piercing, kill, and many more. The Türkic lexeme could have been introduced to the Far East by the Xia nomads reported in the Chinese annals ca 2300, and by the Zhou “Scythians” Kurgans migration of 20th – 16th cc. BC. That attest to the Türkic cultural influence in forming the Chinese nation and language, and to blending with people that later came to be Koreans and Japanese. Its appearance in the Heb. may belong to the 7th c. BC time when in the Scythians dominated Palestine. It is one of the few Türkic terms in Hebrew. Its appearance in the Gujarati corroborates Gujarati claim to an origin from the Ephthalite Huns. The singular -r/-l alternation of liquids, characteristic to Chuv. but not to the Sl. group, and absent in the Lith. form, points to a separate Sarmatian path datable to the 2nd c. BC or to the Western Hunnic time. The distribution of the word, from Pacific to Atlantic, makes the etymological association with the Kurgan people and the Scytho-Sarmatians unavoidable. A connection of the gore- and quarrel is equivocal: there is a different Türkic word (qaršï “1. palace, 2. quarrel”). See courage, quarrel.

3.102
grind (v.) “fragment, abrade, scour, scrape” ~ Türkic qïr- (v.) “scratch, scrape, scrub”, reflexive form qïrïn- (v.), passive deverbal noun (Turkm.) ğırındı, Khak. kırındı: “crumbs, small fragments”. An “IE etymology” myopically asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. an archaic root-notion qï- “bad, negative” that grew into more specialized notions: qïp-, qïr-, qïs-, etc. Besides “scratch”, it also denotes “uproot (plant)”; altogether, the verb carries 11 semantic clusters, from “scratch” to “bend”. Elision of two vowels shows that the Eng. word was internalized in a furnace of a heavily consonantal language with aversion to “extra” vowels. A modifier -ındı comes from suff.'s -ın and -di. A group g(V)r- has a minor presence among 44 European languages with 3 (7%) languages (Türkic, Eng., Friz.), far behind a motley dominating group mal- with 20 (45%) languages, and a mixed sl- group with 6 (14%) languages. The remaining 15 (34%) languages use 11 of their own native terms. The mal- group (Cf. Sl. molotit (молотить) “thrash”) is a best approximation of a shared “Pan-IE” term. The notion “grind” is distinctly a “guest” in Europe: in Europe, the word is an oddball, an overt loanword. Cognates: A.-Sax. grindan “grate, scrape”, cearclan (with k-) “gnash”, cearcetung (with k-) “gnashing, grinding”, forgrindan “grind down”, etc., Saterland Fris. griende, griene “grind, mill”, grind “gravel, shingle”, Du. grenden “grate, scrape”, grinden “grind”; Lat. frendere “gnash (teeth)”; Gk. khondros “corn, grain ?”; Sl. koryabat (корябать) “scrape”; Lith. grendu, gresti “scrape, scratch”, Alb. grind “brawl, fight”; Mong. khusakh “scrape” (s ↔ r); all “scratch, scrape” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Türkic Steppe Belt plus excursions to Albion and Mong. An “IE etymology” asserts the unworkable “PG” and “PIE” origins: faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *grindanan, and *grindana, and a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *grindan, and a faux “PIE proto-form” *ghrendh-, all supposedly “grind”. Since all that pile conflicts with the attested but not acknowledged Türkic material, that entrepreneurship is not needed. Attempts to invent some made to order “proto-word” are misleading and misguided. The myopic inventions need to be gently discarded. The Lat. version is so distinct fr. the Gmc., Sl., and Türkic forms that apparently Lat. carried its word via a separate route, even if “scratch” and “gnash” are seen as homonyms. A most interesting are the intermingling Celtic and Sl. forms: bleith and meileann (b ↔ m) vs. mleti, melene, etc. A phonetic and semantic continuity between the Türkic and Eng. allophones stands beyond any doubts. A paradigmatic transfer of a related cluster grind, curt, short attests to a common genetic origin from the Türkic milieu. See curt, short.

3.103
guess (v., n.) “suppose” (Sw N/A, F214, 0.07%) ~ Türkic us- (v.) “think, suppose”, us (n.) “mind, wits, thought, supposition” . An “IE etymology” blazingly asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately, once us- was a single-vowel word u/ö, Cf. awe < ö, see awe. The word us-/guess is a member of an intellectual complex transferred to English as a paradigm: ö-, san-, saq-, us- which respectively made the Eng. awe, sanity, sagacity, guess, see awe, sagacity, sanity. An Ogur prosthetic anlaut consonant g- did not always survive, it was supplanted by an Oguz non-prosthetized form beginning with vowel, Cf. A.-Sax. geong “young” vs. Eng. young and Tr. yangi:, see young. The form us is one of the series us, hus, hos, is, üs, ug, uq, ög, ök with related and at times overlapping semantics “wit, mind, think, smart, suppose, percept”, etc. The Türkic forms developed in closely related vernaculars, in allophonic forms attaining synonymous modifiers -s, -g, -q, -k. Each form blossomed in Sprachbund environment into derivative clusters of initial root form and a bouquet of fraternal lines. They underwent a sequence of Sprachbunds' amalgamations. Descendent Sprachbunds retained bouquets of articulations and semantics. To a certain degree English is a linguistic island preserve filled with joyful zombies. Guess is an allophone of us- “think, suppose” with a prosthetic anlaut g-/ɣ-, attested by a Romanized pronunciation hus-/hos- and spelled e.g. gus- and hus-. Of 44 European languages, a group of Türkic us, gis- dominates with 9 (20%) languages, followed by a Sl. group -gad- with 6 (14%) languages and a rad- group with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 25 (57%) languages use 16 of their own native terms. There is no shared “Pan-IE” term, a leading European term is Türkic-based. Cognates: A.-Sax. none, guess supplanted native terms araedan, eaðraede, eðraede, aleo “guess, prophesy”; MEng. gessen “guess”, Saterland Fris. gisje, ODan. getse, gitse, getsa “guess”, MDan. gitse, getze “guess”, Dan. gisse “guess”, MDu. gessen, Du. gissen, ONorse geta, Norw. gissa, gjette, Sw. gissa, Icl. giska, MLGmn., LGmn. gissen, Gmn. vermuten (< ur + muten “divine”); Ir. tuar, thuig, Scots tuigsinn, guidh, Welsh gesio; Latv.uzminet; Rus. gadat, ugadat (гадaть, угадaть) “conjecture, guess, divine” (< ug; угадaть < ug + дaть, lit. guess + give), Ukr. (v)hadaty ((в)гадати) (< ug), Sloven. verjetno, Bosn. valjda; Rum. ghici; Hu. esz “perception; awareness”; Alb. gjëzë “riddle”, gjej “find, recover, obtain”; Mong. oi ~ оуun, оуin “mind, sense”, oi ~ оуun “wisdom”, Kalm. es “perception; awareness”; Tung. (Solon, Evenk.) oimar “insane, crazed”, oibangu “lost mind, grown old, forgetful”; Manchu ojbo ditto; Chag. us, is, es “mind, sense”; all “guess” unless noted otherwise. An Arab. form ğuš, ğušiya “not to understand, to be at a loss” closely parallels the Tr. compound idiom (g)usi az- “guess”, in both cases lit. “understand little”.Tracing a two-phoneme word in a sea of articulations and morphologies is a somewhat goofy task of balancing fluid articulations with concrete semantics in an imprecise science under an umbrella of a distinct notion “mind”. Distribution is peculiar, largely across a width of Eurasia with confined outlier islets in the far west and the far east. Among a mass of the European languages it is an oddity. The “IE” etymological attempt to equate “guess” and “get”, and then use “get” to invent etymology for “guess” is ludicrous. The “get” is not a salvation: a Türkic action get-, göt-, ket-, köt- (v.) “bring, carry, deliver” is unrelated to a purely mental “guess”. The wild guesses “perhaps” and “probably” stipulate a vague Scandinavian or NGmc. origin and offer a slue of faux specifics: the faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *getan “get”, *gitisona “guess”, *getana “get”, *gitiskona “?”, and an apogean faux “PIE proto-form” *gʰed- “take, seize”. All that galimatia has no use and no standing. It leads fr. nowhere to nowhere, and given a wealth of attested but neglected documentation, only exposes a degree of institutional ignorance. A MDan. prosthetic inlaut ligature -ts-/-tz- does not form a notion “get”. The Eng. ligature -ue- apparently attempted to transmit a -u- sound conventionally spelled in English with -oo- (Cf. cook). The guess is peculiar only to a handful of specific languages originated in a non-“IE” phylum. Only a European Scotts word may claim its primeval origin from the time of the Celtic departure from the E. Europe sometime before the ca. 4th mill. BC. However, except for the Türkic original, all other European “guesses” are much later acquisitions, not earlier than the Corded ware period. A modern phonetics /ges/ is reconciliation between a customary pronunciation and the written form. The Arab form with the prosthetic anlaut g- attest to an Oguric source for both Türkic and Ar. languages; its timing is no earlier than a first Ar. encounter with the Türkic nomads. That is also a vivid testimony against a “PIE” origin. An assertion that the word us is peculiar to the Türkic “purely Western word” (Clauson EDT 240) is clarified by a statement that “the form us is typical in south-western areas, the form es is typical in north-western languages and Uzbek and Uigur (Karluk group), and both forms are used in Kipchak (CT)” (EDTL v.1 606-607). The Huns collected tribute from the Far Eastern China in the 2nd c. BC and then from the Mediterranean Rome in the 5th c. AD, they profoundly defy the Eastern/Western areal presumption. An allophone distribution rather resembles a pie chart, with sectors shaded by geography and colored by modern ethnic assemblies. The presence of the fossil R1a Y-DNA marker both in the Western Europe and in the Far East tells that the Hunnic western incursion of the 4th c. AD probably was neither a first nor the only one. A transfer of the entire intellectual paradigm, q.v, the phonetic and semantic match indelibly attest to the genetic connection with Türkic linguistic field. See awe, cook, sagacity, sanity, young.

3.104
hack (v.) “chop, cut away” ~ Türkic kıyık, köčük/köyük, kyjyk, qyjyk, kıj-, kıd- “hack, chop diagonally, mince”. An “IE etymology” dazzlingly asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a verb kıj-/qıj- “hack, chop diagonally”, a derivative of a primeval word kı-/qı-, probably connected with reducing experiences: a verbal suffix -ki, -qï denotes decrease, Cf. Tr. yakı “humble, vile”, Eng. yucky “disgusting”. An inlaut is spelled with -y-/-j-, -d-, -k-, -g-, and an unvoiced -č-, all probably dancing around /ʤ/. A derivative qıyaq “sedge” refers to its spikelets that cut into hands. An indiscriminate noun/verb root attests to its antiquity, an yearly stage of the language. Türkic has numerous allophones and derivatives, and wide semantic range, attesting to deep antiquity and geographic spread. The differing morphologies of the siblings indicates that the branches did not mingle too much. In Europe, cognates of kıyık “hack, chop” are popular: of 44 European languages a motley group of 15 (34%) languages uses versions of hack (Türkic, Gmc., Fin., Ir., Fr., Malt., Yid.), followed by a Sl. sek- group with 6 (14%) languages and a haphazard group pir- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 19 (43%) languages use their own 12 different terms. There is no shared “Pan-European” term in Europe, a leading European term is a Türkic-based. Cognates: A.-Sax. haccian “hack” tohaccian “hack to pieces”, hacod “haked, pike”, ahaccian “pick out”, OFris. hackia “chop, hack”, Saterland Fris. häkje “hack”, WFris. hakje “hack”, Dan. hakke, hugge “chop”, Du. hakken “chop up, hack”, Sw. hacka, hugga “hack, chop”, ONorse, Icl. höggva, hoggva “chop”, OHG hacchon, Gmn. hacken, hecht “chop, hack, hoe”; OFr. hache “axe, pickaxe”, hachete “hatchet”, Fr. hacher “chop”; Hu. hasit “split”; a Sl. kuü, kovat (кую, ковать) likely transferred pre-metal terminology to metallurgical times; Mong. kidu- “exterminate, kill, annihilate”, Bur. hüdaha ditto, hüdasha “cutter (occupation)”, Kalm. kudh “exterminate”, Kalka hyadah “kill, annihilate”; Osm. kyj- “break into small pieces”, Tuvan xïdï- ditto, Soyot xydy- “exterminate, annihilate”, Sakha qïdïy- ditto; all “hack” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Eurasian spread fr. Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic borders. A myopic “IE” etymology missed ca. 90% of the related Eurasian territory and its vocabulary. An “IE etymology” asserts fictitious “PG” and “PIE” origins: a faux *hakkon (“?”) and a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *hakkona “chop, hew, hoe”, and a faux “PIE proto-forms” *keg-, *keng- “sharp, peg, hook, handle”, *kau- “hew, strike”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *keg- “hook, tooth”. Accidental references to a later Eng. “hew” and the ONorse, Icl. höggva are the only accurate assertions, a granule of truth in a pile. That pile conflicts with the attested but omitted Türkic material. The go-getting is not needed. Made to order “proto-words” inventions are misguided and misleading. The myopic inventions need to be gently discarded. A compact European distribution points to a demographic migration of a Battle Ax culture fr. the NE. Europe to Scandinavia and on westward and southward. The dispersion did not touch the Romance and Indo-Iranian branches with their native terminology. The conundrum is clear, either Northern European, or Southern European (Lat. trucido), or Indo-Iranian version (Pers. nofuz) can be held as “IE”, but not all three. The OFr. form with -ch vs. -s/-sh and vs. -k forms probably reflects a Middle Age Alan or Burgund source. These were the western Türkic branches, collectively called Sarmats, they carried the form hach/hack to the Northern Europe and to the Ugrian languages. The transition k/h is regular between the OT (Oguz) forms and Gmc./Eng. forms, e.g. gird ~ hilt. A Türkic origin is impeccable. See curt, cut, short.

3.105
harm (v., n.) “damage, injury” ~ Türkic ur-, wur- (v.) “beat, strike”, “swelling (body)”. An “IE etymology” myopically asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. The ur-, wur- is a root base of undifferentiated verb/noun function neutral to transitivity, attesting to its utter archaism. It bears 11 semantic clusters, plus 15 “loose” meanings, plus numerous paired idioms. The form wur- is a most rare case of a prosthetic anlaut. A word's penetration into eastern languages has long been established. The Eng. and Gmc. allophones of ur- have acquired a prosthetic anlaut h- (w- ↔ h-) typical for the Gmc. and Sl., A.-Sax., and Cockney, attesting to a probable path distinct from that for the word wound (< yon, prosthetic v- ↔ w-), see wound. That hypothesis is supported by a presence of the ONFr. hurter “strike, collide”, in contrast to a compact distribution of the harm and wound cognates. The synonymy and consonance suggest that harm is an allophone of hurt that reached A.-Sax. together with wound but separately from hurt, see hurt, wound. The A.-Sax. hearm ends with with the auslaut -m, a relict of the Türkic/Celtic suff. -im “me”, Cf. Tr. ursïqïm “(beaten, stricken I am)”. The same process with a Türkic 3rd pers. suffix -ti:/-di: produces the forms hurt (v.) and hurt (n.) with with a deverbal abstract noun suffix -t, see port. Cognates: A.-Sax. awyr(dnes) “hurt, harm, destruction” (< ur-), hearm “harm, damage, hurt, pain, injury”, etc., hearmian “hurt, injure”, iernan “ride, gallop, pursue” (< ur-), ierre “angry, fierce”, ierrenga “angrily, fiercely”, ierscipe, iersung “anger” (< ur-), OSax. harm, OFris. herm “insult; pain”, OE hurt (1200) “injure, wound”, Eng. hooray, hurray, hurrah, huzzah, hoorah “battle call to violently baste” (< Tr. ura! “strike, beat”), Dan. hurra ditto, Du. harm “harm” hoera “strike”, ONorse harmr “grief, sorrow”, Sw. harm “anger, indignation, harm”, hurra “strike”, Norw. hurra “strike”, Icl. harmur “sorrow, grief”, OHG, Gmn. harm “harm, grief, sorrow”, hurra “strike”; Fin. pure “bite, chew, sick, afflict, ail, burn, fever”; Mong. uruldu- “competition, contest, races”, Kalm. urida ditto (< ur- “beat, strike”, OT “battle”); Manchu fori “beat, strike, signal dawn, knock (on gates), drive (nail, stud)”; Kor. pure “into pieces, smithereens”; all “harm, injury” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Eurasian-wide fr. Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic borders. The form ur- overwhelmingly dominates; a minority of forms vur-, wur, var-, and uj-/uy- is scattered. The Türkic call urа! “beat (them)!” in its numerous reiterations became an international war cry; that fact remains sorely unknown to the “IE etymology” experts. The “IE etymology” boldly reinvents a fresh tale for a hoary past: a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *harmaz “pain”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *harmaz “harm; shame, pain”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *harm, a faux “PIE proto-word” *kormo- “pain”. It is touching that in the “IE” kitchen not only a form and a meaning, but even location (WGmn.) could have been asserted. At the same time, a more prominent siblings hurrayand hurt are left with “etymology unknown”. Cognates are absent in the Romance and the Asian “IE” groups. An oddball loanword in ONFr. probably ascends to an Alanic source. While Goth. does not appear to have a cognate for harm, it has numerous synonyms shared with A.-Sax., pointing to an older common Goth. - A.-Sax. linguistic base. With a discrete and unique paths for each member of the linguistic community, they amalgamated with Türkic languages. The word's ubiquity in the Gmc. group attests to, first, distinct northern and southern Sprachbunds, and second, to the later internalization by the northern Gmc. group, after ca. 1500 BC the Romance farmers bounced back to the south-central Europe, and the Indo-Aryan farmers departed ca. 2000 BC on their S. Asian trek. The possible time for the internalization appears to be the long period from the Corded Ware bloom to the Sarmatization of the North-Central Europe. The Türkic idiomatic compound ur- yon- combines two nearly synonymous words into an emphatic pair, of ur- “beat, strike” and yon- “wound, hew, cut”, translated as “beat, torment”, see allophonic forms of ur- hurt, hurl. A paradigmatic transfer of the cluster harm and hurt, hurl ascending to a common root ur-, and the ur- “injure” and yon- “wound” separately, and ur- yon- paired in an attested Türkic emphatic idiom, provide irrefutable evidence of the Türkic origin for these words. See hurt, hurl, wound.

3.106
have (v.) “possess”, (n.) “possessor” (Sw N/A, F19, Σ1.25%) ~ Türkic qab-, qap-, kap- (v.) “keep, hold, seize, grab”. An “IE etymology” myopically asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a verbal root qab, qap, kap (v.) “grab, enclose” (lit. interpretation), or a a container (metaph. interpretation), see cap, cup. The verb has 7+ semantic clusters containing at least 30+ meanings, with a prime meaning “grab”. That points to an origin from a trapping hunt, i.e. a deep antiquity. The have is an allophone of keep, is partially interchangeable with it, see keep. The notion “have” is of atypically “European” nature: 44 European languages use only 11 roots, a salient uniformity pointing that the notion “have” formed differently from a usual, which mostly vary doubly or more of that. The causes of that uniformity lay in consistency of Sl. and Türkic-Gmc. lexicons, the first of -ma- with 13 (30%) languages, the second with ka- with 12 (27%) languages. The remaining 20 European languages follow a customary distribution with 9 roots used by 20 (43%) languages. The Sl. and Gmn.-Türkic form a diplex of “Pan-European” terms in Europe. Without a Türkic-based lexicon, Sl. is a “Pan-European” term of Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. habban, hafian “keep, have, guard” (also with prefixes at-/aeth-, be-, n-, etc.), nabban “not have”, aethabban “retain”, ofhabban “held back”, OSax. hebbjan, OFris. habba, WFris. hawwe, Saterland Fris. hääbe, Dan. have, Du. hebben, ONorse hafa, Norw. Nynorsk ha, Sw. hava, Icl. hafa, LGmn. hebben, hewwen, Goth. haban “keep, have, possess, hold”, Gmn. haben; Lat. capere “grasp, seize”, capio “take”, It. capisci, Sp. capiche “seize (an idea, a thought)”; Rus. xapat (хапать) “seize”; Alb kap “grab, catch”; Fin. kaapata “capture”; Hu. kap “receive, get”; Mong. havshix “bite (fish)”, Kalm. xawl- “catch (ball), bite (fish)”; all “have” except as noted. A cognate line can keep going for a good while more, only the Eng. has 11 formalized forms for “have”. Generations of linguists massaged the word for more than a century, and there is still more to grasp. Distribution: is typical for Türkic loanwords: Eurasian steppe width with some far western and far eastern appendages, across linguistic barriers. The quasi-etymologies reek of myopia and quasi-scientific charlatanry. They dead-end at neologic “reconstructions” with a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *habejanan “have” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *habjana “have” and a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *habbjan “?” and a faux “PIE proto-root” *kap- “grasp” and the faux “PIE proto-forms” *khpyeti, *kehp- “take, seize, catch”, and a have “related to heave” with heave meaning “utter, throw, rise, move, lift, breathe, bend, retch”. That nonsense innocuously claims the Türkic qab- “grab”, abstract suffix -an, and a verbal suffix -ti as Gmc. inventions. Somehow, a cognate keep was assigned another faux “PIE proto-word” *gab- “to look after”. There is no sane “IE” etymology. In a blink of sanity comes a sober grand finale: “PIE probably lacked the have structure”, i.e. “have” was expressed with non-“have” devices. In Türkic languages possession is formed by a choice of suffixes, most frequently -lig/-lïɣ, so a need for a separate verb “have” is minimal and it is usually formed by a denoun verbal expression “be” or “be owner”. A European notion “have” is mostly formed fr. a notion “get, grab, hold”. A re-purposing of the notion to a “have”, and its use as an auxiliary verb with heavy syntactical load are uniquely European. It is typical to particular European areas and to the European vernaculars. Although different groups of vernaculars adopted different Türkic verbs, they are calques of the Gmc. “have”: Türkic taŋ /tang/ “tie” > Romance tengo, tener “have”, Türkic menin “mine, my” > Sl. moi, imet, Fin. minun. The internalized phonetic and semantic match was soundly established within the “IE”-centered etymology. The Romance cognate capisci, capiche, capere was assigned a faux Romance “proto-word” *kapio. The omnipresent importance of the “have” in Gmc. languages is supreme, it fills 1.25% of the English daily lexicon, or every 80s word in a random English text. It is too hard to bungle. A listing of paradigmatically transferredqab, qap, kap- in English number in dozens, an inextricable evidence of a common genetic origin from a Türkic phylum. See cap, capture, cup, keep.

3.107
hide (v.) “conceal” (Sw N/A, F1128 Σ0.01%) ~ Türkic qod-, qud- (v.) “put aside, deposit, lodge”, (n.) “inside, bosom, hollow”; the “hide” (v.) and “hide” (n.) are concrete semantic extensions. An “IE etymology” myopically asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately a derivative fr. a root qo “lay, drop off, complete, completeness, done, leave behind”, e.g. something finished and over. The Türkic term means “placed inside, into the bosom”. With a noun-producing suffix -qa, -ɣa, -gä, -kä it forms quyaɣ “armor, cuirass, shell” (lit. “over a bosom”) and qudqa (n.) “hide, pelt, skin”. At a high end of the Türkic variability are acoustic modifications. The transitions g, k, q to h, and of a semi-consonant y to th/t/d are consistent with observed linguistic modifications; they may be a result of assimilation into an alien linguistic system, or a local development within a Turkic family under an influence of an alien linguistic system. A primeval second consonant wobbles between -d, -δ,-n, -y. Observed alternations suggest an initial form kon, kod, and hint on a dialectal split, bifurcated into western and eastern forms for Celtic (-l/-n/-r forms) and Gmc. (-d form). Of 44 European languages, a Sl. (& 1 Celtic) group kri- dominates with 10 (23%) languages, followed by Türkic - Celtic - Gmc. - Lat. group qod- (> hide) with 7 (16%) languages and a mostly Romance esk- group with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 23 (52%) European languages use versions of 16 their own native words. There is nothing like a common “Pan-European” or “IE” term in Europe. The European lexis is a quilt with a Sl. largest patch. Naturally, there is nothing “Indo-” in the European languages. A motley Türkic-European lexicon indelibly attests to a loanword status of the Eng. hide. Cognates: A.-Sax. hydan, hedan, MDu., MLG huden “hide”; Ir. cheilt, chur, chun “hide”, Scots seiche (< Sl.), Welsh guddio, kuddio, chuddio; Gk. keuthein “hide, conceal”; Mong. ebür “bosom”, övör “southern slope, bosom, breast”, qodi- “late”, Mong., Bur. hojguur, hojno “behind, northward”, hoksho “back, northward”, hojmor “northern side” ~ “back side” (initially – “pectoral indentation”, then – “bottom of inside clothing”); Bur. übər “southern, i.e. frontal slope, frontal or solar side, bosom”; Kalm. övr “bosom, garment board”, “southern, i.e. frontal slope”; all “hide” unless noted otherwise.Distribution: is typical for Türkic lexicon, ubiquitous across the length of Eurasia, and spotty along the fringes. The “IE etymology” is feeble. It uses a severely myopic series of “reconstructed” ersatzes to establish a self-serving paradigm. Those are a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *hudjan “cover, conceal?” and a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *hudijan “conceal” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *hudijana “conceal” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *hudiz “conceal” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *hudi “conceal”, followed by a faux “PIE proto-form” *keudh- “cover, conceal” and an attested Gk. keuthein “hide, conceal” (< Tr. qud-), and a faux “PIE proto-root” *(s)keu- “cover, conceal” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *(s)kewdʰ- “cover, wrap, encase” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *(s)kewH- “cover” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *kew(H)tis “skin, hide” (skin (n.) ≠ hide (v.)). All those bogus “Gmc.” speculations follow “PIE” speculations that follow the attested Gk. word that is a loanword fr. the Türkic attested original qod-, qud- and its well-documented etymology. The myopic speculations miss a use in the “Gmc.” ersatzes of a Türkic verbal suffix -an and in a Gk. a calque, thus missing substantial inherited morphological elements. The whole enchilada of speculations addresses only selected samples forged for predestination, and loosely resorts to random, unsuitable, and far-fetched cognates, at first attempt like “eyebrows” and “clouds”, “hut” and “sky” and “guts”, later – “wrap, encase”, “skin (n.)”, unwittingly echoing the Türkic semantics of “inside, bosom”. The Celtic cognates carry a mark of a local Sprachbund, the Ir. chun (~ hun) reflects a form cited by G. Clauson (EDT 631). The Celtic forms suggest two separate paths, one overland, and the other a Celtic circum-Mediterranean path. The Mong. semantics ascends to a base semantics of a root qo-. A Gmc. origin is laughable, the Türkic origin is impeccable. See gut, hide (n).

3.108
hit (v., n.) “afflict suddenly” (Sw N/A, F479, 0.02%) ~ Türkic at-, ït-, it-, jit- (yit-) (v.) “push, thrust, shoot”. An “IE etymology” myopically asserts a Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a verbal root at- “throw, cast”. The word has at least 10 semantic clusters; a prime notion of the verb is “throw”, cited in all semantic listings of the verb, along with secondary meanings like a “hit”. A voiceless affricate jit- has voiced semantic and phonetic siblings chit- (Cf. cheat) and shit- (Cf. allophones shot, shoot). A likely blank for the A.-Sax. form shot was a form at- more common in circulation. The internalization shot and shoot is distinct and by a different rout from the form hit. Of 44 European languages, a Sl. group (u)dar- dominates with 10 (23%) languages. It is followed by a modest Gmc. group sla- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 30 (68%) European languages wield versions of 17 their own native words, including Türkic-Eng. at and a hit with a prosthetic anlaut h- typical for Gmc. languages. If there is a common “Pan-European” or “IE” term in Europe, now it is a Sl. word. But before it became a Sl. European word, it was a Türkic word dara- “attack, pounce”. So, a real compounded Türkic contribution to the European “hit” stands at least at 12 (27%) languages. A meager presence of the word in the W. Europe attests to its “guest” status there. Cognates: A.-Sax. cnossian “strike, hit upon”, sceotan (with sh-) “hit, hurl, strike”, foresceotan “anticipate, forestall, fore-hit”, ofsceotan “shoot down, hit”, sceat, sceotan, sceoton, scuton, scoten, scyt “shoot, hurl, cast missiles, strike, hit”, hydan, hyttan, hittan, hittan(y) “‘hit’ upon”, OE hyttan, hittan “hit”, Dan., Norw. hitte “hit, find”, Sw., ONorse hitta “hit, strike, meet, find”, Norse, Dan. hit, hitte, Icl. högg, Gmn. hauen; Fr. heurter; Balt. (Lith.) atsitrenkti; Gk. epitychia, ktypi̱ma, chtypo, ktypo (επιτυχία, κτύπημα, χτυπω, κτυπω); Alb. qit “hit”; Kor. ath “throw away”; all “hit” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Ubiquitous across much of Eurasia, fr. Bulgar to Uigur and the fringes. The “IE etymology” is myopic and wussy. It uses a blend of “reconstructed” ersatzes, source fr. “of uncertain origin”, a vague reference to a “Scandinavian source such as”, “shifted meanings”, and the like. The myopic “IE etymology” misses reality and resorts to fictitious creations. Those are a “PGmc. proto-form” *hittijana “come upon, find” (for a notion “hit”?), a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *hitjan “?”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *kheyd- “fall, fall upon, hit, cut, hew”. Those constructs are etymologically useless, and as a self-serving paradigm need to be discarded. In contrast, the attested material is concise and pinpointed. Other than a faux “reconstruction” hit = it “this one” that unwittingly hits on the prosthetic initial h-/k- stipulated above the word has no “IE etymology”. For the hit, in spite of the extensive Gk. forms, not even “of unknown origin”. The prosthetic h-/k-/ch- allows to suggest an Oguric origin, like Sarmat, Hunnic, and Bulgar for the northwestern European zone, and Gk. forms and Oguz for the Lith. form. A prosthetic anlaut consonant at the northwestern European cognates of the Türkic lexemes is typical for the other cognate forms. Indeed, a perfect phonetic and semantic match makes a random phonetic coincidence between the numerous European languages and even more numerous Türkic languages impossible. An origin from a Türkic linguistic milieu is impeccable.

3.109
howl (v.) aka wail, yawl, yell, yowl, holler “shout, loud cry” ~ Türkic ulï- (v.) “howl”, yel (n.) “howl, wind”. An “IE etymology” myopically asserts a “probably” “of imitative origin” and/or Gmc. and “IE” origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a single vowel root u-, e, ye- with other variations plus archaic suffixes l- and ŋ-. A semantically related yaŋ (n.), yaŋra- (v.) “echo, loud reverberation” suggests that the initial root was ye-/ya- “loud sound, boom, roar, thunder”, and the l- and ŋ- once were morphological discriminators. For a raster of verbal notions, cognates, and development of the notion “howl/wail/yell” as a verbal derivative of the yel “wind”, see yell. Türkic forms come in an abundance of variations and a raster of semantic shades: jel, uwla-, uwlä-, u:la-, y:la-, uγulda-, uvulda-, uwïlda-, and much more. The Türkic verb ulï- “wail, moan, bellow” is an allophonic derivative of the noun and verb yel. Phonetic range is wider than usual, just for yel dictionary lists yel, yǝl, yil, yi:l, jiil; yïl, jel, djel, žel, žil, zel, del, chil, šel, sil, kül(ək), plus Pers., Mong., Tungus, Manchu versions. Distinct forms afford valuable diagnostic opportunities. For the noun “wind”, A.-Sax. had adopted a peculiar “IE” form, an allophone ve- of A.-Sax. hallmark prosthetic anlaut v-/-w and -l/n- variation, consistent with numerous “IE” allophones, Cf. Lat. ventus, ululo “wind” “howl” and Gk. anemos, ourliazo. Dictionaries tend to disperse allophones in alphabetical order, separating allophones far and wide. The European forms including Eng. are transparent allophones of the Türkic prototypes yel, yaŋ, etc. A basic word turned to be a nice loupe into the “IE” origins. Of 44 European languages, a Türkic-Eng. ulï-, yel, howl predominates with 20 (45%) languages, approaching a level of 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. It is followed by predominantly Sl. groups url- and voy- with 5 (11%) languages each, but url- is most likely a version of the Türkic ulï-. The remaining 14 (32%) European languages wield versions of 8 their own native words. If there is a common “Pan-European” term in Europe, it is a Türkic word. Cognates: A.-Sax. gyllan, OE giellan, Mercian gellan “yell”, allophonic cognates “gale”, “nightingale” from gaile “wind, song” fr. howl, claimed as “origin uncertain”; ONorse gjalla “reverberate”, gol “breeze”, galinn “bewitched”, OHG gellan, MDu. ghellen, Du. gillen, Gmn. gellen “yell”; Welsh weiddi, gweiddi “yell”; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) kliegt, (Lith.) kliegti “yell”; possibly Gk. kikhle (κίχλη) “songbird”; Hu. szel (sel) “wind”; Mong. salki (n.) “wind”; Even. nələ “wind”; all “howl, yell” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Is typical for Eurasian Turkisms, from the Eurasian Steppe belt to the Eurasian fringes, across linguistic barriers. The “IE etymology” did not recognize that the “ululate, lull” and “howl, wail, yell, yawl, yowl” are bona fide allophones. Myopically, on purely phonetic grounds, it tried to seek “PIE” precursors for this series with close phonetics and semantics. Thus, to begin with, we have “imitative origin” and “compare owl”. Those are non-definitions: possibly reasonable, imitations come in thousands of renderings, and rather unrelated sources. Nothing can be asserted beyond realization that howl, owl, and ulï-, yel are probably related. Then, we have imagined reality: a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *huwilon “?”, a faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *huwilona, *hiuwilona “howl”, and a faux “PIE proto-form” *ku-, *kew- “howl, scream”. That ingenuity connecting nothing with nothing is useless. It can't substitute for a mass of well-documented Türkic material. A claimed association with the Sl. golos (голос) “voice”, a cognate of Eng. call and Türkic qol, is erroneous. A paradigmatic transfer of both meanings, the “wind” and “howl”, from a Türkic milieu is incontestable. See yell, ululate, lull.

3.110
hurl (v., n.) “throw” ~ Türkic ur- (v.) “beat, strike, throw” (+wur-, vur-, var, uj-). An “IE etymology” of OED myopically suggests an “imitative” of Gmc. origin, q.v. For semantic spectrum of ur- see harm. The term is best known for an Eng. call Hurray! (+hoorah, hooray, hurrah, hurroo), an untranslated and unacknowledged OED calque of the Türkic Ura! “Beat!, Strike!”. On ur-, wur- details on semantic clusters and transitivity, archaism see harm. Morphologically, hurl is formed with a Gmc. habitual prosthetic h- and a poly-functional Türkic-Eng. suffix -l, here a passive voice verbal suffix and adjectival, adverbial suffix -l, Cf. “usual”. Much like the Türkic/Eng. universal verb tu-/do- “do, act”, the verb ur- is universal and polysemantic, it carries a notion of sharp or short movement (i.e. throw an arrow, throw a glance, step on) or a directional action (i.e. extend a hand, give/bestow name, title, law), to name just two of many uses. For English hurl, the best example is a fully conjugational paired expression oq ur “to shoot an arrow”, where oq is “arrow”, and ur denotes the action of “throw, shoot”. The notion is an one-time event, like a strike, or it could be a series of one-time events. Of 44 European languages, a Romance lan- predominates with a meager 5 (11%) languages, followed by Türkic-Eng. ur- ~ hur- and Sl. met- with 3 (7%) languages each. The remaining 33 (75%) European languages use 29 their own native words. There is no common “Pan-European” term in Europe; European lingo is a random pile of random components. Cognates: Since “hurl” and “harm” ascend to a same root ur-, see entry Harm. Distribution: parallels that of Harm. A horizon-poor “IE” mentality invented a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *hurr “rapid motion, hurry”, calls the word “imitative”, “onomatopoeic”, and “confused”. None of that nonsense apply, it needs to be gently excused. The affinity of the notions “harm”, “hurl, “hurt” and the root ur- is attested by a perfect semantic and close phonetic similarity, by a systematic prosthetic anlaut h-, and by the attested Türkic idioms with the verb ur-. The concrete meanings are inherited by the A.-Sax. and OE lingoes and by a complementary A.-Sax. wound. These are emphatic idioms oq ur q.v. and ur- yon-. The Türkic idiomatic compound ur- yon- combines two nearly synonymous expressions into an emphatic pair, ur- “beat, strike” and yon- “hew, cut”, translated as “beat, torture”, see allophones of ur- harm, hurl, hurt. The cluster harm, hurl, and hurt is formed by internalizing into the roots of the Türkic suffixes -m, -l, and -t respectively. A paradigmatic transfer of two roots, ur- and yon- separately, their attested compound in the Türkic emphatic idiom ur- yon-, and the line-up of the Türkic suffixes provide irrefutable evidence of the Türkic origin for the entire cluster inclusive of wound. See harm, hernia, hurt, ore, usual, wound.

3.111
hurt (v., n.) “ache, harm” (Sw N/A, F310, 0.05%) ~ Türkic ur- (v.) “beat, strike”. An “IE etymology” calls it “a word of uncertain origin”, q.v. For details on ur-, wur- semantic clusters and transitivity, archaism see harm. The Eng. and Gmc. allophones of ur- have acquired a prosthetic anlaut h- typical for the Gmc. languages, A.-Sax., and Cockney, attesting to a probable distinct path for the wound, see wound. The final -t is probably a relict of the 3rd pers. verbal suffix di:, or the pl. suffix -ter/-der contracted to -d, -t, Cf. ONFr. form hurter “strike, collide”, or a deverbal noun suffix -t, see port. It also parallels the bifurcated articulation of the synonymous Türkic dialectal (Ottoman) yon-, yont- for the allophone wound, which otherwise etymologically comes as non-explainable observation. The semantic raster of the Türkic cognates is far wider then that of the Gmc. cognates, attesting to a much wider dissemination of the word among the Türkic ethnic communities, and accordingly far deeper roots. Cognates: A.-Sax. hearm “harm, injury”, OE hurt (1200) “injure, wound”, ONFr. hurter “strike, collide”, MHG hurten “run at, collide”, ONorse hrutr “ram”, MDu. horten “knock, dash against”, Ir. dochar “hurt”, Scots goirteachadh “hurt”, Welsh brifo (ur- > w/b-ur- > br-) “hurt”. The A.-Sax. hearm is a natural allophone of the hurt, with the auslaut -m a relict of the Türkic -im “me”, i.e. “(I am) beaten, stricken”, see harm. The ONorse moniker is a semantic derivative. A complete absence of the cognates in the Romance and Asian “IE” groups, an obvious oddball loanword in ONFr., probably from an Alanic or Burgund source. No “IE” cognates whatsoever. The “IE etymology” stipulates “a word of uncertain origin”. In support of a PIE dogma, the “IE etymology” had invented some ethereal PG and PIE “proto-words” for the wound, and separate PG and PIE “proto-words” for the harm, while mysteriously allowing hurt to come from an “uncertain origin”. The ubiquity in the Gmc. group attests to, first, a distinct areal northern and southern Sprachbunds, and second, to the later internalization by the northern Gmc. group, after the Romance farmers bounced back to the south-central Europe ca. 1500 BC, and the Indo-Aryan farmers departed on their South Asian trek ca. 2000 BC. The possible time for the internalization appears to be the a long period from the Corded Ware bloom to the Sarmatization of the North-Central Europe. The Türkic idiomatic compound ur- yon- combines two nearly synonymous expressions into an emphatic pair, of ur- “beat, strike” and yon- “hew, cut”, translated as “beat, torment”, see allophones of ur- harm, hurl. The Eng. and Gmc. allophones of ur- with prosthetic anlaut h- are attesting to a probable distinct path from that for the wound. That hypothesis is supported by a presence of the ONFr. hurter “strike, collide”, in contrast to a concentrated distribution of the cognates for the wound. The paradigmatic transfer of both words, ur- and yon- separately, and their attested compound in the Türkic emphatic idiom, provide irrefutable evidence of the Türkic origin for both words. See harm, hernia, hurl, wound.

3.112
ignite (v.) “conflagrate, enkindle” ~ Türkic yak-, yaq- (v.) “ignite, burn”. An “IE etymology” peremptorily attributes it to Italic and “IE” origins, q.v. Ultimately a reflexive form of a verbal root ya:- “ignite, shine, flame”; variations are ya:-, ae-, i-, o-, a-. Parallel second forms are yan- (v.) “ignited, shine, flame”, yal- “blazed, burned, shined”; a causative suff. -q, and if needed a noun result suff. -n “fire”. The form yal- is typically intransitive, yak-, yaq- is typically transitive and can form a passive yakıl- “ignited”. The Eng. (+ Türkic & Lat.) group yaq-, ig- occupies a minor place in Europe, with 3 (7%) of the European 44 languages, behind a motley group encen- with 7 (16%) languages and Sl. group -pal- with 5 (11%) languages. The remaining 23 (52%) European languages use 19 of their own native words. There is no common “Pan-European” term in Europe; European lingo is a random pile of terms. Of 3 European yaq-, ig- one (Lat.) is long dead, one (Eng.) is a unique “guest” in Europe, and a third is a native Türkic (there are more, like a Gagauz or Crimean, not addressed in the “IE” listings). A best that we know of the Lat. Y-DNA is its Hg. R1b in few subclades. The R1b is a daughter of an elder R1a and both are associated with the Central Siberia, Türkic kins, and Türkic migrations. The Lat. ign(is) “fire” < Türkic yaq- should not be a shocking revelation. The Lat. ign- had marched for ca. 30,000 years fr. the C. Siberia to the Latium. Ditto for the Eng. ign-. Cognates: A.-Sax. ael(an) “ignite, kindle, light, set on fire, burn”, (on)ael(an) “set fire to, ignite, inflame, burn”, (on)ael(end) “incensor”, onaelet “lightning” (typ. < ya:- + -l); OPruss. ugnis; Lat. ign(is) “fire”, ign(ire) “set on fire”; OCS ogni “fire”; Lith. ugn(is); Skt. agnih “fire”; Hitt. akniš (ca. 1,600 BC.); Ch. huo (火) “fire”; all “ignite” unless noted otherwise. Scholarship is confined to neighborhood and a peremptory level, q.v. Distribution: Typical for Eurasian Turkisms, from the Eurasian Steppe belt to its fringes, across linguistic barriers. A likeliest conduit to Eng. was a Saka (aka Saxon) part of the A.-Sax. union. All Türkic confederations were always based on a system of marital unions between non-blood related and largely alien members that led to linguistic amalgamations. For a Türkic yak-, yaq- the myopic “IE etymology” deals a Lat. origin fr. a faux “PIt. proto-form” *əngʷnis “ignis, fire” (n.) and a faux “PIE proto-form” *hngʷnis “fire”. It stops at unetymologized speck ign-. That nonsense is blind to the sibling Hitt. form by a full millennium ahead of the oldest Lat. inscription. That leaves, in addition to a Gmc. native “kindle”, the ign- a “guest” status in a Saka prong to Albion. Both Lat. and Hitt. forms transparently ascend to the Türkic yaq-. A word for “fire” came to Eurasia with the first African migrants bearing Y-DNA Hg.'s I and J. In another 20,000 years it reached a level of Hg.'s NOP > R and diverged into siblings. A Lat. prong migrated fr. Siberia to the E. Europe and crossed to the Apennines fr. the north. The Hitt. prong veered southward to the Anatolia. The base stem ya:- is nearly a single-morpheme word, an oddity to the “IE” family. The auslaut consonant morphological elements -l, -n, -g attest to a deep timeframe. A collection of 7 active synonyms (ču:k-, ya:-, yak-, yal-, yan, yaru:-, kün-/gün-) points to a large time depth. A synonymous Türkic root ot, öt (öd) “fire, flame” eventually grew into a Gk. adis (αδης) and ad (αδ, ад) for a scorching “hell” and an A.-Sax. ad, adwylm “whirlpool of fire”. The word for “fire” and its derivatives persevered through most of the Eurasia and diffused way beyond their original Eurasian homeland. A Türkic origin of the “ignition” lexicon stands beyond any doubt.

3.113
itch (v., n.) “dermal irritation, pruritus” ~ Türkic kiči:-, gici:- /kichi-, giji-/ (v., n.) “itch” and “scratch, tickle; lichens, scabies”. An “IE etymology” offers an “unknown” or a Gmc. origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. a root ki-, gi- retained in derivatives; the č-, či:- is a fairly multifunctional suff. that can be used in few ways. Of 44 European languages, a Türkic (k)ič-, local jVk- (č ↔ k) predominates with a meager 6 (14%) languages, followed by Sl. sve- with 5 (11%) languages and Gmc. kl- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 29 (66%) European languages use 22 of their own native words. There is no common “Pan-European” term in Europe; European lingo is a pile of random components. Cognates: A.-Sax. giccan, gyccan, gicce, gicenes, gicða, (v., n.) “itch”, Scots yeuk “itch, itchiness” (but Ir. word was supplanted by Eng. one), WFris. jukje “itch”, MDu. jöken, Du. jeuken, jeuk “itch”, OHG jucchen, LGmn. jocken “itch”, Gmn. jucken “itch”; Mong. qol- “rub”, qus “rubbed spot”, qalti- “scrape off, clean unevenness, smooth, clean hair from skin or leather” (with suffixes -l, -ti); all “itch” unless noted otherwise. The verbal “itch” and “scratch” are used as overlapping synonyms, i.e. jucken “itch, rub off, scratch, groom”, etc. Distribution: Points to a long-range spread westward and eastward fr. a Siberian nest leading to a Sarmatian Europe: Vandals, Burgunds, Thurings, Alans, and the like “wanderers”, with fingers extending west and east. The “IE etymology” stipulates an “unknown” and a Gmc. origin fr. a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *jukkjan “itch” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *jukjo (n.) “itch”, both “of unknown origin”. Other than noting a Gmc. channel, those advertisements carry a zilch of etymological value. The documented OT sibling forms kashı, qashï match the oldest recorded western forms and substance; the anlaut alternations q ↔ γ ↔ j are routine; the Scots yeuk (č ↔ k), Mong. qus (č ↔ s) and A.-Sax. gicce (č ↔ k) bridge the ends. There is no room for any “IE” penetration. Four Türkic bases (emri-, кiči-, qašï-, qurtan-) form agglutinated active and passive verbs and nouns. Probably, the Ogur form gi- was a first source, and the Oguz form i- supplanted it. A phonetic similarity between the root gici:-/gicce- and the root element -ich (bitch, glitch, pitch, witch, etc.) corresponds to the Tr. suffix -ich/-ish that forms abstract nouns. In A.-Sax. the double -cc- (giccan, gicce) apparently stands for -ch-/-č-, though at the beginning of the word the -ch- is systematically depicted with a single c-. A phoneme depicted with a triplet -tch reflects the fricative -ch, probably with a hint of dialectal initial dental plosive -t- peculiar to A.-Sax. vernacular. The initial g- in the western forms (gi-, jö-, ju-) is consistent with the phonetic peculiarity of the Ogur languages. The survival of both forms (gicc etc. and itch) in the historical records indicates that they were brought over and used by at least two lexically distinct groups. Eng. has lost the agglutination capacity, and turned to an alien Lat. pruritus. A phonetic match with regular correspondences is perfect, the semantics is perfectly identical, and both are within a range of phonetic and semantic dispersion within the Türkic linguistic family.

3.114
itinerate (v.) “go, travel” ~ Türkic it-, ïd- (ïδ-, ïs-, ïz-, ïǯ-, ıy-, ı-) (v.) “send (to go)”. An “IE etymology” states a Lat. origin, q.v. The Eng. “send” synonymically stands for “cause to go”. The Türkic verb ïd- is polysemous with 7 semantic clusters, a base connotation “go” and second connotation “intent”, retained in the Eng. idioms like “(I am) going (to go, to sleep, etc.)”, “(I was) going (to go to..., but...), etc.)”. Unlike Eng., the Türkic expressions largely imply but omit “go”, and include an intended action, like “send (him to go)”. Translations omit “go” and translate an action, thus translation “I send a letter to (recipient)” interprets the notion “send” as a meaning of the stem ïd-. Actually, it means “(I) send (a letter) to go (to the recipient)”. The initial -t-, -d- was suggested to be a suff. of a root ï-, making it a super-polysemantic oddity not for a generic use, but Cf. Sl. kladu, edu (кладу, еду) “lay, ride” with -d fr. kla-, e-. Of 44 European languages, the Sl., Gmc., and Romance lead with 10 (23%), 8 (18%), and 8 (18%) languages respectively. The remaining 18 (41%) European languages use 11 versions of their own native words. There is no dominating “Pan-European” term in Europe; European lingo is a loose collection of areal vernaculars. Cognates: A.-Sax. at- (atgin conj. v. gin), adrran (intr.) “go”, Goth. iddja “went”; OIr. ethaim “(I) go” (Cf. Tr. idim, ıdayın ditto); Gaul. eimu “(we) go” (d-, y- transition); Lith. eiti, eimi, eidinti, eidine “go”, eidy “leave!” , Latv. iet, eimu, iemu “go”; OPruss. eit, eisei “go”; OCS iti, idu, idj (идѫ) “go”, Ukr. idu, iтu, Bulg. itsi, istsi, idu (iцi, iсцi, iду) “go”, ida “(I) go”, Cz. jdu, jiti “go”, Pol. ide, isc, wiesc, wiode “go”, Rus. idti “go”; Lat. iter “travel”, ire, it, еo “go”, Serb., Croat idem, iti (идем, ити), Sloven., Slvt. idem, iti, ist “go” ; Gk. eimi, εἶσι, iμεν, iασι “go”; Skt. eti “(he) goes”, imas “go (we)”; Av. aeiti, OPers. aitiy “(he) goes”; Kuchean, Agnean (aka Tokhar) i- “go”; Mong. od- “go”, odumui “goes”, Kor. gada (가다) “go”, (but with Ch. qu (去) “go”, Jap. iku (行く) “go”). Strikingly, identical conjugational agglutination, Cf. “(he) goes”: Tr. idti, Skt. e'ti, Av. ae'iti, OPers aitiy; “(I) go”: Tr. idim, OIr. ethaim, Gk. eimi; all “go” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Versions of it-, ïd- cover Eurasia across linguistic borders, fr. the Albion to the Far East. A myopic “IE etymology” dives as deep as a Lat., a late newcomer to Europe. That is a misleading nonsense. The brief listing of cognates corroborates both the broad historical picture of demographic movements in the western Eurasia, and the specialized disciplines of archeology and biology in respect to migratory flows, including those of the Kurgan Waves, and the Celtic, Indo-Aryan, and Sarmatian migrations in and out of Europe and beyond. By dozens of millenniums Lat. trails in time the old-timers like a Sl. with its out-of-Africa Y-DNA Hg.'s I, J. The Lat. ascend to the times of the distant Siberia's Y-DNA Hg.'s R1a/b, i.e. 30 - 20 ky later. The roots of Lat. are probably connected to some cultures of the Kurgan burial and horse domestication, ca. 5 - 6 mill. BC. Some R1a/b's reached Europe and grew to become a major component there while others populated different Eurasian territories. In those millenniums were disseminated ideas of a matriarchate, of marital unions, of Tengriism and its babies Buddhism and Yule, of kurgan burials, of a nomadic mobile home, and plenty of other cultural and technological traditions. A degree of detail allows to trace grammatical metamorphoses of a Tr. 3rd pers. perf. tense to Balto-Sl. infinitive form (suffix di/ti), or Tr. causative ide:r to Lat. iter “going”, and other transitions. The initial notion “go” was literal. That is attested by the derivatives retained in the sister languages (Sl. idti, hodit (идти, ходить, inf.). It is an allophone of the Türkic idti (ıdtı) “send to go”, “made to go” (3rd pers. perf. tense, lit. “made (him, it) gone”). The Goth. cognate iddja “gone” (perf. tense) conveys the Türkic idti (ıdtı) semantically and grammatically. As a preposition (Goth. id-weitjan (v.), id-weit (n) “reproach”, lit. “going to approach”, OE ed-wit ditto, OHG. ita-wıč, ditto) it is a calque equivalent of the modern Eng. “going to”, where “go” expresses not a physical movement, but lit. or metaphorical “intent”. The Goth. word precedes the LLat. word by better than half a millennia. That shows a direction of borrowings, and disbands the “IE” etymologies that ascribe the origin to the Lat. Statistics: With a 2-phoneme single syllable word, chances of a random coincidence are fairly high, about 1/5 = 0.2 (phonetic coincidence 1/50, semantic coincidence 1/1000, 10,000 tries). A set of 5 10,000-word vocabularies from different languages would bring that probability to a near certainty. Bringing suffixes into a calculus would lower the chances of accidental coincidence to infinitesimally small number, requiring thousands of 10,000-word vocabularies to bring probability to a certainty. With a ruled out chance of random coincidence, a scenario of common origin is inevitable, and the Eastern Europe of the 3rd mill. BC becomes inescapable as a source from which, at different times and by different routs, the word could have traveled to the Mediterranean, Northwestern Europe, and South-Central Asia. The Celtic trail extends the existence of this word in the Eastern Europe, complete with its morphological modifiers, to a 5th mill. BC. Morphological evidence suggests an areal language or group of languages with largely shared morphological system consistent with the morphology of the Türkic languages down to a series of minute details. Similarity is closer than that between the adjacent European languages of a same linguistic group, like a French and Italian, Spanish and French, or Polish and Russian. That is in spite of a great temporal differences between, say, Türkic and Avestan or Türkic and Old Irish. A complex of converging evidence unequivocally points to the Türkic phylum as an origin of the word. The phenomena of retention opens a large window for further investigations. See period, time.

3.115
jar, jarring (v.) “conflicting, abrupt, fragmenting” ~ Türkic jar-, yar-, ya:r- (v.) “split, cleave, crack, rive”. An “IE etymology” suggests a series of “said to be echoic or imitative origin”, “of uncertain origin”, and a “WGmc. origin”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a base ja-, ya- detectable in derivatives with old suffixes fused into the roots: Cf. just the negatives “precipice, split, wound, poor, half”, etc. yar-; “lightning, harm”, etc. yas-; alien, sick, etc. yat-, etc., etc. The Türkic stem jar- (v., n.) is extremely productive, with multifaceted semantics in 8 clusters carrying 80+ meanings, fr. “split” to “open (wound)”. The anlaut semi-consonant j-/g- is a trait of the Ogur languages, while the Oguz languages start with the vowel, ya-, hence the forms jar- vs. yar-. Of 44 European languages, the Sl. -del-, Romance div-, a Sl.-Celtic. skol-, and a Gmc. spl- lead with 8 (18%), 6 (14%), 5 (15%), and 4 (9%) languages respectively. The remaining 21 (48%) European languages, incl. Eng. and Türkic, use 16 versions of their own native words. There is no common or dominating “Pan-European” term in Europe; the European lingo is a loose collection of areal vernaculars. Cognates: A.-Sax. (be)ceorian’ “cut, cut off, separate”, ceorian “murmur, gripe, complain”; Sl. yarost (ярость) “rage, fury, wrath”, yariy (ярый) “ardent”; unspecific references to Mong. parallels (G. Ramstedt). No “IE” cognates. Apparently no etymological scholarship was defiled by tracing cognates across Eurasia. Distribution: Spans across Eurasia, W. - E. fr. Bosnia to Sakha (aka Yakutia) and N. - S. fr. Arctic Ocean to the Strait of Hormuz, across linguistic borders, in contiguous and islet demographies. No detectable or proclaimed “IE” cognates.The sources of origin advanced by the “IE etymology” stand for ignorance or illiterateness, as far from a sanity as they go. The “echoic, imitative, uncertain” sources are laughable, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *karen “complain” is an utter nonsense unless attested otherwise. So is a faux “Proto-Slavic proto-word” *jarъ “furious”. These fictions need to be delicately rescinded. A quasi-scientific machine needs a wash and a turn to reality. With a list of documented 80+ meanings and a spread across continent, it takes a major effort to pretend to be linguistically blind and lingually nescient. In Lat., a homophonic and allophonic jaru- (v.) “illumine” turned into an allophone aurora, now an international word, see aurora. It is unlikely that the original Türkic jar- “crack, cleave” have originated from a splitting sound, but some of the “IE” speculation on echoic or imitative origin may not be totally baseless. The speculations on a relation to a homonymic Türkic words jar (n.) “vessel” and earl “title” is baseless. The chances that two homonyms jar- “fragmenting” and jar “vessel” may accidentally evolve in two language families are nil. They constitute a salient case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to a common origin from a Türkic phylum. See aurora, earl, jar (n.).

3.116
jeer (v.) “ridicule, contempt, derision” ~ Türkic jer- (v.) “deride, dismiss, reject, repel, slander, disparage”. An “IE etymology” rates it “of uncertain origin”, “beyond existing evidence”, and a few more pearls, q.v. It partially overlaps with a stem hool- in a Celtic word hooligan. There is no common or dominating “Pan-European” term in Europe; the European lingo is a loose collection of areal vernaculars. Among 44 European languages, the leading are a Sl. -sme- with 5 (11%), Romance bur- with 4 (9%), and a bitty Türkic-Eng.-Fris. jer- with 3 (7%) languages respectively. A majority of the other 32 (73%) European languages use 26 versions of their own native words. A miniscule distribution is consistent with the Türkic-Eng.-Fris. jer- being a walking “guest” loanword in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. gyr “deride, mock”, MDu. scheeren “vex”, Gmn. scheren “vex”; Ir., Scots geansaí (? ~ jenč, the -n- marks reciprocity, -č marks noun). A paucity of linguistic data contrasts with an ubiquity of the phenomenon: mocking is an eternal joy and entertainment in all human societies. Distribution: Spans across a bulk of the Eurasia, with a teeny speck in the NW Europe. Not a trace of any “IE” etymology, “uncertain origin” is its best contribution. An anlaut (semi)consonant points to an Ogur (Hg. R1a) subfamily; the Oguz (Hg. R1b) peers typically do not use an anlaut consonant: > er. But who could tell them apart before ca. 2000 AD? The Oguric would produce der-, jer-, ger-, ɣer-, her-, and the like. See hooligan.

3.117
jerk (v.) “jolt, abrupt movement” (Sw N/A, F1589 0.005%) ~ Türkic julq, yulq, yolq “jerk” (emphatic intensity form), jul- (v.) “jolt, jerk, pull (out, away), extract, extricate”. An “IE etymology” calls it “of uncertain origin”, “perhaps echoic”, with quite a few pearls more, q.v. Ultimately fr. a root (j, y)ul- “strip, rifle”. The prosthetic anlaut phoneme takes forms listed as j-, y-, dj-, ts-, č-. An -l → -r alternation is an areal adaptation, possibly via a Türkic Saka (> Saxon) or a like dialect not friendly with -l-'s, Cf. jolt. The prosthetic anlaut consonant wobbles between Ø-, j-, y-, g-, dj-, š-, ǯ-, ts-, f-, d-, n-, ...; the vowels are -u-, -ü-, -o-, -e-, -ea-. Eng. uses “jerk” with a connotation of a slang, a vernacular claimed as first recorded in 1570s as a “sudden sharp pull”. In some ethnically compact populations, it apparently was lurking for centuries under a radar of grammarians. The Türkic verbal form, like its Eng. variety, has derivatives associated with abrupt move, unsteady affect, clinching action. A most sited applications are “snach, seize, redeem, rescue, save”; some derivatives are on an exotic side: yuluɣ “ransom, redeeming, save”, from yul- “ransom, redeem, liberate”, ul- “shave”. The word comes in 4 distinct forms and correspondingly in 4 semantic clusters with 27, 13+, 3, and 6 meanings respectively, fr. “jerk” and “tear out” to “redeem” and “shave”. The original range of notions exceeds by far the miniscule fraction that settled, survived, and evolved in Eng. That is a fate of the “guest” borrowings that typically echo the original. Of 44 European languages, the Türkic, Eng., and Fris. 3-language group julq-, and a Gmc. 3-language group ruk- are most substantial with 3 (7%) languages each. The remaining 38 (86%) European languages use 35 versions of their own native words. The jerk or julq is a “guest” in Europe. There is no dominating or common “IE” term in Europe; the European lingo is a loose collection of areal vernaculars. Cognates: A.-Sax. gearcian (v.) “procure, furnish, supply”, gearc (adj.) “active, quick”, ferclan “convey, bring” (j ↔ f), gearobrygd “quick movement”, MEng. yerkid “tightly pulled”, ferken “move hastily, drive (sth.) forward” (j ↔ f); yare, ȝare “agile” (? < gearu, gearo); Fin. nylke- “flake the skin”; Mong. šulga-, ǯulga- “tear out”, ül-gü, jil-gü “scrape” > Soj. čülgü “swipe”, doli “pay, ransom, buy out”; Evenk nul- “scrape (remains of wool from soaked pelt)” (ul- > nul-), (~ Sakha sül- “rip off, peel (pelt)”, sul- “naked, with scraped bark”; references to Tung.-Manchu correspondences. Distribution: From the NW Europe through Fennic and Eurasian Steppe Belt to the Far East and Pacific, across linguistic barriers. The word's geography tended to fraction semantically, with different clusters in different languages, and some with only one, unique meaning. On top of “uncertain origin” and “perhaps echoic” the myopic “IE etymology” suggests the faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *garu and faux “PGmc. proto-form” *garwaz “ready”. That's on top of real attested A.-Sax. forms. It relates that with etymologically later form yare, ȝare, and unrelated Du. gaar “done, well-cooked”, Gmn. gar “done, well-cooked, wholly, at all”, Isl. görr, gerr “perfect”. All that animated circus is not needed, is absolutely unrelated to a well-documented Türkic ancient julq, yulq “jerk, pull (out, away), extract, extricate” or a massive family of its derivatives. A semantic parity is perfect, a phonetic correlation with liquid -r-,-l- is regular and credible, the final -k/-g points to a regular Türkic deverbal noun suffix -k, -g, -ɣ, -q, Cf. buzuq “fragment” (buz- “break”), jaruq “ray, light” (jaru- “radiate”). The geographic spread of the allophonic forms suggests an early scatter, pointing to the Kurgan or Sarmatian waves from the east. The initial consonant j-/z-/d- points to the Ogur-type languages of the Huns, Sarmatians, and Alans.

3.118
jig (v.) “jerk, yank (dance)”, MEng. ghyg “spinning top” ~ Türkic jïq-, yık- (v.) “bring down, plunge, cast down, fell, crush (by blow)”, jiglä, jiklä- “tramp”, (n.) “spindle”, with usual phonetic changes jeg, jïk, yıx. An “IE etymology”-rated “of unknown origin”. Ultimately fr. dancing notions jïq-, yık- (v.) of dance squatting, spinning, tramping, and jumping. Eng. spelling comes in two flavors, jig and gig, reflecting the Ogur anlaut consonant. In Oguz version the word starts with semi-consonant or vowel yig-, ig-. Cognates: Dan. gig “spinning top”, ONorse geiga “turn sideways”; OFr., Fr. gigue “dance (type)”, Sp. giga, It. giga; all “dance (type)”, not a generic “dance”; a Türkic bödi:-, Cf. body. The Türkic verbal notion largely implies movements down, Eng. movement is not specifically down. No “IE” or any other etymology whatsoever. There is no need for an OFr. “proto-word” gigue “fiddle” and its Romance cognates; the truth is much closer to home. The form jiggle (v.) may be frequentative or diminutive, as claimed by the European philologists, or it might as well be a Türkic regular denoun verb jiglä formed with a suff. -lä that smoothly diffused into Eng. to be eventually re-interpreted. See body.

3.119
jog (v., n.) “run, walk, ride” ~ Türkic jüg-/yüg-, jüɣ-/yüɣ- (v.) “go, run, fast”, jügür (indef. tense) “run”, a parallel form to jor- “walk, march, go”. An “IE etymology” rating is “of uncertain origin”, “perhaps”, “PWGmc.”, plus some other ideas, q.v. Ultimately fr. a primeval root of a type ja-, jo-, jü- “leg” > generic “run, move, action”. Suff. -ür forms indef. tense; suff. -n denotes reciprocation “I, we run”, suff. t- causative: yügür, yügün, yügürt respectively. A spectrum of documented Türkic forms numbers 31+, an astonishing variety for a 3-phoneme word, Cf. a cognate journey. That attests to a deep antiquity of the word. The word developed into an Oguz tribal name Yoruks, Jürüкs “beduin, nomad” of Turkmen ethnicity expanding to Persia and Byzantine (11th c. AD). Of 44 European languages, a predominantly Romance group cor- leads with 9 (20%) languages, followed by a jog- group (Türkic, Eng. Du., Norw.) with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 31 (71%) European languages use 24 versions of their own native words. Considering the importance and antiquity of the notion “run”, the dating of 15th c. AD is incredible; it rather states an earliest documenting in Eng. which could be off by millenniums. Lately, as a suppletive modern athletic term, the “jog” gained popularity in numerous languages without supplanting the native “run”. Cognates: A.-Sax. iernan, urnen, urnon “run, ride, gallop”, (ge)iernan, aernan “run, ride, gallop”, iernan, rinnan, ornon “run, ride, gallop”, uron, urum, ure “run, move rapidly, hasten”, (a)iernan, aetiernan, ayrnan “run away”, beiernan, beyrnan, bearn, born, barn “run up to”, foriernan, forerun “run before, outrun”, forwiernan, forwyrnan “hinder, prohibit, prevent, repel, refuse”, (gen)iernan “run against”, oniernan, onarn “give way, open (door)”, toiernan, toirnan “run to, run together, flow away”, ðurhiernan “run through”, undierne “open, manifest”, Du. joggen “jog”, Norw. joggetur “jog”; Serb. Ioruk (Иорук) (name), Croat. Yoruk (name), Bolg. Ĭoruk (name), Maced. Joruk (name); Mong. zugt (зугт) “run” (v.) (< zug, -t causative), güikh (гүйх) (n.) “run”, Yuryuk (Юрюк) (name); references to borrowing of Türkic words in Balkan languages; references to name Yoruks (pl.) in various publications; references to Gagauz form of name Yoruks as Jürüк, Ürüк and to possible contaminations of the term. Distribution: Eurasian width with western and eastern appendages. The depth and scope of the related A.-Sax. vocabulary expose a continental-size distribution fr. Albion to Mongolia. The myopic “IE etymology” for a basic concept “run, jog” is shameful. Besides somewhat realistic “a word of uncertain origin” and some wild “perhapses”, the rest is beguiling. Among the pearls are the notions “touch, push”, “stir”, shog “jolt”, “shake”, MEng. joggen “pierce, prod”, and an apotheosic faux “PWG proto-word” *skokkan “move, shake, tremble”. All that nonsense is to re-engineer the attested Türkic jüg-, yüg- “run” without hurting foul prejudices. The crispiness of the Türkic semantics is predicated by the mounted existence of the Türkic Kurganians vs. sedentary environments. The Türkic-Mongol linguistic similarities ascend to 93 AD, when 100,000 Hunnic families numbering 500,000+ people submitted to the ruling minority of the Syanbi (pin. Xianbei 鮮卑) Mongols (Western Tunguses marked by Y-DNA haplogroup C vs. Türkic R1), essentially making Hunnic language a language of the Syanbi, and continual amalgamation in the following centuries. The Eurasian-wide spread of the jüg-, yüg- + jog “run” makes a Türkic origin of the term inescapable. See jag, yacht.

3.120
journey (v., n.) “travel” ~ Türkic jor-, jorï-, yor-, yör-, yorï-, jur-, yürï-, jürü-, yuɣur- (v.) “go, walk, march, run”. An “IE etymology” suggests an “IE” origin and a “day” for “journey”, q.v. Ultimately fr. an archaic root jo-, yo- known fr. its primeval suffixed derivatives like jor, jӧr-, jol, jog, joj, ja:rïš, jorɣa, jügür, dai, etc.; the -n- is a reflexive suffix “I, we go; ride”, etc. Unlike a verb bar- “go” (directional, one-time event), the yör- “go” is omnidirectional recurring, Cf. bar- “go”, ber- “bear (~ give)”. Primeval status is attested by diverse forms and semantic excursions. To name a few: forms ascend to an oldest yorï-, from roots jor- to su:r and the like. The forms have eight zonal variations, each with its overlapping semantic clusters. Endemic to real lexicons, they are stochastic trails with parallel forms in same texts. Additionally, the word is an auxiliary verb and a component in compounds in diverse Türkic languages. Forms switch from a smooth evolution to an observational ledger. Of 44 European languages, a Gmc. group res- leads with 8 (18%) languages, followed by a Romance via- group with 7 (16%) languages and the Sl. groups dor- and -tov- with 5 (11%) and 4 (9%) languages respectively. The remaining 20 (45%) European languages use 14 versions of their own native words, including Türkic-Eng. jor- with a petty 2 (5%) participation. As a secondary entry, a Romance group of OFr., Sp., and It. use it as an internalized loanword journee “travel” vs. a Romance “voyage”. A significance of the notion “go, journey” can't be taken lightly: it belongs to the first words carried fr. Africa to Asia 40 kybp. It travelled fr. the Red Sea to Iberia (Y-DNA Hg. I) and to a heart of Siberia (Y-DNA Hg. NOP > R) 20 kybp. A first version, an it-, id-, had survived to the present in Sl. languages, Cf. Sl. id-ti, id-em. The second version took 20 kybp to develop a form jo-, yo-, it spread fr. Siberia all the way back to the Mediterranean and Atlantic. It settled there as a Wanderwort “guest” with weak local roots. There is no common or dominating “Pan-European” term in Europe; the European lingo is a loose collection of areal vernaculars. Cognates: Scott cuairt “travel” (j ↔ c); OFr. journee “travel”, Sp. jornada ditto, It. giornata ditto, Port. jornada ditto; Rus. ajda (айда) “go”; Osset. erysjeris “competition, contest”; Georg. (y)eriši “battle, onslaught”; reference to Kabardin: “ens” ?; Beng. jatra “travel”; Nepal yatra “travel”; Skt. yatra “travel”; Kuchean (aka Toch.B) yalneall “travel”; Mong. ajalal “travel” (< Tr.), žо1 “happy travel, success, happiness”, žajidaŋ “saddleless”; Tung.-Manchu. žо1 “success” (< Mong.); Kor. jeongdo (정도) “journey”; Tr. (d)jolo “hit the road”, jalda- “hold on to mane”; jan- “return”, ja:jla “stopover”, jajuw “afoot, on foot”, jeɣer “saddle”, jele “mane”, jelt “lead up, guide”, ja:rish “run, race”; all related to “travel” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Eurasian width with western and eastern appendages, across linguistic borders. The “IE etymology” suggests a faux “Vulgar Lat. Proto-form” *diurnum “day” fr. (attested) VLat. adj. diurnus “of one day” fr. (attested) Lat. dies “day”, fr. a faux “PIE Proto-root” *dyeu- “shine”. That philological vinaigrette does not make any sense: a Lat. dies “day” (n.) in no way is related to a “journey” (v., n.). It ascends to a Türkic taŋ, daŋ, toɣ- (n.) “dawn, sunrise”, Cf. day. In Türkic societies the daŋ “dawn” was a sacral event, a moment of worship and obeisance. With OED methodology applied to a ca. 6,000 earthly languages, besides the jo- “day” the OED could anoint a semantics of jo- to a huge host of meanings probably numbering in thousands. Chances that any two identical three-phoneme words can exist in two independent languages are quite high, but chances that those same two words would happen to share a same semantics, in this case “journey”, are infinitesimally small. That nonsense is demining to OED and needs to be prudently retrieved. The OFr. journee “day's, daily” and the Eng. “journey” are accidental homophones. They do sound about the same, but can't be and should not be confused. A first one is a cognate of Lat. diurnalis “daily” fr. a root dies “day”, q.v. A second is a cognate of the Türkic jor-/jur- “travel”; Ir. turas “travel, journey”; Mong. ǯori- (/djori-/) “head to, intend”; Tung. düre- “walk”; Yürük, Yörük ~ Türkic tribe, lit. “nomad, rover”. The verb reportedly came to light in 12th c., linked to OFr. journee (v., n.). If that is so, it became a European word fr. the Alanian, Burgund, or Vandal versions of the Türkic lexicon. Typical for lexemes coming from different sources, journey is synonymous with voyage from LLat. viaticum “journey”, a traverse comes from a Lat. transversare “journey, pass across”, a travel is its contracted derivative “journey”. The noun journal “daily ledger” is derived from the noun “journey” or from a LLat. diurnalis “daily (ledger)” etymologically conflated with “journey”. The Türkic etymology is direct and straightforward, the “IE etymology” is artificial and tenuous. See amen, bar-, ber-, day, you.

3.121
jut (v.) “protrude”, jut (n., metaph.) “precipice, brink, cliff, bluff” ~ Türkic jalt (adj.) “precipitous, brink (adj.)”, jut, djut (n.) “rinderpest; murrain”. There is no coherent “IE” etymology; an “IE etymology” suggests a shallow story for a precipitous case, q.v. A std. transition is yut > yüt > *d'üt (djüt) > *jüt > *čüt (G. Doerfer, Türkische elemente im neupersischen, BD 4, p. 209, no. 1911). Articulation of the initial j- is harder in the Ogur languages and lighter y- in the Oguz languages (jalt vs. yalt). The “hunger” and “food” were a matter of survival; hence originally, primordial terms are more than likely. In a cattlemen lingo, epizooty is a fatal cattle disaster leading to a mass human starvation as opposed to a seasonal starvation. An “IE” suggestion of cognates jet (v.) “stream” or “throw” (v.) are semantically unrelated, they do not jibe with protrusions, brinks, and a dread of murrain. An elision of inlaut liquid -l- should be expected; the -l- is likely a passive suff., the -t is likely a causative suff. Cognates: A.-Sax cealer, calwer, ceoldre, celdre, celras, ceallras “jetty of curds”, Eng. jetty “seawall”; Mong yut, jud “cattle calamity”; Nenets čüt “jut, hunger”; Kamasin čüt “sickness, sick”; S.Siberian hüt, yüt “bad weather”; Chuv. sut “greedy, glutton”; Tuvinian čut; Chakavian (Serbo-Croat ?) čut; Avar, Rus.‘džut (dжут) “winter hunger, murrain, starvation”; Osset. žut “glazed frost”; Balkar zut (жуть) “dread”; possibly Jutes “exile, outcast, castaway”, q.v. Distribution: nearly complete Eurasian width with the term smeared across linguistic borders. Nowadays, “jut, jetty” as a marine vertical barrier is a widely used semantic neologism fr. once a precipitous word. The jut “fiber”, and adjutant “helper” are semantically unrelated accidental homophones. A protruding jut is a majestic protruding mountain cliff, a symbol of a disastrous crush, euphemistically associated with a disastrous cattle plaque. Sibling versions of a term for a drastic crush spread with nomadic movements disseminating it as a term for a worst disaster in a cattle-breeding society. An “IE etymology” is utterly lost. In a way, its shallow surmises are adorable: “protrude” = “to jet” < “to throw” = Lat. iacere “lie, rest”, fr. a faux “PIE proto-root” *ye- “to throw, impel”. Or an “echoic” (sic!) “strike, hit, shove, push”. Or a “cognate of jetty”: a marine “jetty” formed a mountain “cliff”. A base notion “stick out” is rated “obsolete”, as though etymology “history of a word” is an opposite of “history”. All that galimatia is supposed to form a crisp notion “precipice, brink, cliff” recycled as a “pestilent precipice”. At OED, a notion “etymology” needs to be resurrected. The name of the Jute people may be related to a jüt “calamity, pariah, cast-off”. A “Scythian” tribe, Jutes preceded Scythians to the Mesopotamia, lost a catastrophic defensive war, and were driven across W. Europe to a most unreachable territory named Jutland, protected by a band of endless swamp marshes. Later, Jutes had distinguished themselves as expert cavalry and a strong fighting force. The word's phonetics is near perfect, and semantics is precise; a Türkic origin is well-documented.

3.122
know (v.) “cognize, recognize, perceive, aware” (Sw N/A, F15, Σ1.02%) ~ Türkic ka:n-, q:an-, qanï-, köni, göni (v., n.) “know, verity, truth”. An “IE etymology” brassily claims an “IE” and “PGmc.” origins, q.v. Ultimately a derivative of a verb kön-, gön- “right (something), make things right”, qan-, qanï- “understand” with a rich trove of derivatives. They number at least 7+ semantic clusters carrying 31+ meanings believed to be based on a notion “straight” (adj.), and 2 semantic clusters carrying 7 meanings based on a notion “quench thirst” respectively. The words come in 17+ articulations (köni, göni, kӧnü, konu, xӧnü, hӧne, kӧ:nӧ, etc.), and 7+ articulations (qan-, kan, qaŋ-, etc.) respectively. The forms köni, göni etc. are members of a large family. A proximity of the words related to knowledge and mind points to an once common origin: köŋül, göŋül, köngül, göwün, kölün (n.) “consciousness, thought, mindset, memory, meditation, conviction”, q:an-, qanï-, ka:n- (v.) “cognize, understand, consider, convinced, reckon”, etc. The notions “straight, right” (adj., adv., n.) and “quench thirst” (v.) are uniformly held as most basic notions which produced all derivatives, including the “know, (ac)know(ledge)” (v.), etc., Cf. oğrı: köndi: “thief (ac)know(ledged), admitted” his theft, cited by G. Clauson (EDT 726), etc. The notion “know” has more than 20 Türkic synonyms with 10 distinct stems, each with its own pleiad of grammatical derivatives. That makes chances of catching a particular form say ca. 1/20 or ca. 5%. That shows a drift: secondary senses develop in semantic proximity or metaphorically, e.g. “straight” and “truth”, “heart” and “truth”, etc. Few tribes, like Gmc. or Romance, were lucky to inherit a word with a promising future. An internalization with an anlaut kn- etc. is routine: the oddball -ö- is not a European household phoneme. A line-up of the European “knows” is illuminating: 44 European languages use only 13 lexical roots. The early Europeans had fossilized lexical communities, later overlaid with migratory waves. 3 groups dominate: a motley but basically a Sl. group ved- with 11 (25%) languages, a Türkic-Gmc.-Romance group kön-, kn- with 10 (23%) languages, and a second motley Sl. group zna- with 9 (20%) languages. In European languages the trio constitutes a 68% majority. The remaining minority of 14 (32%) languages use a strew of 10 their own native words. The Sl. forms of the earliest stumblers to the Eurasia (40 kybp) dominated the land with altogether 20 (45%) languages, disseminating their lingoes across ethnic borders to Gmc. and Ugric folks. The Sl. preeminence lasted to a Killing Fields time of the 3rd mill. BC that reduced or almost completely annihilated W. European populations marked by the Y-DNA haplogroups E, F, G, J, I, and K. A male European Y-DNA genetic soup was completely redone. Waves of Hg. R1 became a dominant European reality, reinforced over and over again by a “first night” wonts of the following times. The notion “know” is but one of the facets there. Besides “know”, Gmc. languages propagated numerous carryover meanings connected with the Türkic base kön. A notion “know” (v.) of a verb q:an- is one of at least 23+ meanings in 5+ clusters, extending to a notion “can (execute, achieve a desire, able)”, see can. The notion “know” is one of the secondary clusters, a bifurcated semantic split of “can” and “know”. What appear to be homophones are two offshoots in a pack of siblings from a single parental verb. For uninitiated etymologists, situation is confusing and confused. Gmc. cognates are semantically split, and viscerally are treated as homophonic lines. Once common in Gmc., the verb fully survived only in the A.-Sax. Eng. The notion “know” (v.) fr. a verb köni is one of them. Cognates: A.-Sax. can, con “learn, know” and “can, be able to”, cnawan (also with prefix a-, be-, to-) “know, perceive”, cnawlaec “knowledge”, cnawe “conscious”, etc., all opposed to “believe”, OFris. kanna “recognize, admit”, ONorse kenna “know, make known”, Goth. kannjan “to make known”, kann “know”, OHG chnaan (also with bi-, ir-) “know”, Gmn. kennen, erkennen, können “know”; Ir. gnath “known, famous”, Welsh gwy- “know” (but Scots fios); OCS znati; Lith. žinoti, žinau, Latv. zinu, zinat “know”; Fr. connaitre “perceive, understand, recognize”; Lat. gnoscere “know, recognize”, agnoscis “recognize”, cognoscere “get to know, recognize”; Gk. gnos (γνωσ), gnosko (γνωσκω) “knowledge”, gnosiz (γνωις) “cognition”; Alb. njoh; Skt. janati;; Kuchean (aka “Tokhar B”) knan “know”; Mong. qan-, qanu- “meet desired”, all “know” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: From the W. Europe via Eurasian Steppe Belt to the easternmost Far East Tele tribes (aka Teleut, Tiele, Tuoba Wei, Wei), across linguistic barriers. Geographic and phonetic spread attest to an archaism of the word and its wide circulation. In the east, the later Türkic forms köni, q:an- “know” did not gain popularity. That corroborates a thesis that the Türkic-Gmc. amalgamation took place within the confines of the Corded Ware period and space; Gmc. has also retained a synonymous wissen “know”. In the west, A.-Sax. carried the conventional bifurcated semantics eidetic with the Türkic original. The “IE etymology” falsely claims an “IE” and a “PGmc.” origins. Among the claims are a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *knew- “know”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *knaan “know”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *kneana “know”, and a faux “PIE proto-root *gno- “know” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *gneh- “know”. All that OED's and freelance galimatia is not needed. The documented Türkic originals provide a fairly complete rendering of the semantic and phonetic genesis of the notion “know” and its Gmc. adoptions. The Gmc. records document amalgamation of the elder Gmc. and the historically Türkic terminology: Gmc. already had a set of its own fossilized terms. Those are: Goth., OHG., OE. finþan, frafjan findan “know”, Goth. ga-sweran “make known”, Goth. wait, lais, OHG. weiz, OE. wat “I know”, etc. Besides the “know”, a presence of a Türkic amalgamated lexicon in Gmc. is well attested: the Goth. ga-teihan “tell, make known”, OE. tion, teon “tell, make known” fr. a Türkic til, tili, tele, dili (n.) “tell”, see tell. A mass of other ancient Turkisms in Eng. and Gmn. numbers in thousands. A native A.-Sax.-Gmc. term for “know” was wit, witt (n.) “intellect, understanding, sense, consciousness”, witan (v.) “know, understand, aware, conscious, observe, perceive”. The line-up of the cognates is remarkable, Cf. the Gmn. können and the Türkic könen-, a verbal derivative of the verbal root kön-, gön- denoting a meaning “know” and “enjoy, rejoice, achieve prosperity”. The two are identical. The Gmn. können is universally recognized as a cognate of all the cognates listed above. That is indelible attestation of a common origin. The genetic connection does not conflict with the “IE etymology” deep thought on the diphthong cluster kn- as a result of peculiarly European process of regular phonetic shifts. In reality, it was a particular propensity to consonantal clusters, a predictable vowel elision in a process of internalization. That converted a syllable kön-, gön-, q:an- into a consonantal diphthong cluster kn-, in some instances with succeeding elision of k-. Like the can “know”, the can “able”, the magan “might”, the cant “tilt”, and the nearly synonymous pair deem and know present an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer from a Türkic linguistic phylum to the related neighboring Gmc. languages. That is an indelible testimony of a common genetic origin from a Türkic milieu. See can, deem, do, I, might, this.

3.123
keep (v., n.) “hold” (Sw N/A, F184, Σ0.11%) ~ Türkic kap-, qab-, qap-, qarp-, (v.) “keep, seize, grab, hold”. An “IE etymology” rating is both “of uncertain origin” and a “PGmc.”, q.v. Ultimately: from kap, qab, qap (v.) “cover, enclose, confine”, (n.) “container, vessel, box” (lit. interpretation) or a shape of the container contents taking a shape of the container (metaph. interpretation), like frozen water caught in a container, see cup. A hunch of an onomastic origin of the root is not needed, the kap- “cover, capture” leads to “seize, grab, hold”. The verb has 7+ semantic clusters containing at least 30+ meanings, a prime meaning is “grab”. Related to Eng. capture, cab, cap, cup, cabbage, cable, have, and far beyond, reflecting 39 derivatives listed in a small Turkish dictionary plus independent European innovations. The dialectal variation qarp- with a prosthetic -r- is a clone of qap- with an accent on “grab”, Cf. carp (fish), lit. “grabbing, grabber” ~ Cf. qïp- and qïrp- “blink, wink”, Cf. qarp- ~ qarpï- ~ qarpïš- “grab much, by large chunks”. Of 44 European languages, a motley Gmc. group hal- leads with 10 (23%) languages, followed by a Romance group mant- and a Sl. groups der- with 6 (14%) languages each. The remaining 22 (50%) European languages use 18 versions of their own native words, including a scanty 1 Eng. and 1 Türkic “keep”. There is no common European “keep”. Cognates: A.-Sax. cepan (kepan) “keep, guard” (also with prefix a-, be-, etc.), ONorse hafa, OSax. hebbjan, OFris. habba, Gmn haben, Goth. haban “keep, have, possess, hold”; It. capisci, Sp. capiche, Lat. capere “grasp, seize”; OCS habit (хабить) “grasp”, Ukr. hapati (хапати) “grasp, seize”, hapkij (хапкий) (adj.) “grasping, thieving”; Hu. kap “get, receive”; Fin. kaapata “capture”, pitää “keep”; Pamirian qapdad- “grasp”; Mong. qabci- “press together”, havshix “bite (fish)”, Kalm. xawl- “catch (ball), bite (fish)”; all “keep” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: is typical for Türkic loanwords, Eurasian steppe width with some far western and far eastern appendages, crossing linguistic barriers. Clauson gives kıp as an allophone of kap (EDT: 580). No sane “IE” or any other etymology whatsoever, just some childish artifices. Among those are modest “perhapses” and “of uncertain origin”, followed by a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kopjan (“look?”, “?”) “which is of uncertain origin” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kap- which is not “keep, grasp” but is a “keep an eye”, and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kopijana “look”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *gab- “look after”. A faux “PIE proto-word” *kap- is mechanically derived from A.-Sax. cepan with two independent meanings and a Türkic verbal instrumental suffix -an. The Gmc. “IE etymology” is thoroughly confused, unwittingly mixing up two independent Türkic words, one a kap- for “capture, keep”, and the other a kö:z/gö:z- for “gaze, look”. It asserts “no certain connection to other languages”, i.e. other than Gmc. a funny claim. It also suggested a faux Romance “proto-word” *kapio and faux “PIE proto-word” *khpyeti fr. a faux root *kehp- “grab, seize”, a very special pleading for an “IE” Romance case. All that potpourri is unrelated to the notion “keep”, it needs to be rectified. Incredibly, while the expert gurus kept discovering a series of fictitious proto-words, they have completely missed the ubiquitous Gmc. “have”, a cognate of the “keep, hold”. An omnipresent importance of the “have” in Gmc. languages is supreme, it fills 1.25% of the English daily lexicon, or every 80s word in a random English text. Supposedly too hard to miss, but with luck, they somehow managed. The “keep” indelibly belongs to a host of Turkisms paradigmatically transferred from a Türkic phylum to the Eng. See cap, capture, cup, have.

3.124
kick (v., n.) “strike” (Sw N/A, F1206 0.01%) ~ Türkic kik-, kak-, qaq- (v.) “parry, punch, strike”, batter two objects, like honing knifes by whetting one knife against another (Kashgari II 293); the waves parry; the arguing people parry. An “IE etymology” rating is on a level “of uncertain origin”, “perhaps”, “probably”, “guessed”, and pretentions “PGmc.”, “PIE” , q.v. The word belongs to an allophonic cluster with extended range of forms: kik-, kak-, qaq-, qoy-, goğ-, goɣ-, and their dialectal variations. Secondary meanings are connected with anger and conflict, Cf. qačis (~ qaqis) “discord, strife”. Of 44 European languages a motley international group kik- leads with 10 (23%) languages (Türkic, Eng., Welsh, Ir., It., Lat., Cors., Luxemb., Malt., Serb.), followed by the Sl. groups udar- and kop- and a Gmc. group spar- with 5 (11%), 4 (9%), 4 (9%) languages respectively. The remaining 21 (48%) European languages use 15 versions of their own native words. There is no common European “kick”. Save for the Türkic, the spectrum of the European “kicks” came of the borrowed “guest” lexicons. Cognates: Celtic Ir. ciceail “kick”, Welsh cic, chic “kick”; ONorse kikna “sink at the knees”, keikja “bend backwards”, Luxemb. kick “kick”; Lat. calce “kick”, It. calcio, Cors. calci, Maltese kick “kick”; Serbian kitsk (кицк) “kick”; Mong. (Kalm.) kekixǝ “angered, enraged, flighty”; all “kick” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: is typical for Türkic loanwords: Eurasian steppe width with some far western and far eastern appendages, crossing linguistic barriers; sibling forms are areal. An atypical scarcity of Türkic derivatives points to a relatively recent spread. The same is also attested by the limited geographic distribution and the atypical absence of a cluster of dialectal allophones. The “IE etymology” is loony. It is unable to look over a fence into a real world. At first it suggests a series of sane disclaimers: “of uncertain origin”, “perhaps”, “probably”, “guessed”. Then it jumps into a neverland paradise: a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kaikaz “bent backwards” ~ “of uncertain origin”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *ki-, *kij- “split, dodge, swerve sidewards” and an apotheotic faux “PIE proto-form” *geyh- “sprout, shoot” from a faux OSax. *kikan “look”. The “look” is apotheotic too, its kick “strike” turning into a “look” is no less than miraculous. The whole enchilada is indigestible in an earthly world. This philological farce needs to be graciously retracted. A Türkic noun kik “wild animal” points to a notion “attacking, rushing (animal)”, Cf. “discord, strife”. In a Khakass (Enisei Kirgiz) lexicon the word related to whetting as a primary meaning. Reference to whetting by banging knifes points to an Iron Age. Centuries before and after the turn of the eras the word was used in Türkic Buddhist lingo before an advent of the Manichaeism and Nestorian Christianity. A metaphorical religious term was a secondary semantics. The dignified Buddhist word used in the translation of the Bible, in Eng. turned into prosaic parliamentary idioms: “kick the can down the road”, “kickbacks”, and “get a kick out of”. The Türkic twin physical and figurative semantics presents a case of a paradigmatic transfer with perfect phonetics and peculiar semantics: eidetic kick “parry, fence” and kick “quibble, argue, retort, recoil” (Cf. Tr. kikinč “retort”, kikšür- “argue” and a derivative kikne:- “flurry, derange”). A paradigmatic transfer of the terms resolves all fictitious riddles of the “IE etymology” and provides indelible attestation of a genetic origin from a Türkic phylum.

3.125
kill (v., n.) “cause to die” (Sw N/A, F320, 0.08%) ~ Türkic kıl-/qıl- “do, make, act”, kılıčla:- “kill with sword”, ӧl- “die, death”, Chuv. vil-, wil- “kill”. An “IE etymology” is super-inapplicable, flimsy, myopic, and pretentious, q.v. Ultimately fr. a verb kıl- “do”, kılıčla:- “kill with sword”, with persuasive derivatives: qïlïč ‘sword’, qïla, qïlaɣï “острый” ~ Skt. kuliča “ax, axe”. The Türkic kıl- kïl- comes in a range of articulations, kıl-, qıl-, gıl-, hıl-, heleh, etc. Complimentary to kıl- “do” is ӧl- “die, death” that comes in a range of 11+ articulations, ӧl-, ül-, jӧl-, jül-, jul-, u1-, etc. The twin roots kıl- and ӧl- likely ascend to a same common source, in time endowed with prefix, prosthetic anlaut, and suffix modifications, Cf. A.-Sax. a-cwel-an, be-cwel-an, etc. A Sum. gil “kill” and the Eng. “kill”, a temporal polar opposites, are linked with the Türkic intermediates qıl- “do” and öl- “death, kill”. The Sum. term may have internalized from the lingo of the still illiterate Türkic nomadic tribes surrounding Sumer from the east and northwest. Of 44 European languages a Sl. group bi- leads with 12 (27%) languages, followed by a Romance group mat- with 4 (9%) languages. The remaining 28 (64%) European languages use 17 versions of their own native words, incl. Eng. (1), Basque (1), and Türkic (1) cognates of ӧl-, kıl-, qıl-. Except for Sl. forms, there is no widespread European term for “kill”. The Eng. “kill” is explicitly a Türkic “guest”. Eng. has inherited those two synonymous Türkic service words, kıl-/qıl- “kill” and tu-, tur-, dur- “do” that refer to, but not specify, a concrete action or result, see do. Cognates: A.-Sax. wael “slaughter, carnage” (< ӧl-), Waelheall “death-hall” (see hall), acwelan, acwylan (v.) “die, perish”, acwellan, aquell “kill, destroy”, acwellednes (n.) “slaughter”, asweltan (v.) “die”, becwelan “die”, cwelan “die”, diegan “die”, foraweltan “die”, leoran “die” (< öleoran), oðcwelan “die”, (ge)sweltan “die”, OSax. cuellian “kill, torture”, Goth. waltjan “beat upon”, Walhalla (Valhalla) “death-hall” (Hall of dead), ONorse kvelja “torment”, MDu quelen “vex, tease, torment”, OHG kuellan “suffer pain”, Gmn. quälen “to torment, torture”; Hu. gyil, öl “kill”; Arm. kelem “I torture”; Pers. koflan “kill”, Sum. gil “kill”, gilal “butcher”; Mong. kilagu, Khalka χialu “edge, spike”; all “kill, death” unless noted otherwise. All articulations in their own ways mimic the underlying Türkic phonetics. A ligature wae- in Wae(l) etc. mimics -ö(l)-; Walhalla (Valhalla) “death-hall” (Hall of dead) is an allophone of the Türkic ölqalïq “death-hall” (öl-qalïq) and A.-Sax. Waelheall “death-hall”; Arm. kelem is formed with a Türkic 1st pers. sing. suffix -em; Hu. gyil, öl “kill” has preserved both Oguric and Oguzic forms, the Ogur form gyil matches the Sum. gil and Eng. kill; Sum. gil, gilal “kill, butcher” ~ öl- with Ogur prosthetic initial g-, k-. Distribution: the extent of Eurasian steppe with far western and far eastern appendages, across linguistic barriers, with a variety of sibling forms. A myopic “IE etymology” starts with a self-deprecation, piling on hypotheticals as a philological foundation. The pearls are the “obscure”, “perhapses”, “possibly”, “unrecorded”, followed by chains of speculations. Those are a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kwaljanan “throw, reach” extended with extended sense extension “pierce”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *kwuljana “throw, hit, hurt by throwing”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *kwulljan ditto, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *gwele- “throw, reach, with”, and a faux “PIE proto-form” *gʷelH- “throw, hit, hurt by throwing”. Semantics “throw, reach, pierce, hit” is unrelated to a “kill, slaughter”. As a way out of unscholarly abyss, the “IE etymology” offers “a variant of” cwellan, which is just one of a dozen A.-Sax. forms with -wel- ~ öl-, q.v. An another wild goose chase is too embarrassing: kill (v., n.) < unrelated Du. kil, kille “cold” and < MDu. kille “riverbed, channel”: that Du. kille is a common Türkic qïlï “confluence of an oxbow bend and a main channel”. A situation is beyond folly: either a picket is too high for a short scholar's eyes, or an eyesight is too low without heels. An “IE etymology” case extends way beyond myopia. To blunder unintentionally so severely is impossible. An intentional deceit is screaming for a justice. The A.-Sax. root cwell < öl- ~ cwellan formed the Eng. kill (ca. 1200). A transition from the form öl- to cwell is two-step, one with a prosthetic w- (wöl-, Cf. Chuv. form), and then with a perfect tense prefix k- (c-) to form cwell “kill”. The form wöl- “death” is attested with ligatures e-, wae-, wea-, we-. The wael is a phonetic equivalent of the form öl “to die”, it is reflected in the Chuv. vil-, il-. The word waelm (~ ölm) is a phonetic equivalent of the Türkic ölüm “death”. In both cases, the part -üm/-m is a Türkic-A.-Sax. deverbal noun suffix. Transition to a Roman alphabet caused inconsistency of spellings, Cf. el, wael, wel, weal, wiel. The Clark-Hall Anglo-Saxon Dictionary lists a trove of 104 words derived from the word wael “death”, including those with prefixes a-, be-, c- (cwelan “to die”), etc. The compound c- + wael forms the words cwalu (n.) “klling, murder, violent death, destruction”, cwellan (v.) “to kill, murder, execute”, cwellend “killer, slayer”, and a derivative trail with their allophones. A form with a prefix c- (k-) turned out most productive, it corresponds to the “IE” prefix s- that forms perfect tense (s-/k- alternation, aka satem-kentum split), and thus is archaic. The form öl- could be a contraction of a base form with an initial consonant or semiconsonant, Cf. attested versions jӧl-, jül-, jul-, wil-. The qıl- “do” is mirrored by the Eng. mysterious idiom do in “kill” and idioms like “be done” alluding to an irreversible deed. From an auxiliary “do (something)” Eng. retained a “do” and a most drastic and frequent semantics of a concrete verb “kill”, “make dead”, see do, q.v. That unambiguously attests to a genetic connection. Directional confinement of the verbs do and kill to a Gmc. group attests to their “guest” status within the “IE family”. A.-Sax. and Eng. have various ways to express the notion “kill”; some of them may ascend to a yet unexplored “Old Europe” Sprachbunds of the pre-“IE”, pre-Celtic, pre-Gmc. families. For example, Herodotus IV. 110, in the compound eorpata - those who are striking their husbands (Türk. er “man, husband”, Cf. Gmc. Herr) noted a Scythian pata- (v.) “strike, kill”. A Sum. badd is an oldest record for an Eng. bat (v., n.) ascending to a 4th mill. BC, see bat, pat. A “gore” is a truly Eurasian word, extending from Scotland to Japan, see gore. With the Sum. gil “kill”, the precise semantics makes a random coincidence unlikely, whilst its origin ascends to a Türkic stem qïl- “make, do”. That echoes the Eng. inexplicable idiom “do (him) in” for the verb “kill”, using the qïl- “do” for “do” would make the idiom to ring “qïl (him) in”, a striking incidence. The Sum. form ascends to the 4th mill. BC, Sum. is unrelated to the “IE” family, that brings the origin of the term kill via allophones gil and öl- way beyond the width and depth of the extant “IE” etymology. See bat, battle, do, gore, hall, Herr, mist, pat.

3.126
laugh (v., n.) “guffaw” (Sw N/A, F1337 0.01%) ~ Türkic gül-, kül-, kӧlü-, wül- (v., n.) “laugh, laugh at, smile”. An “IE etymology” has fair reasons to it blunder, q.v. Ultimately fr. two complementing forms, gül- and küle-, both “laugh”, but gül- a gentle “smile, grin”, and küle- a loud “cachinnate”, apparently fr. a same root. Gül- conveys a cache of ca. 14 meanings in 5 semantic clusters, küle- – a cache of ca. 9 meanings in 2 semantic clusters. Internalization's mechanics is fairly transparent. Versions internalized by Gmc. relay anlaut consonant g-, k- as h or Ø, elide anlaut -ü-, retain -l- as a root, and may append an areal morphological modifier or an echo of a guffaw, Cf. hla-, le, la-, lau-. An Old Europe Sl. group predominates in Europe. Of 44 European languages a Sl. group sme- leads with 12 (27%) languages, followed by a Gmc.-Türkic group kel-, l- and a Romance group ri- with 9 (20%) languages each. The remaining 14 European languages use 12 versions of their own native words. There is no common or overlapping European “laugh”; each main grouping stands proudly discrete. The “laugh”, shared in Europe exclusively by Gmc. and Türkic languages, is traceably an inheritance of an old Türkic “guest”.Cognates: A.-Sax. gliwung “laughter” (< gül-), ahliehhan, hilehhan, hlagol, hliehhan, ceahhetan “laugh” (< kül-, gül-), hlæhh, leah, cahhetan, ceahhetan “laugh”, hleahter, hleahtor, hleahtorsmið, cineung “laughter” (< gül-), hleahterlic, hleahtor, leahtorbere “laughable” (< gül-), hleahtrian, behlyhhan, bilaugh “deride” (< gül-), OSax. hlahhian, OFris. hlakkia, Fris. laitsje, Faroese latur, Dan. le, MDu., Du., OHG hlahhan, Afrikaans lag, Gmn. lachen, Luxemb. laachen, ONorse hlæja, Norw. latter, Goth. hlahjan, Icl. hlatur, Yid. gelekhter (געלעכטער), lakhn (לאַכן); Ir., Scots gaire (l ↔ r), Scots (> lauch); OGk. gelos (γελως); Lith. klageti “cackle”; Arm. cicał (ծիծաղ); Georgian sicili (სიცილი); Javanese guyu; Malay gelakall; all “laugh” unless noted otherwise. Nearly all cognates retained -l- as an anchor. Erroneously suggested as cognates the Eng. cackle, OHG kachazzen, Lat. cachinnare, Skt. kakhati, OCS chochotati (хохотати), Gk. kakhazein, Arm. karkach (կարկաչ). They are allophones of an attested Türkic kakı:la:-, kakı: “cackle, cachinnate”, which is stronger than laugh, see cackle. Distribution: is consistent with other English Turkisms, across Eurasian Steppe Belt plus NW European fringes, and unexpected Javanese and Malay cognates. The last two may represent stray migrant waves split fr. the bulk of the Y-DNA Hg. NOP migrant waves that are believed to move across Asia on their way toward Siberia and a downstream Y-DNA Hg. R. No “IE” cognates, positively no connection to the “IE” family. The “PG proto-word reconstruction” *hlahjana is a mechanically assembled nonsensical faux “proto-word” divorced from etymology, history, and demography. The same with “of imitative origin” a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *klakhjan, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *hlahhjan, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *hlahjana, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *kleg-, presumably all “laugh”. A poverty of perception and intellectual myopia are of abusive proportions. That nonsense has to be gently disposed of. The Eng. laugh is a shift of the allophonic hlæ- of the ancestral ül-, kül- toward A.-Sax. hlæ(hhan), hlie(hhan), hli(hhan). The root is combined with a Türkic infinite suffix -an, or with native modifiers -hlyhh-, hlag-, hlað-, lað-, leahtor- (hleahtor-) or/and with elided anlaut h- (Tr. g-/gü-), softened inlaut -hh-/-g-, also transcribed -h-, and shed conjugational suffixes. The vowel transcription -æ-, -ie-, -y- corresponds but not necessarily reflects the CT rounded -ü- or an -e- of the Caspian basin languages. Both the h- and l- forms are recorded for the A.-Sax. That attests to elision commenced on the continent, either during or before an amalgamation of the Anglian and Saxon, within the Saxon, Sekler, Scythian vernaculars, or at the conflation of the future Scythian, Sarmatian, and the Corded Ware vernaculars. Of the five Türkic terms related to laugh, four were paradigmatically transferred to Eng.: gül- as hlæ- > laugh and hilarious; kakı:la:- as cackle, cachinnation, gag; and the jer- as jeer, the elük as joke. These four Türkic words complemented and supplanted the corresponding native European lexicon that came as a part of the A.-Sax. language but faded with time. The paradigmatic transfer of the Türkic quartet testifies to the common genetic origin from a Türkic phylum. See cackle, hilarious, jeer, joke.

3.127
lie (v.) “deceit”, liar (n.) “deceiver” (Sw N/A, F596 0.04%) ~ Türkic yalan, yalgan (yalɣan, yalğan) (adj., n.) “deceitful, false, deception, lie/lies”. An “IE etymology” rates it as “a word of uncertain etymology”, with some added spice, q.v. Ultimately fr. a verb yala:- “suspicion, incriminate” fr. a stem yal “ignite, heat up, flair up”, a derivative of a verb ya:- “ignite shine, flame” which produced the “IE” ignate (see ignite ) and its passive form yal- “blazed, burned, shined”. Gmc. incl. Eng. have retained an elided stem lag- with a deverbal adj. suffix -ɣ-/-g- “lying”; in the Gmc. internalizations the frontal ya- was elided, Cf. gül-, kül- > hl-, Øl- in “laugh”, q.v. A breakdown of the European lexicons shows that for a long initial period European peoples were honest: they did not have a word for “lie”, and learned it quite late from an invader “guest”. Of 44 European languages a group lg- (~ lie, Türkic, Gmc., Sl.) leads with 20 (45%) languages, followed by a Romance group mVn- with 8 (18%) languages. The remaining 16 European languages use 11 versions of their own native words. There is no common native European “lie”; each group stands proudly discrete. The breakdown clearly demonstrates a “guest” status of the word. Cognates: A.-Sax. leogere “liar, false witness”, OFris. liaga, OSax. luggi “lie”, OSax., OHG liogan, lugi, lugin “lie”, Gmn. lüge “lie”, ONorse ljuga, Dan. lyve, løgn, Goth. liugan, Gmn. lugi, lüge, liogan, lügen; Ir. log-, logaissi “mendacious”, fol-lugaim “I hide, conceal” (Tr. suff. -im “me”); Sl. yala (яла) “punish”, lgat (лгать) “lie”, OCS lugati “lie”, Rus. lgat, lož, laža (лгать, ложь, лажа) “lie”, Bolg. laža (лъжа) “lie”; Lith. luginaite “traitorous”; Mong. žali “deceit”, zalga:, zalgas “false (braid)”; all “lie” unless noted otherwise; the word yalɣan was directly borrowed into Mari, Lezgin, and Balkan languages (EDTL v.4 91). Distribution: spans Eurasia from Atlantic to the Far East, crossing linguistic borders adjacent to the Eurasian Steppe Belt. An “IE etymology” first defines the “lie” as “a word of uncertain etymology”, i.e. a myopic but reasonable “we do not have a clue”. Then, it commences unreasonable: a faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *leuganan, and *lugiz “lie, falsehood”, and an apotheosic faux “PIE proto-form” *lewgʰ- “tell lies, swear, complain”, a steep jump fr. a “no clue” to assertive faux “PIE proto-word”. That kind of nonsense needs a gentle excision. The Eng. nominal liar is an echo of a simple yalan, yalgan “lying” or of an adjectival paired compound yalɣan ar “lying man”. The Gmc. forms are fairly uniform, attesting to a stable Sprachbund of the Corded Ware period societies. No “IE” parallels, the “IE” did not touch the word. Rating the word with a routine “a word of uncertain etymology”, etymological speculations did not strain too much besides few wild fantasies. The Turkological studies pursuing Altaistic models made good inroads on amalgamations. In the archaic Türkic culture, lying was among the greatest human vices, so the word had grave connotations. Vestiges of that attitude still survive in the British culture, to a much lesser degree in the American culture, and fairly well in the modern Türkic cultures. That trait stands in sharp contrast with the Near Eastern – Mediterranean cultural heritage and its syblings. See ignite, laugh.

3.128
lull (v., n.) “hush to sleep, hum a lullaby” ~ Türkic ulï- (v.) with some variations (-a-/-u-) “wail, moan, bellow, sing drawly”. An “IE etymology” rates it as “probably imitative” and “from la-la-la”, and abstains fr. any “IE” claims, q.v. Ultimately fr. a root u:-, uw- + denoun verbal suff. -la > ul-, u:lï-, ulï-, ula-, uluj-. Elision of an initial vowel is an areal routine. The lull is connected with lullaby and is a cognate of ululate, a derivative form of ulï-. Of 44 European languages, 10 (23%) use Sl. -tiš-, 7 (16%) use Romance calm-, and a motley group lul- numbers 6 (14%) languages. The other 20 languages use their own 17 native words. An Old Europe Sl. predominates; there is no common “Pan-European” term in Europe. The motley “lull” is a “guest” in Europe. Cognates: Friz. lulk “lull”, MDu. lollen “mutter” (but lullen “cheat”), Dan. lulle “lull, sing to sleep”, Sw. lulla “lull, hum a lullaby”, OE, Gmn. lullen, lollen “hush to sleep, rock”, Gmn. lullen “lull”, Icl. lulla “lull”; Ir. lull (native canadh, caoineadh), Scots lul, lule, loll “lull, put to sleep, howl” (native taladh); Sl. lulukat, lyalyat, lyalya (люлюкать, лялять, ляля) “lull”; Lat. ululare “howl”, ulula “owl”; Fin. laulaa “sing, chant”, Est. häll “lull”; Skt. lolati “rock”; Mong. uli-, ulih- “howl (dog, wolf)”; Hiligaynon (Philippines) lala “lullaby”; all “lull” except noted otherwise. Distribution: spans Eurasia from Atlantic to the Far East across linguistic borders adjacent to the Eurasian Steppe Belt, with a surprise finger at Philippines. Atypically, the “IE etymology” modestly does not claim an “IE” origin, suggesting instead a “probably imitative” reverse engineering fr. a “lu-lu sound used to lull a child to sleep”, with a cart ahead of the horse. Such approach is unproductive, an intentionally myopic horizon is self-deprecating. A difference between ulï-, ula-, uluj- and la-la-la is that one is attested and functional, and the other is a scholastic chimera. A “quiet period” is a late Eng. semantic innovation. See ululate, howl.

3.129
make (v., n.) “produce, create, form” (Sw N/A, F106, Σ0.32%) ~ Türkic -mak (-mek, -mək, -maq, -mäk) “make” (v.), deverbal noun suffix (or postposition; a difference is purely conventional) that makes a transition verb→ noun. An “IE etymology” claimed quite a few solutions on a level fr. “perhaps” to daring and funny, q.v. In Türkic, any stem with a suffix -mak becomes a deverbal noun: verb-mak → noun-make, like abmak “hunt-make”, akmak “white-make” (~ “stream”). A deverbal noun modifier “do, make” follows a regular morphology of the language(s). It was also used to form archaic denominal nouns. To reinforce the concurrence, a form -madï, a match for the Eng. form made, is a version of the same suffix -mak. It forms non-finite negative participles of following tense, functionally it was retained in Eng., Cf. “made-up excuses” < “excuses-made”. In Eng., the suffix/postposition turned into a stand-alone action verb “make”. The Eng. mock “make an imitation, imitate” belongs to the same cluster. Of 44 European languages, 9 (20%) languages use Romance fa-, a Türkic-Gmc. group mak- uses 7 (16%) languages, and the other 28 languages use their own 18 native words. There is no common “Pan-European” term in Europe. The Türkic-Gmc. group is using an amalgamated Türkic “guest” word “mak”. An importance of the word in Eng. is beyond emphasis; ditto in Türkic: Clauson EDT cites me:k, ma:k 2,413 times. Cognates: A.-Sax. macian “make, form, construct, do, ...”, macung “making, doing”, macian up “put up”, OSax. makon “make”, OFris. makia “make, build”, Saterland Fris. moakje “make”, WFris. meitsje “make”, Dan. mage “make, arrange (in a certain way)”, MDu., Du. Low Saxon, Du. maken “make”, OHG mahhon “construct, make”, Gmn., LGmn. machen “make, do”; Goth. ana-mahtjan “make, do” (violence, injure, damage, revile) (but ga-skapjan “create, make”); Kor. -mida, functionally, morphologically, and as a postposition syntactically used analogous to the Türkic -mak “do, make”. Distribution: A Türkic historical spread across Eurasian Steppe Belt. A splinter of Gmc. languages furcated lexically its historical body by internalizing a Türkic suffix -mak “make” into a stand-alone word “make” (i.e. splinter “make” vs. Sw. göra, Norw. gjøre, Icl. gera). Myopically, the Gmc. etymology failed to properly appreciate that peculiar split. A Türkic derivative “make” can't have any “IE” cognates under any sauce: no cognates can exist on the native Gmc. side. An “IE etymology” optimistically raises “perhapses” to a level of certainty, claiming miracles upon miracles: a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *makon “make, build, work”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *mag- “knead, fashion, fit”, and a faux “PIE proto-form” *mehg- “knead, mix, make”. All that Gmc. uber-scholastics is pure nonsense, due to be gently rescinded together with other crackpot nonsense. Those are sited as a Lat. macero “apprentice”, macer “lean, skinny”, OGk. masso (μασσω) “mince”, OEng. gemaca “mate, equal, companion, peer” > MEng. make, imake, ȝemace “equal, companion, peer”, or a suggested agricultural tool name. A Scots mak “make” as a recent loanword fr. an Eng. lexicon is quite reasonable. There is a remote possibility of its origin ascending to a Celtic vernacular of 4th-5th mill. BC, prior to the Celtic circum-Mediterranean anabasis fr. the E. Europe to Iberia, albeit that conflicts with the attested Ir. dean, Scots deanamh “make”. A legacy of the forms “make”, “made”, “mock”, “do” etc. is an unambiguous case of a systemic paradigmatic transfer between the Türkic and Eng. and other Gmc. languages. The Eng. word probably ascends to Sarmatian, and the Korean word may be of Zhou origin, but probably of more local sources incl. Türkic. Thus the linguistic traces of the Türkic-speaking “Scythians” may come from the opposite ends of the Eurasian Steppe Belt. See do, mock, model.

3.130
mean (v., n., adj.) “intend, have in mind, denote” (~ “think”) (Sw N/A, F80 0.26%) ~ Türkic manï, maŋïz (n.) “meaning, sense, essence, idea, thought”. An “IE etymology” flooded the subject with “perhaps” things and spicy claims, q.v. The word is connected with a notion “brain”, Türkic meŋ “mind, brain”, Cf. ex, xe “brain” (native, European), braegen “brain” (< Türkic beñi:, beyin; beyini, beyni), see brain. The word comes in “a puzzling variety of forms” (Clauson EDT 348), four b- words and nine m- words are cited (beñi:, beyin, meŋ, miŋi, etc.). Attesting to a great historical time depth, dispersion of forms exceeds most of recorded, for example, for the A.-Sax. The word very well may have come to the Europe fr. Africa with the first out-of-Africa to Asia migrants 40 kybp. It went from the Red Sea to Iberia (Y-DNA Hg. I) and to a heart of Siberia (Y-DNA Hg. NOP > R) 20 kybp. The m- form is equivalent to a b- form (m/b alternation), it carries ethnologically diagnostic insights. Of 44 European languages, 10 (23%) languages use Türkic-Gmc. mani-, a Sl group zna- with 6 (14%) languages; the other 28 languages use forms of their own 19 native words. There is no common “Pan-European” term in Europe, a Türkic-based term predominates there. An abstract meaning of the word allows development of numerous derivatives in English and Türkic, each with a trail of its own derivatives, some present in both languages (e.g. mind ~ maŋ /ming/). Cognates: A.-Sax. mænan “intend”, OFris. mena “signify”, WFris. miene “deem, think”, OSax. menian “intend”, MDu., Du., Gmn. menen, meinen “think, suppose, mean, intend, opinion”, Goth. mаn, munan “think, suppose, recall”; OPruss. minisnan “memory”; OIr. mian “wish, desire”, Welsh mwyn “enjoyment”; OCS meniti “think, suppose, opinion”, Bolg. mlya, mnya (мля, мня) “think, suppose, opinion”, Sloven. mneti, mnim “think”, Cz. mneti “mean”, Pol. pomniec “remember”; Lith. mineti, menu, miniu “recall, mention”, Latv. minet, minetu “mention”; Lat. memini “recall”, mens, mentis “mind, thought”; Gk. μῆνιγξ (meninx) “brain membrane”, μέμονα “remember”; Pers. maɣž “brain; marrow”, “mind, wits”; Skt. manyate, manute “thinks, remembers”, Av. mainyete “thinks, believes”, memini “recall”; Mong. oüun, uhaan, gəsən “mind, say”; all “mean” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Eurasia-wide; nowadays its siblings are international words due to shared medical and trade terminology. The myopic “IE etymology” indulges into geographically and historically-curtailed inventions devoid of etymology: a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *menjojanan “mean?” and a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *mainijan “mean?” and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *mainijana “mean, think, complain”, derived fr. a faux “PIE proto-form” *meino- “opinion, intent” and a faux “PIE proto-form” *meyn- “think”, or “perhaps” fr. a faux “PIE proto-form” *meyno-, *meino- “opinion, intent”, an “extended form” of a faux “PIE proto-form” *mey- “mean?”. In addition, some “authoritative” studies, especially older Rus. and Gmc., turn things upside down, against all evidence ascribing origination to Pers. (Cf. Doerfer BD 4, 35, 1751 majna). All that kindergarten nonsense needs to be gently retired. Both related notions, the “mind” and the “brain”, have no credible “IE” nor Eng. etymology. Besides a dozen of m-/b-/h- forms ascending to the Türkic m-/b- (incl. Celtic), Europeans have 3 a- forms (Uralic), 8 cereb-, 1 kef- (Gk.), 1 tr-. A homophonic mean “average, middle” is unrelated to the mean “idea”, it is a derivative of a notion “community”, Cf. A.-Sax. maennes “community”. See brain, mind.

3.131
mock (v.) “imitate, jeer” ~ Türkic maq, -mäk (adv.) “together”. An “IE etymology” asserts “a word of unknown origin” and then paints its own desires, q.v. Ultimately fr. a Türkic suff. -maq “together”, with various elements of similarity: namesake, cooperation, connection, reciprocity, joining, etc. The Eng. “mock” addresses just one faucet of the Türkic-Eng. “mock” complex, an uncouth mirror image of an original subject. The explicitly attested Türkic applications of maq are: adašmaq, atašmaq, and oyna-š-maq: ada-š-maq, ata-š-maq < ad, at “name” + -š- suff. “cooperative, reciprocity” +-maq (adv.) “together” > “reciprocal namesakes altogether”; “play- cooperative, reciprocity- together” > “joint cooperative play”. In the A.-Sax. vernacular, the word had already simplified from an amalgamated morphology to a stand-alone part of a speech denoting similarity or connection. The Eng. “mock” opposes two sides of a subject, while the Türkic -maq highlights different aspects of similarity. Of 44 European languages, the Türkic-Eng. group mag- leads with 6 (14%) languages; a remaining spread of 38 languages use forms of their own 27 native words. There is no common “Pan-European” term, the Türkic-based oddball term hulks in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. maec “companionable, similar, equal”, maca, (ge)maecca “one of a pair, comrade, companion”, macian “make, form, construct, do” (presumably fr. a same root, see make); Ir., Scots magadh “similar, equal”; Luxemb. mock “derisive imitation”; OFr. mocquer, moquier, “deride, jeer”; Maltese mock ditto; all “mock, deride, jeer” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Eurasia-wide as a suff.; NW Europe areal verb. The word fell a victim of an “IE” ingenuity in a series of “probably” guesses and direct falsification. There is a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *mokkijan, *mukkijan “bellow, low, mumble”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *mukkijana, *muhana “bellow, low, shout”, and a faux “PIE proto-word” *mug-, *muk- “mumble, low”.What all these bellowing sounds have to do with humans mocking each other is a scholary etymologist's undisclosed secret. The “ultimately imitative origin”, “probably's”, bellowings, “mope”, “murmur”, “kiss”, VLat. *muccare “blow nose”, Lat. “mucus”, “mumble” and any other parochial nonsense needs to be delicately and completely rescinded. Against a backdrop of the European “IE” gross nonsense, the nature and detail of the Türkic etymology raises like a light of a dawn, dissipating the darkness and illuminating the whole neighborhood as a sentence and as a word. A Türkic origin is irrefutable. See do, jeer, make, model.

3.132
model (v., n., adj.) “imitation, representation, likeness made to scale” ~ Türkic met, bet, bit, meŋiz (m ↔ b) “face, look, form”. An “IE etymology” asserts an origin fr. a Lat. modulus, with a dubious turn, q.v. Ultimately fr. an archaic bit, bet “face”, Cf. facade. The notion “face” heads 4 literal and 5 metaphorical semantic clusters, from “face” to “surface” and from “cheek” to “layer”, a total of 25+ sememes. After an oldest “face”, all meanings are derivative extensions. Selective internalizations are to satisfy immediate needs, starting usually fr. a header notion, in this case with met. A Türkic-based term hulks in Europe, the word is quite popular: of 44 European languages, versions of “model” are used by 39 (89%) languages, leaving only 5 (11%) languages to their own devices. The number even exceeds a 23 (52%) European languages popularity for such a recent and hot word as a “computer”. That demonstrates that some innovations were so badly needed that they internalized on arrival, at least by the artisan crafts. In the Europe, the newbie spread like a wildfire. The Türkic word is a de-facto “Pan-European” term; as a trade term denoting “a model” it could go as far as a trade spreads. Cognates: VLat. modulus, modus “small measure, standard, manner, measure”, modus “manner, measure”, Fr. modelle (16c.), modele “model”, It. modello “model, mold”; Gmn., Sw. modell, Du., Dan. model, Icl. (fyrir)mynd “model”; Nenets, Ostyak mitte, mitt “similar, identical”; Mong. (Kalm.) bütü, bötö, betǝ, metǝ, mötö “as, like (smth.), alike, similar” (~ Tr. metü, betü “similar”, bet “face, exterior, appearance”), Bur. metü (~ Tr. bet, q.v.); Tung., Gold. matu “as, like, alike, similar”; Uzb. bet-kəy > küngey, küngӧy “face turned towards Sun”; all “model” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Initially Eurasian Türkic Steppe Belt; nowadays scattered around the globe, Cf. Ch. moudakji, motelu, mato, moter, botekji, botekli, etc., etc. An “IE etymology” asserts an origin fr. a VLat., i.e. 3rd - 6th cc. AD timeframe. That is millenniums younger than the notion met, bet “look, form” at the root of the word. A nescient turn to a faux “PIE proto-root” *med- “take appropriate measures” is absurd. That unattested *med is not a model, i.e. “representation on a small scale”, nor a model is an “appropriate measures”. A model is a copy, a working imitation at some scale of a target object. The working copies were frequently etched on a floor of an object to guide the generations who would continue the work of the previous generations, be it a certain design, a mosaic mural, or a structure in progress. The unattested “proto-root” does not hold water. The evolution is the same as for the word “derrick”, a log hoist frame named after tree logs, see derrick. The pair “face, look, form” and “derrick” present a case of paradigmatic transfer from a Türkic milieu. See derrick, do, make, mock.

3.133
mount (v., n.) “climb atop, mounted horse-riding” ~ Türkic men-, min-, mün- “ascend, climb on, mount, ride (a horse)”. An “IE etymology” asserts an origin fr. a Latin mons “mountain”, an inverted idea, with a bogus “IE” meddling, q.v. Ultimately fr. a version of a root men- etc. “ascend, climb”. The verbal root carries 7 semantic clusters expressing 13 concepts, fr. a “mount, mount a horse” to a metaph. “take one or another action”. All derivative meanings ascend to a core meaning “ride (a horse)”. Evolution went toward greater semantic abstraction: riding animal was replaced by a vehicle in general; the ascent (v.) and its object (n.) were routinized, Cf. “mountain” (EDTL v. 7, 66 ). An idiom tutu:pan minmi:š “caught and mounted (horse)” reflects a pre-domestication time ca. 6th mill. BC when riding was a prize of a hunt (Clauson EDT 348). An idiomatic mingǝš > miŋǝš, ~ biŋǝš packs an entire sentence: “mount in tandem astride a horse”, with a newer “ride in a vehicle (bicycle, etc.) together” (-g- suff. noun, adj., -ǝš - suff. denoting cooperation, reciprocity). The verb min-, bin- joined other synonyms for a “rise”. A Türkic term dominates Europe: of 44 European languages, versions of “mount” are used by 31 (70%) languages; only 12 words in 13 (30%) languages are left to their own devices. Domination even exceeds a 23 (52%) popularity of such a hot and recent word as a “computer”. The Eng. and Fr. form moun- probably attempts to convey the rounded -ü- in mün-; that would allow to trace the form to particular tribes and dialects. Clauson EDT cites the form mün- “mount, ride a horse” in Uigur, Kirgiz, and Khakass languages. The causative/passive (trans.)/active (intrans.) suffix -t is also carried to Eng.; from transitive verbal base mün- it forms the word münt that serves as causative and passive verb “mount” and a noun “mount” (Cf. port). In some “IE” languages (Cf. Sl., Av.) -t is used as a marker of infinitive. Cognates: A.-Sax. mont, munt “mountain”, muntaelfen “mountain–nymph”, muntelyse “mountain prison”, muntland “hill-country”, neahmunt “neighbouring mountain”; OFr. monter “ascend, mount”, Lat. mons “mountain”, Rum. biniš, binišel “races, mantle”, binmek “riding”, biniği “rider”; binigiü “stable hand”; NGk. bintxis (μπιντξης) “rider”; Bulg., Bolg. bineg “horse, racer”, binija “races”, bined ija “best horseman, rider”, biniš “cape, mantle”; Serb. binjek, binjak “charger”, binjed ija “horseman, rider”, binjektas, binjek kamen “(stepping) stone”, binija “doorjamb”; Alb. biniš “wide clothing, cape”; Fin. mennä- “go”; Mong. moriton “rider”; Sino-Kor. > Kor. meida, mеda “carry on a shoulder” (Doerfer BD IV, 1750, p. 35); all “mount” except as noted. Distribution: Eurasian-wide, fr. Atlantic to Pacific; predominant in Europe. A common “IE” stem for “mountain” is hor-/gor- with no connection to the notions of climbing, climbing on, mounting, or riding (a horse). Thus it plainly is a non-“IE” “guest” word. A brief of later historical attestations, i.e. the “IE etymology's” listing of the early Lat. and V.Lat. forms, does not lead to a source. A bogus “PIE proto-root” *men- (v.) “project” suggested as a tenable source is unsustainable. It merely parrots a base semantics of the attested men-, min- “ascend, climb” that heads the notions “mount, ride (a horse)” and on to the “mount, mountain”, see mountain, port. The Türkic, the Gmc. Eng., and the Romance Fr. and Lat. carry these notions, plus peculiar innovations of “mountain” and “montage”, derivatives of mounting, climbing and climbing on. The perfect phonetic and semantic match, attested cognates, and a status of a non-“IE” origin leave no doubts of a Türkic origin. Curiously, although the mounted nomads were settling in Europe since a 5th mill. BC, and throughout the historical period amalgamated with numerous W. European people, the term mount for mounted riding is supposedly recorded only in the 12th century. That OED dating is incredible: an earliest direct evidence for a horseback riding in central Europe is dated by 3,000 BC. See montage, mountain, port.

3.134
munch (v.) “eat, bite, chew” ~ Türkic meŋ “food, fare (food and drink)”. An “IE etymology” suggests “imitative”, “perhaps”, and “probably imitative” levels for origins, q.v. Ultimately, the word meŋ (b- counterpart beŋ) ascends to a word aŋ, eŋ denoting wild game and food. Dialectal adaptations have slightly different phonetics and meanings. Its hunting semantics and a variety of -aŋ-/-eŋ- words attest to its primeval origins. A paired tautologic compound of two synonyms eŋ meŋ (idiom) “food food” is of a typical Türkic style. Related to food and consonant with meŋ, the European terms are connected genetically and can't be Lat. loan-words. The Eng. food- and drink-related lexicon is nearly entirely native non-IE, with separate vocabularies connected with supplies (meat etc.) and with consumption. Consumption is centered around words of child rearing, like “suckle, bite, chew”. That points to local females in the households of migrant males speaking versions of Türkic vernaculars. In European lingoes the Türkic meŋ dominates: of 44 European languages, versions of meŋ are used by 23 (52%) languages, followed by Sl. žev- with 7 (16%) languages. The remaining 14 languages use 12 of their native words. A Türkic “guest” is a “Pan-European” term in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. mocchen “munch”, Eng. munch “chew”, Gmn. mampfen, mummeln “munch”, Goth. ga-matjan “eat, feed”; Ir. manduch “munch”, Scots manducaich ditto, Welsh manduciaeth ditto; Lat. mand(ucare), It. mang(iare), OFr. mangier “eat, bite”, Fr. manger, machez, Rum. manca; Fr. phrase menu de repas “menu”, lit. “food to serve”; Arm. muyk (uույք) “eat”; Mong. (Kalm.) meŋ “bait, lure”; all “munch” except as noted. Distribution: a skimpy record provides two opposing points, Turkic and Sakha, i.e. fr. the eastern and central Europe to the far-flung eastern Sakha, with local extensions fr. Mediterranean to Albion and on to nearby environs; a predominant term in Europe. A myopic “IE etymology” on its horizon reaches as deep as a Lat. Via layered “perhaps” and “probably” it suggests a murky “imitative” origin, but to its credit does not assert any unattestable “reconstructions”. Inconceivably, the “IE etymology” links a menu with a Lat. “diminish”. Given the attested Türkic lexemes and sentence idioms, plus a continental-scale distribution, a Türkic origin is impeccable. It is also corroborated by a simultaneous presence of the meŋ “food” in the Romance Lat. and the Gmc. A.-Sax.: the A.-Sax. blend, and the Romance languages do not share their vocabularies and locations; their common lexemes come from a shared “guest” sources. A systemic absence of some basic Turkisms in the A.-Sax. Eng. on the background of their systemic presence in the Romance languages and later Eng., attests to independent influences at different time periods. See menu.

3.135
ogle (v.) “look at, peer, stare”, ogler (n.) “looker”, agaze (adj.) “staring” ~ Türkic uk-, ög- (v.) “eye, penetrate, perceive”. An “IE etymology” is myopically unable to connect a Türkic ög- “eye” and Du. oog “eye”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a Türkic verb ö:- “think, reflect, delve, understand” ~ Eng. awe: same phonetics, exaggerated perception, insight, visualization. First nominal derivatives of ö- are formed with deverbal suffixes -g, -k, -z, -ge or dialectal -n, -ŋ for a name, instrument, or means of action. The ög, uk is a deverbal noun derivative “thought, mind, memory, meditation, reflection, intelligence, expectation”, Cf. ögä “wise (adj.), wise man”, metaphorically a visionary with perception, visualization, insight, Cf. Aga Sophia “Wise Sophia”. Perception comes in two aspects, a visual perception through the senses, and a mental perception. A notion “desire to see (each other)” is a desiderative verbal derivative ögse formed with suffix se-/sa-. The term is purely abstract. Ultimately, the Türkic-Gmc. verbal ög- and the “IE” ok- is the same stem, distributed nearly equally to form grammatical forms for perceptive vision. Of 44 European languages, the Türkic-Eng. group ög-, uk- leads with 32 (73%) languages; a remaining spread of 12 languages use forms of their own 12 native words. The Türkic-based term looms in Europe, otherwise there is no common “Pan-European” term there. The Türkic-based term assimilated into 3/4 of the European languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. ege (Mercian), eage (WSax.), OSax. aga, OFris. age, ONorse auga, Goth. augo, Sw. öga, Dan. øie, MDu. oghe, Du. oog, ogen “eye, look at”, OHG ouga, LGmn. oege, oegen “eye, look at”, Gmn. auge, all “eye”; Ir. feach, Welsh lygad, Gael. suil; Balto-Sl. (OCS) oko, oglyad-, oglyan- (око, огляд-, оглян-), (Lith.) akis, (Latv.) сs, OPrus. ackis; Lat. oculus; Gk. okkos “eye”, opsis “sight”; Skt. akshi, Hindi aankh; Agnean ak, Kuchean ek; Arm. akn, all “eye” except as noted. The Eng. ogle, Dan. øgle, Norw. øgle use the Türkic derivative ögl formed with an adjectival suffix -l “agaze, staring (glance, man)”. Ditto Sw. ögon(flirta), Du. ogen, LGmn. oegen with frequentative (oeg)len. Distribution: cited fr. Turkish to Sakha; a major spread in Europe at 3/4 of a full variety of the European languages; direct borrowing to the Eng. awe < A.-Sax. aege, oga, oht, ege. There can't be a better evidence than the Eng. awe. Distribution tends to point to a western, versus an eastern, provenance of the word. Areal semantic shades and articulations are spread across entire Eurasia. A blend of many dozens Türkic languages with other linguistic groups created a rainbow of applications. The myopic “IE etymology” parrots the Türkic terms.  and on a level of “probably” invents some clones: a bogus “PGmc. proto-form” *augon- “see” and a faux “PIE proto-root” *okw- “see” “from oge “eye”” adding nil to the etymology of the word. The cheerful enterprising is not needed, it falsifies and masks a real historical development. Pretentions of the homegrown patriots lack a standing. They needs to be brought back to reality. The Eng. eye closely follows the Dan. øie: øie > øye > eye, a form of øğe; (ğ may be articulated silently). Nearly all Gmc. forms retained a tint of a rounded ö in the Türkic ög-, attesting to direct genetic connection. A morphological -l points to the same. In a Nostratic romance the ög- would be a classical Nostratic stem. The forms were inherited via numerous independent paths, creating a spectrum of diverse allophones. Gmc. allophones are notably closer to the Türkic version than to the Slavic-Balt.-Skt.-Gr.-Arm.-Hindi (Hindi, Agni, Kucha) forms. A paradigmatic transfer of an allophonic quad ogle, awe, eye, gaze of the Türkic ögl-, ö, ög-, göz respectively profoundly attests to a genetic origin from the Türkic Kurganians' milieu. See awe, eye, gaze.

3.136
ooze (v., n.) “leak, trickle” ~ Türkic azı:-, ӧz-, üzi:- (v., n.) “flow, ooze, leak, seep”; ӧzüg lit. “oozing”, “any place that produces springs from the earth”, ӧzük “irrigation channels”; ӧzek “small creeks”, Khazar ימג (yüz.g) “river”; Ottoman Özi, Özü name for river “Dnieper”. A base notion of the verb is “flow”, fr. a noun “river, channel”. An “IE etymology” is incomprehensible, q.v. Ultimately fr. a Türkic ӧz- “ooze”. Of 44 European languages, the Türkic-Eng. group ӧz-, ooze- leads with 10 (23%) languages; a remaining pack of 34 languages uses forms of their own 24 native words. The Türkic-based term modestly leads. Other than Türkic, there is no common “Pan-European” term in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. wosan (wos-an, wes-an) (v.) “leak”, wos (n.) “juice, sap”, wesc, waesc “ablution, washing”, wesan “soak, macerate”, Fris. ooze “ooze”, Dan. oser “ooze”, ӧs “lake”, OSw. os, oos “ooze”, Norw. oser “ooze”, Icl. eysa “ooze”, OHG wazzar “water”, wasal “rain”, MLG wose (n.) scum”, Gmn. wasser “water”, OPruss. аssаrаn “lake”, Yid. uziz (וזיז) “ooze”; Ir. uisce “ooze”, Scots uisg “ooze” (but Welsh diferu), Gael. uisge “water”; OCS. ozero (озеро) “lake”, Rus., Bolg., Ukr. ditto, Slvt. jazero, Bosn., Croat., Cz., Sloven., Serb. jezero, Pol. jezioro, Blr. vozera (возера), Maced. езеро “lake”; Lith. ežeras, Latv. ezers; Fin. järvi, Est. järv; Skt. vasa (वसा) “fat”; Hu. özön “stream”; Mong. goojikh (гоожих) “ooze”; all “ooze” or “lake” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: extends along the Steppe Belt across Eurasia incl. Far East; spread across linguistic barriers; heavy in Europe due to Gmc., Celtic, Sl. A prosthetic initial w-/f- is typical for Gmc. and Eng. Turkisms, Cf. wael vs. ӧl “death”, see kill. The “IE etymology” in a disjointed circular logics suggests nothing better than unattested faux “PIE proto-words” *weis- “flow” or *woseh2 “sap”, with no cognates outside of Gmc., and thus a non-PIE by definition. What unites the Türkic and Gmc. splits the “IE” paradigm. That kind of enterprising besmirches the objective. The ligature wae-, wea-, we-, and corresponding Khazar yü-, are probably attempts to render -ö- with means of the Roman or Hebrew alphabets. That makes a root wes- a phonetic equivalent of the form öz. A Khakass phrase küp azi:di: is identical to its Eng. form cup oozing; similar infinitive azı:ma:k “ooze” is reflected in Eng. as lit. make (to) ooze. The Eng. tends to regularly echo Khakass peculiarities. The phonetics and the range of notions are matching. The verb ӧz- has produced derivatives like ӧzük “small lake”, a precursor of Sl. ozero/езеро (озеро) “lake”, a distant cognate of ooze, and the Gmc., OPrus., Lith., OCS, Gael., Gk., Hitt., Skt., etc. terms for “water”, with and without a prosthetic consonant. The form azı:- with its allophones clearly shows the origin of the terms for the moisture, water, and other derivatives. It traces the datable splits branching off the Celtic circum-Mediterranean route with a departure around 5th mill. BC, with the Anatolian Hittite and the Indo-Aryan branching off around 2nd mill. BC, and later Mediterranean, Northern European, and Balto-Slavic splits. Other terms connected with water also have Türkic stems: Lat. aqua, Pers. apa are derivatives of the Türkic verbal stem aq- “flow”; the Sl. tok (ток) “current” and potok (поток) “stream” are reflexes of the Türkic tök- “pour”. These semantic siblings with particular distribution patterns attest to a common genetic origin from a Türkic lexical millieu. See kill, water.

3.137
orate (v.), oration (n.) “talk” ~ Türkic orla:- (v.), orı: (n.) “shout, yell”. An “IE etymology” is curt, while it holds Lat. form as “a name of uncertain origin”, “we know it fr. Lat., hence the Lat. is a beginning and an end”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a Türkic or- “scream, roar, moo”. Orı: is a deverbal noun derivative of the verb ö:r- “rise, sprout”, thus orı: “shout, yell” is a metaphoric noun derivative with a lit. meaning of “rise, stand out”. Among numerous other meanings, the base lexeme ö:r- is best known as a derivative ortho- (orthodox, orthodontic, orthogonal, etc.). A bifurcated semantics reflects both notions, “stand out” and “be loud”, with numerous derivatives and semantic extensions. Derivatives attests to an archaic origin with a range of forms: orɣu-, orɣul-, ogur-, oqla-, etc., with a widest articulations. A switch from rounded -ö- to unrounded -o- is consistent with a practice of producing converse or complimentary notions with phonetically close morphemes. A suff. -g/-ɣ forms deverbal nouns, a suff. -la forms denoun verbs. Of 44 European languages, the Türkic root ö:r- overwhelms with 32 (73%) languages. The remaining 12 languages use 8 forms of their own native words. The Türkic forms are a de-facto common “Pan-European” lexis in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. orgnian (v.) “sing”, organa, organe “musical instrument”, orgyte “well known, manifest”, orgel “pride”, orgel(word) “arrogant speech”, etc; Ir. oraidi “orator”, Welsh areithiwr ditto; OFr. oraisun “musing”; Lat. oro, orare “speak”, oratio “speech; Sl. orat (орать) “shout, cry” (typ. for Sl.); a series with elided anlaut o-: Fris., Du. redenaar “orator”, Icl. ræðumaður, ditto,  Gmn. redner, ditto, Yid. redner (רעדנער), ditto; Gk. ritoras (ρήτορας), ditto; Mong. yarih (ярих) “speak”; Tk. or- “shout, yell”. Distribution: is typical for Turkisms, a Eurasian Steppe Belt plus fringe appendages crossing linguistic barriers. Distribution is typical for the “guest” lexemes: a needful expression is spread as a forest fire across linguistic barriers. A myopic “IE etymology” crows a Lat. oro and is shamelessly blind to a Türkic orla:-, orı: that precedes Lat. by millenniums. This compendium cites ca. 1300+ of the Lat. cognates of a Türkic origin. Another 300+ known cognates are left out. In other words, about 1700 Lat. lexemes are shared between the two languages. That mass is substantial enough to propose the Lat. as one of a hundred branches of the Türkic linguistic family. A philological aspect is supported by a genetic testing of some Roman remains run into Y-DNA of R1a Hg. That attest that the remains ascend to a Siberian zone where the R1 split fr. the Hg. NOP ancestor. Initially insignificant tribe ca. 2nd c. BC managed to create in Europe a most powerful empire of those times; likewise ca. 3rd c. BC a most powerful empire of those times in the future China, and likewise ca. 210 BC a most powerful of those times the Hunnic empire in the Central Asia. The insignificant Roman tribe had managed to drug along in time and across Eurasia an eternal Türkic creational myth of a wolf and its sucklings. In time, the Roman echoes helped to build a myth of an “IE” linguistic unity and its majestic spread. The A.-Sax. inherited a full complement associated with the prime source or-, the Lat. and Sl. retained partial meanings. The Türkic derivatives tend to retain their affiliation with the verb, the European derivatives, aside from retention of the initial verb (orate, oro, orare, orat), lean to the nominal applications. The words arrogance (unduly stand out) and organ (musical instrument) are also derivatives of the A.-Sax. stem org-, with a noun/adj.-forming suffix -an. Both Lat. and Sl. forms employ the Türkic 3rd sg. verbal suffix -ti/-di, Cf. Tk. prototype orı:tı, Sl orati “shout, yell”. The role of the Türkic ö:r- for the western civilization can't be overvalued, it forms base concepts in philosophy and math, with religions proudly applying it to define their claimed true nature. See arrogant, ortho-.

3.138
ought (v.) “should, owe” (Sw N/A, F1542, 0.005%) ~ Türkic öde:-, ötä-, öte:- (v.) “perform, fulfill, settle, carry out an obligation, debt”, odlaмak (v.) “pay, pay up”. An “IE etymology” provides no etymology, only functional and grammatical details culminating in “probably” and “a misdivision of a nought”, q.v. Ultimately fr. öt- “pay” (articulated as “ought”). Semantics of both allophonic forms, the ought and öt-, is “what one has to do”; odlaмak with two denoun verbal suffixes -la and -mak shows a development stepped in time. Recorded Türkic forms are weighted towards religious obligations of the Islamic period. The A.-Sax. forms must be millenniums older and certainly more secular; both forms include a notion owe of paying debts and other obligations. Of 44 European languages, a Romance deb- leads with 7 (16%) languages, followed by a mostly Sl. treb- with 6 (14%) languages. The remaining 31 (70%) languages use 22 of their own native words. Of the two dominating languages, the Romance version comes as to have elided an anlaut o-: odeb- > deb- = debt. Then, the Romance forms also ascend to the Türkic öde:-, and the Türkic share is 7 + 2 = 9 (20%) of the European languages, i.e. it is a de-facto dominant entry. Cognates: A.-Sax. aught “ought”, nahte “ought not” (with ne), aehte, ahte, agan (< Tr. eden, öyen-) “owe”, ahte “at all, good, value”, ahtes “any account or value”, aht, eaht, awiht, aught “anything, something”, etc.; Goth. dulgs “debt” (but skula “owing, indebted, debtor, +guilty”), dails “portion, share”, daug “good for, profits”, dis-dailjan “share, divide”; Ir. dligim “owe, claim”, dligid “debt”; OCS dlg (длъгъ) “debt”, Sl. dluh, dlh, dɫug “debt”; OFr. dete “debt”; Lat. debitum “debt”; no references for Far Eastern languages; Skt. isvara (ईश्वर) “capable of, liable” phonetically does not fit öde:-, ought etc.; see owe. Distribution: Türkic Eurasian Steppe Belt, with considerable extensions across linguistic borders to Europe. The myopic “IE etymology” chews on the linguistic recriminations of the A.-Sax. forms as a best source. It is blind to the widespread öde:- but trumps up the unrelated isvara. The selective blindness is disgraceful. It does not appreciate that the A.-Sax. is an amalgamation of Gmc. (Anglo-) and Türkic (Saka, Saxon) languages. The analysis needs to be properly differentiated. Amalgamation probably ascends to a Corded Ware area and times, i.e. an extended period leading to the formation of the A.-Sax. entity. The paucity of the cognates points to a geographically local internalization. Of the Türkic öde:- these receptor vernaculars have retained a root -d-/-t- and -dl- with an adjectival suffix -l “owed”, probably a reflex of a demand request. Other suggested ideas, like a faux Lat. compound of de- “from” + habeo “I have” (*dehibeo “I have from”) are phonetically and semantically inconceivable for the notions “pay” and “debt”. Or a none at all for ought, not even a standard refrain “of unknown origin”, leaving it an etymological mystery. A Türkic areal form oye- was a proto-form for the Eng. cognate owe and derivative own complete with a reflexive suffix -n/in for “self”. Convincing phonetics and perfect semantics of the two forms owe and own attest to their allophonic origin. The A.-Sax. form aught transmits the initial rounded sound ö even better than the current spelling ought, it was conflated with the Türkic allophonic ot “useless (vegetation), weeds”, the A.-Sax. awiht, Eng. aught “little, nothing, something”. See aught, oath, owe.

3.139
pat (v., n.) “hit lightly” ~ Türkic bad(ar) “beat, strike” (v., n.). An “IE etymology” ignores A.-Sax. harbingers and fancies Gmc. and “IE” origins, q.v. Ultimately fr. a Türkic root bad “beat, strike”. A pata- (v.) “strike, kill” was explained by Herodotus IV. 110 as a Scythian word for “kill” in a compound eorpata - those who are striking their husbands (with Türk. er “man, husband”, Cf. Gmc. Herr.). The Türkic badar relays a sound of patting (light strike) too, Cf. Eng. patter. Hence both a verbal and a noun use, Cf. Clauson EDT, 308, entry čalk, the badar- (padar-) is translated with a verb “thumped”, “thumping”. Of 44 European languages, versions of the form pat- dominate with 26 (59%) languages across a range of linguistic borders, followed by a largely Gmc. motley group with 8 (18%) languages. The remaining 10 (23%) languages use 4 of their own native words. The Sum.-Türkic-Scythian-Kurgan lingo dominates in Europe with a function of a common “Pan-European” term. Cognates: A.-Sax. beot, baetan and (rarely) beoft “beat, strike”; Scyth. -pata “kill”; Khak. badar “footsteps (footstep beat)”, badar qïl “beat, punch” (Sum. qïl “kill”); Fris., Du., Luxemb. pat “hit lightly” (but Dan., Sw., Norw., Icl., Gmn. “klopfen”, Cf. Sl. hlopat (хлопать) “clap”); Alb. pat ditto; except as noted otherwise all “beat, strike”; there is no systemic correlation between the European languages and the notion “pat”; its appearance in any particular language is a chance matter. Distribution: Typical for Türkic languages, across the Steppe Belt with few extensions to Europe. Most of the European spread appear to be a modern bandwagon: languages have their distinct native synonyms. For such a basic word as a “pat”, “IE etymology” offers no credible cognates, and feebly concludes with uninspiring “perhaps originally imitative of the sound of patting”. An “IE etymology” fantasizes a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *plat- “strike, beat” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *blod-, *bled- ditto. That ignores the Herodotus' attestation, and uses “perhapses” for the attested facts. The notion of “thumped”, “thumping” is complimentary to the notion “beat, strike”. An intentionally myopic approach and the flights of fantasy are not rightful substitutes for attested material. The “Gmc.” plats with inlaut -l- appear to be reflexes of the old Sl. synonymous hlopat. Their acoustics and semantics are pretty close. That makes the invention of a faux “PIE word” *blod- etc. superfluous. A proximity of the thump and beat, strike is obvious without any “imitative”. A claimed Av. pada “heritage, offspring” is incompatible; so is the plaett, plaettan of a faux *plat-, *b(e)lad-, *b(e)led- “put, place, plant”. In reality, bat, beatt, and pat are allophones, cognates are more than abundant, see cognates for a synonymous bat (v.). The “strike” was first recorded a millennia earlier in the agglutinative Sum. eons before the English records of ca. 1400. A 5th century AD Isfahan Codex in Erevan with Hunnic grammar and a wordlist gives the Hunnic batten “push”, with a semantic shift by the Arm. translators. It is still in the ballpark, close to the semantics of the pat (v.). The words bat, pat, patter, beot constitute a paradigmatic transfer case from the Türkic to English. See bat, battle.

3.140
pour (v.) “spill, spurt, gush, spray (liquid)” ~ Türkic börk-, bürk-, pürk- (v.) “spurt, gush, pour down”, pür “pour, full, fill, fully”. An “IE etymology” rates the word as “of unknown origin”, q.v. The verb has 16+ recorded forms, attesting to its wide distribution and long history. A line-up of 16+ forms includes oddball forms büvkür-, büvkü-, and purka- that contain an unusual -r-/-v- alternation and an euphonic -a-, they may be traced as markers to shed more light on the historical paths. A prime form conveys a causative mood. An initial form bürkür- with a causative suff. -ür dropped the suff. (e.g. bürkür-, bürkü-, bürk-; pürkür-, pürkü-, pürk-); the suff. -k/-q forms deverbal nouns and adj. The elision is typical for western languages, it was noted by M. Kashgari for the languages of a Bulgar circle. Bulgars, in turn, are tentatively identified with the Sarmat circle that included the tribes of the Wendeln “Wonderers”, the Vandals, Goths, Burgunds, and other horse nomadic tribes of the Classical European period. The palatalization (b-/p-) is also typical for the Eastern European languages. These are mutually corroborating traits, consistent with the historical flow, linguistic records, and geography. Cognates: A.-Sax. byrelian “pour, serve with drink” (> MEng. birlen ditto, wapelian, wapolian “emit, pour forth”; Fris. pourr; Du. pouren “pour”; Welsh bwrw “rain, cast”; OFlander purer “pour out (liquid), sift (grain)”; OFr. (~Flanders) purer “pour out (water), sift (grain)”; Lat. pürk- “pour, spurt”, porrum “leek (~onion)”; Cors. pour; Luxemb. pour; some “pour” are likely recent acquisitions; no cognates in the Balto-Sl. (< Sl. ielej), and Sl. (liti) languages. Distribution: confined mostly to Türkic languages, with a limited spread in Europe. The “IE etymology” stipulation “of unknown origin” notwithstanding, the OTD-recorded Türkic form pür is adjectival, related to a result of action. It can only be a derivative of a verb. Like many other Türkic “guests” in Eng., the word pour is “IE etymology”-ascribed to the 1300s; the sense of “flow, pour” is ascribed to 1530s. It is held as popped out from nowhere. The word is semantically unrelated to a homophonic Lat. purare “to cleanse”, a cognate of Eng. pure. In reality, it came to Albion at least with the A.-Sax. arrival, as a member of Sax. lingo (< Saka, Sakha 塞 tribes), see references to Saka, Sakha Scythians herein. The word is also “IE etymology”-suspected to be of a Celtic origin, thus possibly of a Celtic circum-Mediterranean anabasis fr. the Eastern Europe direction (6th-5th mill. BC). A genetic relationship between the Celtic and the other Scythian tribes is yet to be addressed; archeological indicators point in that direction. The word's semantics is perfect, phonetics is transparent, consistent, and near perfect.

3.141
purge (v.) “blow off, eject, empty of (something)” ~ Türkic pür-, bür- (v.) “twist, spin, rub, wind round, screw, divert,  wind up, wrap up, bore”. A myopic “IE etymology” starts with PIE and Lat., q.v. Ultimately fr. bu:, pu: “steam, fog”, and related to bula- (v.) “boil” swirl, see boil. Apparently a boiling, twisting movement of vapor was a metaphoric model for a derivative of bu: denoting a generic “twisting movement” with denominal suffix -r that forms intransitive verbs. The stem pür-, bür- is rich not only in the width of its direct, metaphoric, and derivative semantics, but also in form, “there is great inconsistency in modern languages, several having forms both with front and with back vowels, usually with slightly different meanings” (EDT, 354), and regular alternation p-, b- propagates slightly different phonetics and meanings among sister languages. The core semantics of the pür-, bür- is “rotate, twist”, which extends its meaning to “twister”, and then to “swipe” with twisting motions. That brings about a most prominent routine usage for “cleaning”, “sweeping”, “purifying”, and “twisting flow (air, clouds, water, snow)”. Accordingly, the semantics splits to different effects, from “pure” to “storm”, to “purge”, and “bore”. Of 44 European languages, versions of pür-, bür- dominate with 14 (32%) languages across ~6 linguistic borders, followed by a Sl. group -čis- with 10 (23%) languages. The remaining 20 (45%) languages use 16 of their own native words. If there is a common “Pan-European” term in Europe, it is a Türkic “guest” word, internalized and locally dispersed. A native counterpart term is a Sl. Old Europe čis- “cleanse”. Cognates: A.-Sax. byre “strong wind, storm”, faru “storm” (in hagolfaru “hailstorm”); OFr. purgier “wash, clean, refine, purify”; OLat. purigare, a compound of “pure” and “act”, Lat. purgare “cleanse, make clean; purify”; Rum. burgij, burgias “borer, bur, drill”; Rus. burya, buran, purga (буря, буран, пурга) “storm, blizzard, snowstorm”, burlak, burgalak “(one) twisting rope, cord”, Bolg., Serb. burma “ring, signet”, burgija (n.) “drill”; Fin. puhdistaa “purge”, Est. puhastamine “purge”; Mong. burgi-, burgih “swirl (smoke, dust, water)”, “rise in clouds” “get irritated, enraged”, buruɣu “opposite (direction)”, boraɣan “rain”, boro'an “blizzard” (> Sl. buran), murui- “curve (v.), bend”, etc. (Cf. Sakha bur-bur “curl (of smoke)”; Tung. (Evenk) mori- “assemble, make folds (sewing)”, (Orok., Mosira-) mori- “wrinkle (v.)”; Manchu foro- “turn, turn over”, forgon “rotation, turn over, revolution”, Gold. (Nan.) poro- “turn, turn over”, etc. Distribution: widely used fr. the Far East and the Eurasian Turkic Belt, with some echoes reaching C. and W. Europe incl. Lat. For a time, the “classical” Lat., Gk., and Skt. were held as scholarly etalons, the alpha and omega of philology. The pretentious others were disdained. A time debased their sanctity to a level of reality, incl. philology. The spread makes ridiculous an assertion of a Lat. origin of the word or of a “PIE contribution” root *ag- “drive, draw out or forth, move”. Instead of a common stem, an “IE” etymological appeal to a Skt. pavate “purifies, cleanses”, putah “pure” leads astray without reaching the origin of the “pure”. The A.-Sax. byre and faru both refer to a “storm” as a “twister”, reference to strong wind property of the storm ascending to the verb pür-, bür-. That is attested by the cognates in the Sl. languages, all traced etymologically to the Türkic origin, and all ascending to the same verbal stem pür-, bür- that millenniums later produced the Lat. and Eng. cognates. See boil, breath.

3.142
purl (v.) “whirling flow”, purl (n.) “twisting stitch” ~ Türkic (v.) bu:r- “turn, twirl”, bü:r- “twist, fold, evaporate”, bu:, bu:r (n.) “steam”. An “IE etymology” rates the word as “of unknown origin”, q.v. Ultimately bu:r- is a denoun verbal derivative of bu: “steam”, anything swirling; purl is a passive form of bu:r- (pu:r-) “steamed”, here with a sense of “whirled” or “back-and-forth” ~ “twisting stitch” etc. The bu:r- and bü:r- relate to each other semantically. To convey a chaotic movement, the Türkic notion “steaming” is Eng. “boiling”. The Eng. purl and burl are two allophones of the same word that went through different paths to Eng. The purl is a palatalized version of burl (Cf. Sl. par (пар) “steam”). The terms survived as versions of concrete nouns of a same root and notion. Cognates: A.-Sax. burreaf “woven, hand-woven (fabric, tapestry)”, burston, berstan “burst, break, break away, escape”; Eng. purl “swirled flow”, burl “burlish, twisted (bulge on a tree)”; OFr. bourle “tuft of wool”, LLat. burra “wool”, It. pirolare “twirl, twist, spin”, Venetian pirlo “woven threads decoration”; Rus. buran (буран) “blizzard”, burlit (бурлить) “stirred, agitated”; Bolg., Serb. burgija (n.) “drill”; Alb. burgij “drill”; Oset. byraw, buraew “drill”; Uig. bora “matting”; for more cognates see purge. Distribution: widely used fr. the Far East and the Eurasian Turkic Belt. Nominal presence in Europe. A myopic “IE etymology” rates it “of unknown origin”, ignores the A.-Sax. attestation, and does not suspect a routine b ↔ p alternation. Fortunately skipping a “PIE reconstruction” stage, it leads fr. nowhere to nowhere. The A.-Sax. cognates provide an element of timing: ca. 1,000 BC or earlier, a formation of Anglo- (Gmc.?) + Saxon (Saka) union. The OFr. and LLat. cognates are concrete derivatives of the above bu:r- (something burled, purled, whirled, swirled, twirled). They are reflexes of a notion “boil (n.)” or its siblings; Cf. Sl. burlit (бурлить). “stir, be agitated” with ending -it/-ить, a reflex of a Türkic verbal suffix -ti/-di, and likewise a Sl. burya (буря) “blizzard, twister”. Besides Türkic, the word is peculiar to a handful of European languages with a peculiar semantic and phonetic distribution. A Türkic origin is beyond any doubts. See boil, burl, whirl.

3.143
push (v.) “press, drive, impel” (Sw N/A, F1086, Σ0.01%) ~ Türkic family of allophones (v.) baš-, baša-, bas-, ba's-, ba:θ-, bäs- and pa:s-, pas, pus-, was- > puš- (push-) (v.) conveying a notion “pushed, pressed”. An “IE etymology” suggests most chimeric ideas, q.v. The word with 10 semantic clusters carries dozens of meanings in its clusters. Tracing them is a task in itself. Expressing an essence of the stem puš- a deverbal noun busuɣ “ambush” with b-/p-, -u-/-ü-, -s-/-š-, -ɣ/-q alternations is formed with a nominal suff. and an adjectival suff. -uɣ, lit. “a push, pressure, thrust”. A prime meaning “push, press” is overgrown with numerous forms and innumerable derivatives, from physical to emotional, of which the busuɣ and consequently “conquer, attack, subdue” is historically most significant. A metaph. “irritated, annoyed” and a “print (book, cloth, etc.)” are effects of “be pushed”. Print and imprint is its significant part. Of 44 European languages, versions of the Türkic baš-, pus- are most prominent with 7 (16%) languages, followed by a Romance group empu- and a motley group sku- with 4 (9%) languages each. The remaining 29 (66%) European languages use 17 of their own native words. If there is a common “Pan-European” term in Europe, it is a Türkic “guest” word, internalized millenniums ago and locally dispersed. Cognates: A.-Sax. basnian “ambush”, OFr. embuscher “ambush” with prefix en-/am-; Rus., Ukr., Rum., Serb., Bulg. basma “print, press” with allophones, Serb. basamak, Bulg. basamaci “step-”, Pol. basaiyk “whip (prod)”; Arab., Rus. baskak “official, tax collector”; Mong. basu- “press, throw”; Tung.-Manchu basala, basalla “kick”; Nenets (Kamasin) baspa “trap”; Kor. matta, mağa, mağin “beat (war), defeat” (Ref.s EDTL v. 2 77). Tracing cognates across publications and dictionaries for meanings and spellings is quite a task in itself. Distribution: Eurasian-wide across linguistic borders; the Eng. form is a speck in a sea. An OED's “IE etymology” is incredible. On a questionable phonetic resemblance it suggests a dubious Lat. pulsare “knock” (+? beat, strike)” neither semantically nor phonetically related to the “push”. Or an unrelated faux “PIE proto-root” *pel- “thrust, strike, drive”. Or a “probably” Fr. poche which is a “pouch”, i.e. a bag. Or a faux “PIE proto-word” *pewk- “covered with hair, bushy”, “maybe related” to a Skt. पुच्छ (puccha) “tail”??. Or an unrelated “Rus. Proto-Sl. proto-word”*puxъ (пух), i.e. a feathery “down, soft feathers”. Like many other Eng. words, the eminently prominent word “push”, with about 22 direct synonyms and 35 nuanced synonyms, is held in a mass of “probably” “IE words” of some mysterious provenances. A pile of that nonsense is a result of a dreadful myopia that afflicts not only the eyes. Propagating that bunk to an innocent audience is fallacious. An Eng. palatalization came with a source word, it provides an idiosyncratic indication on the source vernacular (Alt., Sal., Süg., Chuv.). An oddball word among the European languages, the “push” bears diagnostic properties, it is mentioned with p- in the Kaz. and Ott., and with a -š (-sh) in the Kipchak languages (EDT 371). Those are the closest known phonetic kins. The A.-Sax. used to have a store of native synonyms. In some impercipient lexical revolution, except for a “shove” they were supplanted by a Türkic “push”. A toponym Bessarabia (Basarabia) may be a cognate derived from a Türkic basar- “reign, dominate”, lit. “press, oppress”. The “push” breaks the carefully milled linguistic dogmas. A case of a paradigmatic transfer of the siblings “push” and “ambush”, a derivation of the “ambush” from the “push”, a perfect semantic and phonetic match of the stems constitute a case of paradigmatic transfer from a particular strata of the Türkic languages. See ambush.

3.144
put (v., n.) “place, arrange, give” (Sw N/A, F186, 0.09%) ~ Türkic bat-, put-, but-, ban-, bütür- (v., a ↔ u) “put, lay, place, locate, deposit, install”. A stupefied “IE etymology” suggests “probably from a Germanic stem”, q.v. Ultimately a derivative of a verb ba- “immerse” or ba- “bind, tie, bound”, see band, bath. The root denotes a generic “go, enter into (smth.)” modified to a figurative meaning of the verb. A unifying meaning of the verb is “into”. It comes in a range of forms and meanings. By origin or use modified to specific conditions, it determines a portable meaning of the verb bat-, put-, ban-, pun-. The stem takes forms randomly scattered among different sibling languages: bat-, but-, pat-, bad-, and ban- (see bath).  A form bat- predominates. Archaic suffixes -t and -n form synonyms, i.e. bat-, ban-. The put- and bat- are acoustic allophones, Cf. bath and banya, q.v. The causative-transitive suffix -t- and causative-reflexive suffix -n- are nearly synonymous, the -n- adds an aspect of benefitting a speaker. An obscure form put- from one of the dialectal brunches, with its minor semantics of “placing”, lived on to become an essential lexical member of the world's lingua franca. Like the with the lexis, the productivity, function, and popularity of the suffixes were never frozen in time and space, some of them are echoes of the times long gone by. A preservation or an absence thereof of the initial verb ba- in the daughter languages is irrelevant, its derivatives from various paths can peacefully co-exist in any language, Cf. band and bath. Astonishingly wide range of more than 50 meanings is from “bath/bathe/dip/deep” to “bankrupt” (i.e. “go under”), “poke, pierce, stab” (i.e. “reach under”), “dare” (i.e. “dive under”), etc. In each individual language the range is much narrower, closer to the “place, locate” count of 9 in modern Eng. Of 44 European languages, versions of the Gmc. set- are most prominent with 10 (23%) languages, followed by a Türkic-Eng. group put- with 8 (18%) languages and a Sl. group stav- with 5 (11%) languages. The remaining 20 (48%) European languages use 14 of their own native words. There is no shared “Pan-European” term in Europe; a Türkic “guest” but-, put- takes a respectable second place presence in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. putian “push, put out”, putung “pushing, impulse, instigation, urging”, potian “push, thrust, strike, butt, goad”, pytan (v.) “put (out eyes)”, Cf. Rus. pytka “torture”, bað, baeð, baðu, bathu “bath, bathing”, bedipan (v.) “dip, immerse”, pitt, pytt “well, hole, pit”, piða “inner, pith”, etc.; Dan. putte “put”, MDu. pote “scion, plant”, Du. poten (v.) “set, plant”, Sw. putta, pötta, potta “strike, knock, push gently, shove, put away”, ONorse pota “poke” (vs. botte “pail”), Norw. putte “set, put”, Icl. pota “poke”; Welsh pwt (perhaps, possibly?); Lat. puteus “pustule, blister”; Rum. batakčı “deceiver, 'fraudster”; Rus. batqaq (баткак) “swamp, mud”, pytka (пытка) “torture”; Serb. batisati “disappear” (~ dive, sink); Pers. batau “east, sunny spot”, batlaq, bodaq “swamp, marsh” (< Tr. batdag, putlah “swamp”); Mong. bagta- “contain, hold”; Tung. he “unable”, Evenk bat-, bati- “bat-”, q.v., Solon. bakta-, batta “fit in”; Gold. pa-, pago- “fall, finished”; Manchu fa- “finished, ready”; Kor. ppažida “fall, plunge”; all “put” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Eurasian-wide across the Türkic Steppe belt and linguistic borders. Dispersal of areal distribution points to a “guest” status among European languages (Türkic, Eng., +Catalan, Galician, Est., Malt., Sp., Slov, Rum.). An “IE etymology” is totally lost. After starting with attested forms of the Dan., Du., Sw. and ONorse, it switched to wild guesses of “probably” and “of uncertain origin”, and the uncouth refabrications of conflicting semantics. Those are a faux semantically unrelated “PGmc. proto-form” *putona “stick, stab” “of uncertain origin”, an unrelated OFr. pute “prostitute”, an unrelated Skt. बुन्द (bunda) “arrow” to be a cognate of unrelated a faux “PIE proto-word” *bud- “shoot, sprout”, and an attested “potential” Welsh pwt short-circuited to an Eng. provenance as a butt with unrelated semantics “stub, thicker end”. That comedy of errors starts and ends with no connection to the subject notion “place, arrange, give”. A myopic attitude leads from nowhere to nowhere and needs to be discarded together with the wild speculations. The Eng. “guest” is a speck among attested forms. The lexical stream reached Europe very selectively: a smatter of northwestern communities, plus tentative Lat. and Sl. The lexical and spatial distribution shows that of 50+ semantic meanings only a small stream was carried to the northwestern Europe: a core “bath”, plus derivatives “put, well, poke”. A closest sibling to the outright Türkic put “put” is a verb budu-/bodu:-, a metaphoric “attach (something)” accusative to something dative, and its passive form budul-, bodu:l-, as in “I am attached to”, i.e. “I have entered into attachment to”. A morphological etymology of the budu-, bodu:-, budul-, bodu:l- is held as unclear, but -l is a passive marker. Of the “IE languages”, Eng. is alone in Europe to have an ingrained endowment of both core meanings and its numerous derivatives. That attests to deep demographic roots, long amalgamation period, a very specific path, and particular ethnic composition. The specificity of sources has a diagnostic value, it allows assessment of a timeframe. A.-Sax. has retained direct and derivational correspondences. A major advance in analyzing the word bat-, bat was done by E.V. Sevortyan, EDTL v.2 78 on, who brought together specs of unheeded knowledge scattered in numerous patchy works but not yet covered in etymological compendiums. A wild nature of the “IE” etymological fabrication “research” is indelible. A case of paradigmatic transfer of such vernacular, phonetic, and semantic complexity indelibly attests to the origins fr. the Türkic milieu. See band, bath.

3.145
quit (v.) “finish, end, conclude, close” (Sw N/A, F538, Σ0.03%) ~ Türkic ket- (v.) “leave, depart, disappear”, ket (n.) “finish, end, behind, posterior”. An “IE etymology” runs a circular logics: quit ~ quite ~ quit, etc., q.v. Ultimately fr. a *ket, *kit (VEWT 258b) > git-, ket-, käd-, ked-, etc., in 12+ forms. A base semantics is ket- “leave, disappear, go” > “quit”. The notion ket- “finish, end, behind” echoes a notion köt/göt “buttocks, backside, tail end”, and points to its origin. In the notions “backside, rump” and “leave, depart”, and a vast range of preserved forms ascending to a prehistorical era is seen an archaic origin. A “guest” status in the “European” Europe is undeniable. The sited dates of 2nd c. AD are millenniums younger than the age of the originals. In a blind zone of a “European” horizon a single “guest” ket- stands in a neglected line of the European Azeri, Balkar, Bashkir, Crimean, Gagauz, Karaim, Kuman, Tatar, Turkish, and many more “non-European” European Türkic languages. Of 44 “European” European languages, the Türkic, Eng., and Lat. form a single group ket- with 3 (7%) languages, followed by a constellation of 6 distinct motley groups with 2 (5%) languages each. The remaining majority of 29 (66%) “European” languages use 29 of their own unique native words. Excluding European Türkic languages, there is no space for a shared “Pan-European” term in Europe; including them the Türkic ket- dominates. The derivatives of ket- (v.), a desiderative ketar “remove, erase, clear (of something)” and ketgü (n.) “departure, disappearance” trace a transition from a horse tail to a tail end, to ending something, and then to a finish and a pay off. Cognates: A.-Sax. giefan, ofgiefan “quit” (but Friz. oerjaan), cutaegl “tail of a cow, back”, Dan. kvitte “quit”, Du. kwijten, Sw. qvitta, kvitta “quit, leave, set off”, Icl. kvitta,  LGmn. quitten, Gmn. quitten, quittieren “quit”; OFr. quite, quitte “clear, discharged (debts)”, quitance “discharge (obligation)”, aquiter “settle (claim)”, Lat. quietus “free (debts)” (i.e. “end (all debts”)), MLat. quietus est “he is quit”; Mong. gädä “back”, keder “evil, grim, angry”; Sojot (Nanaj) kädä “back side”; all “quit” unless noted otherwise. The Sw. semantics exactly duplicates the Türkic semantics. Unrelated to the consonant “quiet”, emphatic “quite” (fr. emphatic ked, see quite) erroneously cited as cognates. Distribution: Eurasian-wide across the Türkic Steppe Belt and linguistic borders, with a nominal presence in the “European” Europe (Türkic, Eng., Lat.). With the attested precursor, there is no need to invent faux “proto-words” or push unrelated semantics and words. A non-myopic eyesight makes content clearly visible. A speculation of “probably of imitative origin” is wildly uncouth. An unrelated fictional “PIE proto-root” *kweie- (v.) “rest, be quiet” is wildly off target. A homonymous emphatic quite ”free, clear, entire, at liberty, discharged, unmarried” (actually only an emphatic particle that must be associated with another word or phrase to impart meaning, it does not have its own lexical definition, i.e. “free, clear, etc.” is nonsense) is not related to the subject quit. Mingling unrelated homonyms into a single pile is wasteful, good only for flummoxing the subject. The phonetic, grammatic, and semantic match is consistent and apparent. The consonance between queue, quit, and quite is predicated by the consonance between the underlying stems kü, ket-, and ked respectively. As a set, they constitute a case of paradigmatic transfer, bearing witness to a common origin from a Türkic milieu. See queue, quite.

3.146
sail (v.) “travel on water” ~ Türkic sal-, salla (v.) “sail on a raft, cross on a raft”, säl (n.) ship . An “IE etymology” rolls in a daydreams pretending to have a grain of knowledge, q.v. Ultimately fr. sal/sa:l (n.) “raft, pontoon, float, vessel, bark, boat, ship”. A verb salla- is formed with a Türkic typical denoun verbal suffix -la. A salïɣ, salɣ with a suffix -ïɣ, -ɣ is a deverbal noun fr. salla- (v.) “sailing, seafaring”, Cf. Gmc. saɣl with a metathesis lɣ/ɣl. In some Gmc. spellings an alternation -i-/-ɣ-/-ğ- is salient. Of 44 “European” European languages, a Türkic sal- dominates with 11 (25%) languages, followed by a Romance group nav- with 7 (16%) languages. A remaining majority of 26 (59%) “European” languages use 14 forms of their own unique native words. Of the non-“European” Türkic languages 13 live in Europe; with them a total of “qualified” European languages numbers 57, and the European group sal- grows to 24. If there is a shared “Pan-European” term in Europe, it is definitely a Türkic sal-. Excluding the European Türkic languages, there would be no shared “Pan-European” term in Europe at all. Cognates: A.-Sax. segl (v.) segilan (n.) “sail”, ofersegl “top–sail”, ofersegllan “sail across”, seglan, seglian, segliani “sail, equip with a sail”, ymbliðan “sail round”, oferseglian “sail across, oversail”, OFris. sailje, seil “sail”, WFris. seil, sile “sail”, ONorse sigla, segle (v.), segl (n.) “sail”, Icl. sigla “to sail”, Dan. sejle, sejl, MDu. seghelen, Du. zeil, zeilen, Sw. segla, segel, OHG segal, LGmn. segel, seilen, MLG segelen, Gmn. segeln, segel “sail”; Ir. seol, Welsh hwyl “sail”; Arm. sal (սալ) “raft”; Mari shlo “raft”; Mong., Kalmyk, Qalqa sal “raft”; Chuv. sula “raft”. More cognates are referred to in Finno-Ugrian, Hu., Khanty, Iranian, and Nenets languages, with respective references (EDTL v. 7, 187); all “sail” unless noted otherwise. An “IE etymology” rolls in its daydreams, disgracefully pretending to have a grain of knowledge, q.v. Ultimately fr. sal, sa:l, säl (n.) “raft, pontoon, float, vessel, bark, boat, ship, generally large boat, nautical vessel”. An original meaning of the word was a “raft”, Cf. Chuv. sula (n.) “raft” (su “water” > “watering” > “raft”, Mong. us “water”). The affinity of Türkic and Mong. forms makes the origin of the terms inconclusive. With a magic of suffixing, the “raft” was recycled for a “sail” (v., n.), Cf. salla (v.) with a Türkic denoun verbal suff. -la. The suff. survived in the A.-Sax. segilan, Sw. segla, Icl., ONorse sigla. A salïɣ, salɣ with a suffix -ïɣ, -ɣ is a deverbal noun fr. salla- (v.) “sailing, seafaring”, Cf. Gmc. saɣl with a metathesis lɣ ↔ ɣl. Notable alternations of systemic nature are ɣ ↔ g; j, i ↔ g, in some Gmc. spellings -i-/-ɣ-/-ğ-. Of 44 “European” European languages, a Türkic sal- dominates with 11 (25%) languages, followed by a Romance group nav- with 7 (16%) languages. A remaining majority of 26 (59%) “European” (located in Europe) languages use 14 forms of their own unique native words. 13 “non-European” Türkic languages are located in Europe; with them a total of “qualified” European languages numbers 57, and the European group sal- grows to 24. If there is a shared “Pan-European” term in Europe, it is definitely a Türkic sal-. Excluding the European Türkic languages would exclude a shared “Pan-European” term in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. segl (v.) segilan (n.) “sail”, ofersegl “top–sail”, ofersegllan “sail across”, seglan, seglian, segliani “sail, equip with a sail”, oferseglian “sail across, oversail”, ymbliðan “sail round”, OFris. sailje, seil “sail”, WFris. seil, sile “sail”, ONorse sigla, segle (v.), segl (n.) “sail”, Icl. sigla (v.) “sail”, Dan. sejle, sejl, MDu. seghelen, Du. zeil, zeilen, Sw. segla, segel, OHG segal, LGmn. segel, seilen, MLG segelen, Gmn. segeln, segel “sail”; Ir. seol, Welsh hwyl “sail” (seol ↔ h(w)yl); Fr. sal “raft, boat, ferry, vessel”; Bulg., Bolg. sal “primitive sailing gear between two river shores”, Rus. saly “reed raft for getting luggage across river (Don)” (but native plyt (плыть)); Arm. sal (սալ) “raft”; Mari shlo “raft”; Mong., Kalmyk, Qalqa sal “raft”; Chuv. sula “raft”. More cognates are referred to in the Finno-Ugrian, Hu., Khanty, Iranian, and Nenets languages, with respective references (EDTL v. 7, 187); all “sail” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: closely follows Kurgan culture fr. Mong. to Albion. Cognates of “sail” are stretched along the Eurasian Steppe Belt and its NW and Far Eastern fringes, crossing linguistic barriers. The “IE etymology” of the word started with a routine “of obscure origin with no known cognates outside Gmc.”, a glaringly invalid assertion. Then it switched to “reconstructive” illusions: a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *segl, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *siglijan and *siglijana, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *segla. No better are the suggestions of a semantically unsustainable “IE” faux root *sek- “cut” or a mechanically constructed “PG proto-word” *seglona, *siglijana (v.) “sail” that ignores non g-carrying members, the cited zeil, seol, hwyl, sal, shlo. The myopic “IE” etymology is either ignorant of or scornful of the facts in the real Eurasian world: a Türkic sal-, salla, a Mong. sal, etc. with a wealth of the Türkic and alien forms across Eurasia. The “IE philology” fails to address the suff. -la in the Fris., Norw., Icl., Sw., Dan. verbs, i.e. “sail (fabric)” (n.) ~ “to sail” (v.). It is an atavism in the Gmc. languages, an atavism that can't be philologically neglected. That critical element is meaningless within the Gmc. grammars. Archeology knows that a Türkic–Mong. Far Eastern contact ascends to a beginning of the 2nd. mill. BC, preceding a Shang period. From Mesopotamia, the Zhou “Scythians” brought to China a Sum. concept of writing (Oracle bone script, aka Oracle turtle script), and some other unique markers. An alternation s → h is peculiar to the languages of the Aral-Caspian basin and Bashkir, it forms the notion “sail” with an anlaut -h. That group may relate to the Welsh dialects (Vlach, Wlach ~ Hu. Olah ~ Türkic Cuman). The Celtic forms point to an independent parallel development, consistent with trifurcate migrations of the once Kurganic word: a 4000 - 1000 BC overland route, a completed by 2800 BC circum-Mediterranean route (Celtic), and the 100 BC overland route, all from the Eurasian steppe belt extending from the Manchuria to Pannonia and Iberia. The difference between the Celtic form and the OT form is a result of the word's bifurcated parallel development for about 3,800 years, for a combined linguistic time distance of 7,200 years. That is a calibrated gift to a glottochronological timing. A change between the Eng. and Celtic forms adds another millennium to a third leg of the fork, some 8.200 years of independent parallel development. All three prongs of the fork passed through vast territories with innumerable unknown different people speaking numerous unknown languages, diffused through alien lands via divergent paths. The picture of migrations and internalizations deviates so much from a glottochronological model of internal development that a priory it should reject any convoluted unidimensional construct. The converging evidences unimpeachably attests to an origin of the word from a Türkic milieu.

3.147
satisfy (v.) “meet requirements or expectations” ~ Türkic satsa- (v.) “satisfy, be suitable”, from a stem sat- “sell” (v.), “sale” (n.), satɣa (satga) “satisfy payments, payoff”. An “IE etymology” shallowly suggests a Lat. origin, q.v. Ultimately a derivative fr. the verb sa:-, sa:y “count, say, respect, think” (plus ~15 other meanings). The anlaut sa- and the final suffix -sa are not only acoustically consonant, but also synonymous, showing that a desiderative suffix -sa developed from the same verbal root sa “count, consider”. The suffix forms a notion of a desire (to obtain, trade, and the like). Of 44 “European” European languages, a Türkic-Eng. group satsa- dominates with 11 (25%) languages, followed by a Sl. group -dav- with 9 (20%) languages. A remaining majority of 24 (55%) “European” (Europe-located) languages use 19 forms of their own unique native words. The groups satsa- and -dav- form two dominant European groups. Cognates: A.-Sax. sedan, asedan “satisfy”, saednes “satiety”, saed “satiated, sated”; Lat. satis(facere) “discharge fully, comply with, make amends”, lit. “do enough”, from satis “enough”; Mong. sana- “think”; Tungus sa- “know”. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific along the Eurasian Steppe Belt and its fringes. The “IE etymology” is compliant, it adopted the Türkic sa:- (sa, seh-) as its own, a kind of an afflatus from the heavens, except for the attestation of the Türkic root sa-, sat- and the suffix -sa. The fantasies of a faux “PIE proto-root” *sa- “satisfy”, a faux “PIE proto-root” *dhe- “set, put” are not needed. The Türkic satsa-, English satisfy, and Lat. satis- denote satisfaction of a desire, visibly inherited from the same primordial Türkic substrate satsa-, satisa:-. See sagacity, sage, salary, sale, sundry, sapient, say, sell, sever, tell, think.

3.148
say (v., n.) “utter, state” (Sw N/A, F99, Σ0.40%) ~ Türkic söy-, söyle-, suy-, söle-, süle-, sülä- (v.) “say”. An “IE etymology” has developed 5 (!) nonsense versions of origin, q.v. Ultimately fr. sa:- “count, think” and dozens more of close notions. Türkic and Eng. have parallel verbal and nominal derivatives, Cf. söyle-, sözlä- “speak, tell”, sayra:- “twitter, sing (of a bird)”. A verbal stem söy- has a noun form sa:v “say, speech”, a denoun verb savla:- “talk”, a verb sez- “think, perceive, feel, discern”, and deverbal derivatives or reflexes fr. sa:-, say- “think, reckon, count”. The form söy- vs. the form söz- (or sög-, süy-, etc.) is distinct for the NW Türkic languages. Except for few languages where its semantics had narrowed or diverged, the stem söy- and its numerous allophones carry a generic meaning, it belongs to a basic lexical groupings related to speech and communications across the Türkic linguistic family. Its basic notion is an act of stating reflected in lexical derivatives. Similar to the Gmc. group, the Türkic verb is shared by all Türkic languages, from Gagauz and Chuvash to Khakass and Uigur, exclusive of the Asian Indian/Iranian languages, which split away at about 2000 BC. The Eng. say belongs as much to the Türkic family as to the alien “IE” family. The difference between söylä- and savla:- is qualitative: söylä- is a shorter utterance than savla:-. A derivative notion sa:yikla:- “blabber, tattle” for mouthing the words was calqued in Eng. The Eng. duplex tell “narrate”, say “utter, state” constitutes a (transposed) transfer paradigm of the Türkic duplex til “utter, state”, -söy “narrate”, an irrefutable evidence of a genetic connection. In addition to the basic phonetics and semantics, the transfer paradigm preserved a semantic subtlety between the tell “story, account, record, news” and say “speak, utter, express”, apparent in the idioms “tell apart” “tell off” vs. impossibly awkward “say apart” “say off”, Cf. Türkic savaš- “say (words)”, i.e. “argue” vs. Eng. inexplicable idiom “words were said”, i.e. “argue”. In Europe, the Eng. say leads a lonely existence, unaware of the neighboring non-“European” surroundings. I.e. the European Azeri, Balkar, Bashkir, Crimean, Gagauz, Karaim, Kuman, Tatar, Turkish. All of them use versions of say in their daily life. To add insult to injury, they all also use tell, both in a reverse semantic syntax, see tell. Cognates: A.-Sax. secgan (with -k-) “utter, say”, OSax. seggian, OFris. sedsa, WFris. sizze, OSw. seggian, Sw. säga, ONorse segja, Bokmal si, Nynorsk seia, Dan. sige, MDu. segghen, Du. zeggen, OHG, Gmn. sagen “say”, Yid zogn (זאָגן) “say, tell”; OIr. insce (inche) “speech”; Balt. (Lith.) sakyti “say”; Sl. (OCS) sociti (with -k-) “vindicate, show”, (Sl.) skaz; OLat. (in)seque “to tell, say”; Hu. sol “say, speak”, saval “recite”, so “word”; Kurd. (kor-zäzä) söz “word, promise”; Chinese shua (说) “say, tell, talk”; Hitt. shakiya- “declare”; all “say” unless noted otherwise. Distribution runs from Atlantic to the Far East along the Eurasian Steppe Belt and its fringes. No acknowledged cognates fr. Mong. eastwards. No credible “IE” etymology, suggestions are rather a joke. A slue of suggestions start with a sane “No certain PIE etymology”, and then explodes into fireworks of faux “reconstructions” and wild chases. Those are a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *sagjanan “say”, a faux “PWGmc. proto-form” *saggjan and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *sagjana “say”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *sekw- “follow”, and a faux “PIE proto-form” *sokw-h-ye- and a faux “PIE proto-form” *sekw- “tell, talk”, and a Lat. saga “military cloak”, and a poor man's “aphetic” assay, and a Scotland say “strainer for milk”. And a proposed unattested faux “PIE” *sokei- or a more ornamented *sokʷ-h-ye- revert directly back to the forms of the Türkic verb söy, suy “speak, sprechen”, Cf. above sög-. All that “IE” and “PG” nonsense has a zero etymological weight. It is sorely embarrassing and degrading to a clownade. It stops short from arriving at the real ultimate source sa:-, say- “think”. The Ir. form attests to an existence of the word prior to the Celtic Kurgans' departure on their circum-Mediterranean anabasis (6th-5th mill. BC), millenniums before a budding of the “IE” Corded Ware cradle. The Chinese word is likely a reflex of the Scythian Zhou component in Chinese, ca 2000 - 1600 BC, one of the borrowed innovations of the times. The Gmc. and Lat. forms point to Ogur Türkic source with y ↔ g alternation (Cf. Tuv. sögle-). In a feat of paradigmatic transfer, Eng. internalized the four main action words related to communication: say, tell, call and gabble, direct siblings of the precursory söy-/söyle-, til-/tili-, qol-, and gap-, gapir-. Although overlapping and to some degree interchangeable, each one conveys its own spectrum of very basic notions. An origin fr. a Türkic linguistic milieu is inextricable. See call, gabble, tale, tally, tell.

 3.149
scare (v., n.) “fear” (Sw N/A, F1701, 0.004%) ~ Türkic qorq- (v.), qorq (n.) “fear, phobia, horror, panic” (v., n.). An “IE etymology” audaciously asserts a Gmc. origin, q.v. Ultimately a denoun verbal derivative fr. qor (n.) “evil, damage, loss” + a denoun verbal suffix -q “fear”, variously articulated with vowels ö/ü/a/o and related to aspects of vision. Numerous allophonic forms attest to a very archaic origin: gorg-, gӧrg- ɣorɣ-, qorqu-, qoruq-, quj-, etc. To those should be added the Celtic forms. A prefix s- is specific to a northern European morphology as a marker of one-time event and an emphasizer. Slavic has retained a Türkic suffix -s as a prefix s- in both verbal and nominal use, complete with its semantics of incoming or future perfect event. Of 44 “European” (W. Europe-located) European languages, a dominates a Türkic-Eng. group qorq-, cra- with 9 (20%) languages. A remaining mass of 35 (80%) “European” languages uses 24 versions of their own unique native words. Europe also features 13 more “non-IE” Türkic languages. Accounting for them would more than double a fraction of qorq- languages in Europe to 22, i.e. to about 1/2 of all Europe-located languages (based on the initial kernel of 44 European languages). That is close to a 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. ascyhhan “scare away, reject”, fer-, far-, fear-, feor-, fier-, for- “fear” (q > h > f, typ.), eargian, fyrht, fyrhto, fyrhtu “fear, tremble” (but (n.) ondrædan > dread), faeran “frighten”, forhtlan “afraid, fear, dread”, forhtlic “fearful, afraid”, forhtnes “fear, terror”, forhtung “fear”, fyrhtan “fright”, fyrht “afraid, timid”, fryhtnes “fear”, etc., OSax. farr “ambush”, faron “lie in wait”, MEng. skerren “frighten”, sker, skere “terror, fright”, MDu. vaeren, Du. gevaar “fear”, ONorse skirra “frighten” (+ 4 more), skjarr “afraid, timid, shy”, far “harm, distress, deception”, faera “taunt”, OHG faren “plot against”, Gmn. gefahr “danger”; Scots skar, skair, skar, skeer, skear “wild, timid, shy”, Welsh (dy)chryn “scare”; Gk. gorgos “terrible”, Gorgon (n.) “evil monster”; Mong. qour, qourа “harm; poison”, Kalm. horn “harm, evil, poison”, Bur. khoro, khoro(n) “harm, evil, malice, anger, poison”, Khalk. khora “harm” (~ Tuvan ditto); all “scare, fear, harm” unless noted otherwise; some Mong. and Türkic forms overlap phonetically and semantically. Distribution: is spotty outside of the Steppe Belt, Far Eastern, and Gmc. languages. A myopic “IE” etymology is unaware of the archaic Türkic and Far Eastern siblings of the Gmc. allophones. Etymology is supposedly “of unknown origin”, i.e. at a dead end. To correct for the “unknown origin”, the “IE etymology” invented a line of “proper”, i.e. Gmc. cognates. Such as a bogus “PGmc. proto-form” originated “from a root of fear (n.)”. The Eng. scare and fear are both a verb and a noun. Like the 472 other Eng. verb-noun words, they can't come fr. each other in a circular fashion. Then a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *feraz “danger”, and an unrelated to “scare” a faux “PIE proto-form” *per- “try, risk”. All that nonsense needs to be dispensed with. A time of a Gmc. internalization may be reasonably suggested to date to a Corded Ware-Battle Axe period. Numerous tribal masses were fleeing in all directions from a 3rd mill. BC C. European “killing fields”. The period was conductive for a Türkic Battle Axe-Corded Ware symbiosis. Contemporaries millenniums later described that symbiosis as a “European Sarmatia”. In the Sarmat vernaculars an unaccented second -q in the syllable qörq had a tendency to contract. The Türkic qörq- dubs as a “care”, reflected in identical semantics in English: “have fear” ~ “be afraid” ~“be careful”. For few specific forms, a question of Türkic vs. Mongolic primacy is inconclusive, but Gmc. does not even enter that debate. Apparently, the word entered the NW Europe via independent Norse, Celtic, and A.-Sax. channels. A case of paradigmatic transfer of both fear and care indelibly attests to an origin from a Türkic phylum. See gaze, Gorgon, caginess, care.

3.150
scatter (v., n.) “disperse” ~ Türkic ta:r-, darɣa- (v.) “disperse, divide”. An “IE etymology” rates origins “possibly”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a Türkic root tar- “disperse, scatter”, originated fr. a notion tar- “comb, separate (hair)”. A prefix sca-, sco- “begin, initiate”, peculiar to a Gmc. and a few other's forms, once served a semantic function. Eventually it was confused with a root phoneme or taken as a non-semantic prosthesis. The prefix is functionally identical to its Sl. clone, a most active prefix s- “begin, initiate”. The Sl. prefix may ascend to an “Out of Africa” period, a Sl. Hg. I age of ca. 40,000 ybp. Of 44 European languages, the word ta:r- shows twice, in a Türkic and in an Eng. That demonstrates its “guest” status in Europe, and its connection with a Türkic milieu on one hand, and with the early Europeans on the other hand. Within a Türkic world semantic furcates, one fork knows only a semantics “hair”, and the other fork knows both a “hair” and its metaph. meaning “disperse, divide”. That points to the “hair” as a prime semantics. Cognates: A.-Sax. sceadan “scatter” (Cf. scaffot (sca-ffot) “splay-footed, outward, open, apart”); Welsh darfu “scatter, disperse”; ODu. schetteren, Du. strooien, LGmn. schateren, Gmn. streuen; Balt.-Sl. (Lith.) drai(kyti); Mong. tar(haltyn) (тархалтын) “distribution”, Mong., Kalm. tar “hair, types of hair (different lengths, colors, hair in fur products)”; Kor. tharak-cul “human hair rope”; all “scatter, disperse, divide (comb)” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: The root tar- “disperse” is spread across most of the Eurasia and across linguistic families reaching to a single European outpost in Eng. and a cluster of outposts in the Far East. An “IE etymology” can't cross its myopic confines. It does not perceive a substance of a prefix sca-, sco-, scea- (A.-Sax., Lat., Sp.), and gets lost on tentatives. Among the conditional clauses are “possibly”, “probably”, “influence”, and “apparently”. They can't substitute for parsing and competent morphological analysis. A good part is understanding the ONorse as one of the feeder channels. A bad part is unrelated to “scatter”, the Gk. skedannumi (σκεδaννυμι) as “scatter, disperse” (Gk. σκορπίζω, διασκορπίζω), and the Toch. B kät- “scatter, sow seeds”: unrelated to the “sca-tter” kät. A non-myopic objective analysis is overdue. A non-“IE” origin of the root is evident, it is a fringe “guest” in a body of the “IE” languages. The scattering pattern excludes a direct cross-borrowing between a Far East and a Far West, pointing unambiguously to a Türkic intermediary between two extremities. The Welsh's presence is notable, it is inconsistent with a borrowing from the Scandinavian languages. The contact routs are the Celtic Kurgans' circum-Mediterranean cruise of a ca. 5000-2800 BC, the post-“killing fields” contact period with the Kurganians of 2500-2000 BC, and a Welsh - Valah (Cuman, Hu. Olah</>) suspected connection. An allophonic form of the scatter is shatter, with accent closer to the notion of “divide” rather than to “disperse”. See shatter.

3.151
secede (v.) “splinter, break away, separate, detach” ~ Türkic ses-, seš-, säs-, säz- (v.) “separate, segregate, detach, release, untie”, sesin-, sešin, sesken- (v.) “separate, split” . An “IE etymology” attributes origin to a Lat. and “IE”, q.v. One of the basic semantics of the ses- is “unravel, untie, untangle” > “go away, part”. Articulation is most diverse, including a root anlaut s-/š-/č-, inlaut -a-/-e-/-ǝ-, auslaut -s-/-š-/-č-, and some more, attesting to a deep antiquity and a wide dispersion with numerous ses-looking, acoustically overlapping homophones. Ignored by the “IE” etymologists, A.-Sax. had in excess of 80 forms for “separation”, with a tiny sprinkle of sid-derived Turkisms. Distribution is heavily slanted in favor of ses- forms, in line with their “guest” status. Of 44 European languages, versions of the ses- are the only prominent, with 8 (18%) languages. The remaining 36 (82%) European languages use 26 of their own native words, a most of 3 per language, or on average 1.4 words per language. Aside of the Türkic ses- there is no shared “Pan-European” term in Europe; a Türkic “guest” ses- is a best approximation for a “Pan-European” term in Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. allophone sceadan “separate, scatter, divide, shed” (also with prefixes a-, be-, ge-, etc.); Lat. secedere /si'seed-/ “secede” (+Türkic, Eng., It., Sp., Fr., Catalan); Skt.? sedhati (सेधत) “dispel”, Av.? siazdat “dispel”; Mong. saču-, čaču- “disperse”, seli, selbe-ji, selbü-ji “dissolve”; Bur. heli “dissolve”; all “secede” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: a Türkic Kurgan Eurasian spread + 1 Türkic “guest” to Lat.; a subsequent dissemination of the Lat. word to the W. Europe; Far Eastern spread of sibling ses- forms. No “IE” cognates at the western and the eastern Eurasian extremes. From the early human societies all languages needed a word “separate”; an absence of the “IE” roots and cognates is striking. A suggested “IE etymology” from a Lat. compound se “apart” + cedere (v.) “yield” implies that it blundered into a virgin Türkic phylum and then exploded into the huge Türkic semantic clusters. That scenario is unconceivable. Albeit domestic and political squabbles and their terminology were around for millenniums,there is no attestation of the Lat. compound ever existing in nature. The claimed Skt. and Av. forms are false cognates. They are unrecognized “guests” from the Kurgan vernaculars. They are allophones of an unrelated Türkic verb sid-, sıd-, set- “strip, peel, scrape”. The Lat. word is a stand-alone within the “IE” family, a positive attestation of a “guests” status. A presence of the Lat. attested counterparts separ and sevoco vs. the faux se-cedere, a semantic clash between the Türkic “untangle, splinter” and the Lat. “to yield” (actually “to go”, i.e. “walk away, depart”, se-cedere lit. “away walk away”), and the nature of Lat. cedere (v.) from its basic verb stem (supposedly from another unattested “PIE root” *ked- “go, yield, way”) makes the IE/Lat. multilayered concoction untenable. The “IE” etymological alternative of the origin from the notions “here” and “to sit” is too as much flawed. The terms secession, secessionism, secessionist are common European innovations, completely absent in the Asian “IE” languages that evolved in the last 3500 years, and likewise are absent in the Türkic languages. The Türkic languages derived these terms from different stems. With the Lat. to Türkic borrowing impossible, an only remaining option is a case of random coincidence of Lat. and Türkic lexemes. That is a long shot with negligible probability. An inevitable conclusion is that whether the Eng. path was via Lat./Fr. or directly from Lat., ultimately both Eng. and Lat. forms ascend to the primordial Türkic verb ses-, seš-.

 3.152
see (v.) “observe, perceive by sight” (Sw N/A, F66, Σ0.39%) ~ Türkic sez-, se:z-, siz-, söz-, süz-, hüz- (v.) “see, look, perceive”, lit. “clarify, make clear”, “stare, blunt look”; see sezmoq, sezmamoq “see, look, perceive”, etc. An “IE etymology” claims a “PGmc.” and “PIE” origins, q.v. Ultimately fr. a metaph. notion of süz- (v.) “sift, filter, catch (a substance)” > “perceive” ~ “look around, look closely, glance, squint”. Phonetic alternations carry diagnostic clues, leading to specific locations and languages. The süz- “to look”, metaph. “see, think”, and sez- “perceive, discern, understand” likely descended fr. a same primordial root. A.-Sax. vocabulary had four terms for “see”, of them one, locian, was a native European; a two, seon and witan, were of a Türkic origin, and one, sceawian, is so far unclear. Of 44 European languages, versions of the Sl. ved- dominate with 18 (41%) languages, followed with Türkic-Gmc. se- with 8 (18%) languages. The remaining 18 (41%) languages use their own native 15 terms. The Old. Europe root serves as a “Pan-European” term in Europe, followed by the Gmc. root. Cognates: A.-Sax. seon “look, behold” , , OSax. sehen “see”, OFris. sia “see”, WFris. sjen, ONorse, Nynorsk sja, Bokmal se, Dan., Sw., Bokmal se, MDu. sien, Du. zien “see”, OHG sehan “see”, LGmn. sehn, MHG, Gmn. sehen, Goth. saihwan “see”; Alb. shih, shoh “look, see”; Hu. szem (sem); Mong. šigü-, sügü- “catch (a substance)”; Medo-Scythian (Behistun 2nd inscription) se “see”; Lat. ? signum “sign, token”; all “see” except as noted; semantically distinct derivatives of the same root are cited for Hu., Mong., Halha, Buryat (EDTL, v. 7, 340). The citation of the Lat. ? signum “sign, token” is dubious, semantically inapt and not a verb. Ditto with a Lat. and OFr. noun “see/seat”, as in “an episcopal see”. Distribution: spans from Atlantic to the Far East, crossing linguistic barriers. The “IE etymology” starts with reserved “no certain PIE etymology”, “opinions differ”, and “not easy to accept with confidence”, but then dives into cheerful fictions. Those are a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *sehwanan “see?”, a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *sehwan “see?”, and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *sehwana “see”, and a faux “PIE proto-root” *sekw- “see”, and a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *sekʷ- “to see, notice” “probably identical with *sekw- “follow”. The brave “IE” experts do not hesitate to use in their proto-reconstructions a Türkic suffix -an denoting result, Cf. seen. The later days alchemy leads fr. nowhere to nowhere, substituting its myopia for a linguistic ken; Cf. sezmoq q.v. in common listings. The A.-Sax. semantics “observe, perceive, understand, experience, visit, inspect” accurately matches the Türkic semantics “clarify, make clear”. The form seen “perceive by sight” is visible in A.-Sax., OSax., MDu., OHG, MHG, and Gmn. infinitive forms. Of all the “IE” languages, cognates are cited almost exclusively only for the Gmc. group. That positively attest to a non-“IE” provenance. That is also corroborated by the cognates in Hu., in the non-“IE”, non-Persian 2nd Behistun inscription, and in the Tung.-Mong. vernaculars. The -p forms deverbal analytic nouns, that helps to discern the Herodotus' Scythian appellation Arimaspi for the eastern squinted-eye people as a compound arïmsepï of an arïm “half” + sep “see”, lit. “half-seer” rather than the reading “half-eyed” for the Herodotus' “one-eyed”. Notably, the Türkic “see” süz-/siz- and the “sea” si sound distinctly different, while in Eng. they are acoustically conflated to sound exactly the same. An origin fr. a Türkic milieu is beyond any doubts. See sea.

3.153
seize (v.) “capture, grab, clutch”, seizure (n.) “arrogation, spasm” ~ Türkic sı-, sı:- (v.) “break”, sızı-, sızla- (v.) “sharp pain”, sal- “hit, grab”, salgïn “raid, invasion”, serme-, sirt-, sïdïr-, sïfgar-, sïrga- “surround, rob, grab”. An “IE etymology” states “exact source is uncertain”, and briskly suggests origin of OFr., LLat., Gmc., “perhaps” Frankish, and even a “PIE”, q.v. Ultimately fr. a root sı-, sı:- (v.) “break” with a host of derivative forms and applications pointing to most primeval times of non-generic, specific uses, Cf. “grab with teeth”. A few specific cases bear structural parallels: Cf. kap-, karp-, qap- “seize, grab” and sep-, serp- “seize, grab” with alternation k-/s-, see cap (n.) and cup (n.). A presence of “seize” in the W. European languages is minimal, 3 languages at best (Türkic, Eng., Fr.), not accounting for a 13 W. European Türkic languages. That attests to a “guest” status in the W. Europe. A.-Sax. had its own 44 native ways to express “seize, grab, grasp”, from aetfon to ymbfon, it did not need to add one more synonym, see seizure. Of 44 European languages, versions of a Gmc. grip- dominate with 8 (18%) languages, followed by a Romance group apro- with 5 (11%) languages. The remaining 31 (70%) languages, incl. the above-named 3 languages, use 24 of their own native terms. There is no shared “Pan-European” term in Europe. Cognates: Brit. seise “seize”, OFr. (13th c.) seisir, Fr. saisir “take by force”; Mong. huraah (хураах) “seize” (s/h alternation), shüürəh (шүүрэх) “grab” (s/sh alternation), barikh (барих) “capture” (s/b alternation), sirkire-, sirkira-, sarkira- “acute pain (seizure)” (z/r alternation); all “seize” unless noted otherwise. The LLat. (8c.) sacire “sacrifice” is a false cognate, q.v. Distribution: spans across Eurasia from Atlantic to the Far East, trolling the Türkic Steppe Belt and its neighbors. An “IE etymology” suggests a line of inapplicable “cognates”: sacire (8c.) (i.e. “sacrifice”), Goth. sokjan “seek”, A.-Sax. secan “seek”, faux “PGmc. proto-forms” *satjan “place (v.)” and *sakjana, *sakona “strive, brawl”, a faux “Frankish proto-form” *sakjan “lay claim to”, an OHG sahhan “bicker, quarrel, rebuke”, and some more along the same lines. The claimed LLat. word is a false cognate with an inlaut /k/, it is an allophone of a root sik-, exemplified by the Gmc. lineup A.-Sax., OSax. sakan “struggle, dispute, accuse”, OHG sahhan “to bicker, quarrel, rebuke”, Goth. sokjan “seek”, Frankish sakjan “sue, litigate”, or Lat. sacire/sagio “perceive”, etc. Hence the “IE” apologetic qualification “or maybe or of uncertain origin”. The inapplicable and unattestable nonsense needs to be gently and firmly resiled. A mass of these incongruent notions only serve to confound a phonetically opaque lexical web. The form sız- has a sibling sır- (s/r alternation) with about the same complement of derivatives and suffixation. The notion seize (v.) “clutched (by spasm, seizure)” is linked to a metaph. extension seize (v.) “seize, grab, grasp”. It came to Eng. via a Middle Age OFr. legalism seisir “take possession by force”. A late timing of the Lat. word and a paucity of the cited cognates attest to the non-IE origin of the word, its guest status among the “IE” languages, a trait that could not have escaped scrupulous etymologists. The word belongs to the cluster of Turkisms related to human wellbeing, the sextet of ache, aggravate, feel, ill, sick, seize/seizure, the direct siblings of аčï-, aɣrï-, bil-, il-/iyl-, sık-, sïz-, a spectacular gild of a paradigmatic transfer case inalienably attesting to their common origin from the Türkic linguistic community. See ache, aggravate, feel, ill, sick, seizure.

3.154
sever (v.) “cut off, separate” ~ Türkic sevrä- (sevrǝ-), savra- (v.) “decrease, diminish, get rid of”. A myopic “IE etymology” suggests a Lat. composite, q.v. Ultimately a derivative of a verb sav- “repulse, divert, stand aside, disperse, get out of the way, let loose”. The root sav-, sev- “get out of the way” is homophonous with the root sav-, sab-, say- “say”, a derivative of the root sa:-/say- “reckon, count” that produced the Eng. verb say, see say. A polysemantic stem lends vagueness to the readings and etymological tracings. Eng. has numerous homophonic words: severe, sewer, swear, and more, none connected with removing a part of a whole. A Lat. has a similar separare (v.), it produced an Eng. separate (v.). In the “IE” family both Lat. and Eng. words are “guest” aliens. Cognates: besides an OFr. late borrowing sevrer (12 c.) there are no “IE” cognates; Mong. sejire “become small”; Nanai sər “scanty, sparse ”; Manchu səri ditto; Mansi and Manchu-Tung. cognates are reflects of the Türkic forms (EDTL 290). Distribution: spans across Eurasia from Atlantic to the Far East incl. Just a single A.-Sax. language had 32 synonyms to express; it was not starving for another synonym. Lat. had about 8 synonyms for “cut off”. Phonetically, sever (v.) can't be derived from separare (v.) or separate (v.). The internalized Eng. twin semantically and phonetically ascends directly to the Türkic sevrä (v.) and its dialectal allophones. The suggested Lat. twin is either a perfect chance coincidence with the Türkic and Eng. words, or an accidental neologism. A random coincidence of the Lat. separ with the Türkic sevrä with perfect semantic congruence is a very far shot with negligible probability. It can't be credibly advocated. A Lat. composite neologism se + para could not have propagated across Eurasia to the entire Türkic family of ca. 80 native languages, it would be confined to the W. Europe. That chance can't be credibly advocated. An only credible conclusion can be that the Lat. cognate belongs to a massive body of the Turkisms in Lat. The Lat. separ- is an allophone of the Türkic sevrä- and the Eng. sever (“cut off”), a semantic contraction of “decrease, diminish”). A Türkic or Mong. origin is inescapable; “a question about a Turkic vs. Mong. connection for now remains open” (EDTL 286). See say.

3.155
sew (v.) /sō, sou/ < /souk, souq/ “stitch” ~ Türkic suk-, sok- (suq-, soq-) (v.) “sew”, plus “weave (fabric)”, “knit”, and the like. An “IE etymology” cheerfully suggests a “PGmc” and “PIE” origins, q.v.  Ultimately fr. suk-, sok- in -k, -g of a primeval stem su, so, tı, čı “sting, strike, jab”. The prime verb has ~62 meanings in 16 semantic clusters, from “thrust” to “expose”, with downstream layers, and those produce clusters of ensuant layers. An intra- and inter-cluster correlation has a high degree of pliability. At least two synonyms are concordant with suk-, suq-: the tık-, tıg- “insert, sting”, “sew” (Cf. tıkıt- “sting, pin”, tığı, čigil), and čık-, čıg- “sting”. They are extensions “insert, sting” fr. the prime notion suk-, sok- (v.) “beat, strike”, a downstream extension of the “sting, bite” of the prime notion, see sock. An etymological hierarchy of the notions is fairly arbitrary. The homonymic forms suk- and sok- “beat, crush” show traces of undifferentiated use, with areal predominances and overlapping semantics. “Kashgari treats both verbs in the same paragraph; ...it is simply a matter of judgment which verb is involved” (Clauson EDT 805). The stem suk-/suq- forms derivatives connected with subduction, anything that goes into inside, from “socket” to “sugar” (of inner juice). The form suk- “insert” predominates in the western area, in the east “insert” is sok- along with other meanings. The link between “insert” and “stitch” is illustrated by archeological study of the oldest pants, a nomadic riding pants from the Tarim basin ca 1300 BC, weaved on a loom as a single piece. Required for continuous riding thigh inserts were stitched in, reflecting archaic means of “patching”, “stitching together” prefabricated sections. Of 44 European languages, a Türkic > Sl. > Gmc. etc. (s/š)i(t-) (~ sV-) dominates with its 12 (Sl.) + 6 motley siblings with 19 (43%) languages, approaching a level of 50.6% Hg. R1a/b demographic presence in Europe. It is followed by a Romance group cos- with 8 (18%) languages. The remaining 19 languages use a spectrum of their own 12 terms. A first to Europe migrants (ca. 40,000 ybp) of the Sl. Y-DNA Hg. I, a de-facto European educational leader, in the following millenniums disseminated the Türkic “sew” terminology. Cognates: A.-Sax. seowan, seowian, siwian, siowian “sew, stitch, mend, patch, knit together”, OFris. sia “sew”, NFriz. saie, sei, Saterland Fris. säie “sew” (but Ir. fuaigh, Scots fuaigheal, Welsh gwnio); Dan. sy, sye “sew”, Sw. sy, ONorse syja, OHG siuwan, Goth. siujan “sew”; OCS šijo, šivu “seam”, Rus. shit (шить), Pol. szyc “sew”; Latv. siuviu, siuti “sew; Lat. suo, suere “sew””; NPers. sökülmä “sword” (< Tr. soqul- “stub, stuck”); Skt. sivyati “sew”; all “sew” unless noted otherwise. The Eng. sew lacks a suitable “IE” etymology; it is indeed one of the many “guests” in Europe. Distribution: covers the Steppe Belt and its extensions; no references to the Far Eastern languages. The “IE etymology” is lacking an initial word that developed into a concept of sewing. There is no need for a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *siwjanan “?” or a faux “PGmc. proto-form” *siwjana “sew”, nor for a faux “PIE proto-root” *syu- “bind, sew” and a faux “PIE proto-word” *syewh- “sew”. The “IE etymology” dubiously attempts to link the notions of “yarn” and “sewing”, which are unlikely to be related. Yarn appeared far ahead of sewed garments, and the first sewing was done with natural materials like plant fiber and animal sinew. The yarn-connected notions of spinning are not related to sewing. All these speculations need to be gently retracted as misleading up to a point of attested terms. In Türkic languages, phonetic transition from post-palatal velar plosive consonants -g-/-k-/-q-/-h- to weak or silent -ğ- and a semi-consonant -y- or a null consonant are regular. The areal forms suy- and su- are a fairly suitable rendering for the western Türkic vernaculars, attested in the Lat. su(ere) “sew”, and in the Gmc. renderings sy- and siu-. The A.-Sax., Gmc., and Goth. versions preserved a Türkic instr. case suff. -an: sewan “to thread” and a 3rd pers. past suff. -ti: siuti “sewn” adopted by Sl. languages to the present. A derivative sut- in the Eng. sutura “fibrous joint”, Lat. sutura “a seam, a sewing together”, sutus “sewn”, Skt. sutram “thread” are formed with the Türkic causative verbal suffix -t- “something made using a verb base”. The antiquated Türkic notion of “inserting” was eventually replaced with other verbs denoting “stitching”. By that time, the European forms for “sew” were internalized and fossilized. See dick, socket, stick, tick.

3.156
shake (v., n.) “rock, jolt” ~ Türkic silk- (v.) “shake, swing”, sok-, čok-, šok- (shok), soq- “strike, beat”,. Extended semantics “brandish, tremble, glide, hasten, flee, depart”. Allophonic forms sık-, sığ-, sig (v., n.) “press, strike”. An “IE etymology” offers a “PGmc” and “PIE” origins, q.v. Türkic has 26 semantic clusters with about a hundred meanings, plus a few clusters of homophones with dozens of their specific meanings. Individual languages have their own overlapping semantic line-ups. Eng. has retained original phonetics without a significant change. Of 44 European languages, a motley group shak- of 14 (32%) languages dominates, followed by a Sl. group tres- with 7 (16%) languages. A remaining 23 (52%) languages use 12 of their own native terms. Accounting for the 13 Türkic W. European languages would significantly shift the balance of the users of “shake”. A motley contingent of “shake” users in Europe attests to its “guest” status there. If there is a shared “Pan-European” term in Europe, it is a reflection of the Türkic silk-, sok-. Cognates: A.-Sax. sceacan (sh-, infin.), scoc (sh-, past tense 3 pers. sg.) “shake”, Dan. skage “shift, turn, veer”, MDu. schokken (sh-) “push, jolt”, ONorse, Sw. skaka, OHG scoc (sh-) “jolt, swing”, Gmn. schlagen “strike, beat”; OFr. choquer “strike”, MFr. choc “attack”; Skt. khaj “agitate, churn, stir”; NPers. so:qu:m “slaughter (fattened cattle)”; Mong. segsrekh “shake” (~ Tr. silk-, Gmn. schlagen), Mong., Kalm. tsoh, tsokh “strike, beat”; all “shake” unless noted otherwise. Distribution: Spans from one end of Eurasia to another. No credible “Gmc./IE proto-word”. Blurry indicators use vague assertions: “reconstructed”, “imitative”, “probably”, “origin unknown”, “from Frankish”, further diminished by unrealistic semantic suggestions. They are solely parroty, not adding any etymological value to the attested Türkic and European “guest” words. Those are: a faux “PWGmc. proto-word” *skakanan “shake, swing” with that “swing” unrelated to neither “shake” nor a boggling “escape”; a faux “PIE proto-root” *(s)keg- “jump, move”, or faux *skakana, *(s)keg-, *(s)kek-, or Sl. skak “gallop, jump, leap”, etc. An assertion of “no certain cognates outside Germanic” is equally false: the attested roots čok- (chok), šok- (shok), silk- etc., and the lexicons of 13 Türkic W. European languages produce a solid attested evidence. They are true precursors for the Gmc., Sl., Romance, etc. internalizations. A reference to a Frankish involvement may reflect a reality: the Frankish was a western descendent conglomerate of the Attila state's posterity, Cf. the Arthur's kurgan grave in Briton, see Arthur. There is no need for a faux “Proto-Germanic imitative base” nor for the other fictions; they should be gently rescinded. The Türkic examples lean toward warfare, matching the Fr. examples, with plenty of semantic extensions matching and overlapping other European semantics. The Türkic phonetics with initial s-, ch-, sh- matches that of the A.-Sax., Gmc., and Fr. forms. The Skt. form matches the Türkic s-/h- alternation typical for the Aral-basin vernaculars. The Skt. auslaut -j matches the Türkic final -k/-ğ/-y alternation, allowing to trace the Skt. form to particular Türkic locations and dialects. The suggested “IE” cognates are phonetic mirrors possibly derived from a second semantic meaning of the verb silk- recorded for its Türkic synonym tebrä- “twitch, move, motion”, OCS “leap”, Welsh “move”. The phonetic and semantic match is clear, their concordance leaves no doubts about a Türkic origin. The triplet sock, shock/shake, tremble constitutes a hard case of paradigmatic transfer from a Türkic lexical phylum. See Arthur, shock, sock, tremble.

3.157
“” “” “” “” “” “” § & * = ≠ ~ ≈ ≡ ± °– → ↔ џ(dž)aæδεχƔɣčšäïüӧəǯØΣ 13 W. European
English shatter (v.) “fracture into many bits” ~ Türkic sïtür- (v.) “crush, fracture”. Ultimately a causative derivative of sï- (v.) “break”. Eng. has preserved the original phonetics with minimal change. Cognates: ODu. schetteren, LGmn. schateren, Du. strooien, Gmn. streuen; Balt.-Sl. (Lith.) sutrai(kyti); Mong. sinal- “broken (heart)”; Even. siŋnǝ- “break”; Nanai, Orok. siŋgǝrǝ “break”, common for the “scatter” and “shatter”. The sïtür- “break” is scattered across Eurasia and across linguistic families. A non-IE origin of the word is evident, it is a guest on the opposite fringes of the Eurasian languages. A scatter pattern excludes cross-borrowing between the Far East and the Far West, unambiguously pointing to the Türkic intermediary source. Gmc. forms start with sibilant t s-, š- and their variations. The fluidity of the initial sibilant is illustrated by a varied articulation of the word schedule. A European allophonic form of the shatter is scatter, with accent closer to “disperse, scatter” rather than to “break, divide”. See scatter.

3.158
“” “” “” “” “” “” § & * = ≠ ~ ≈ ≡ ± °– → ↔ џ(dž)aæδεχƔɣčšäïüӧəǯØΣ
English shit (v., n.) “defecate, poop” (Sw N/A, F527, 0.02%) ~ Türkic šıč- (shich-), šıčıt- (shichit, inf.), sıčtur- (sichtur, caus.) “defecate, poop”. Türkic phonetics is fluid, with wide phonetic changes (s-/š-/č-, -s/-sh/-ch). The verbal form šıč-/šıš- is homophonic with nominal šıč/šıš/sı:š meaning 1. like in shish-kebab “piece, bit (roasted meat)”; 2. “swelling, boil”. That refers to an elongated shape of the poop, probably in a primeval lexical experience. Unless it was the other way around, shish-kebab reflecting a shape of the poop. The word was internalized with ad hoc spelling variations, with dento-palatial -ch-/-t- alternation. Eng. shit reportedly comes from Fris. and Du., that origin is apparently predicated on the absence of the word in the literary sources. Cognates: A.-Sax. scytel (shytel) “shit, excrement”, scitan (shitan, inf.) “shit, defecate”, ME shitel, Fris., NFris. skitj, Du. schijt, schijten, Gmn. scheissen. European distribution is limited to the Gmc. languages, that clearly attests to a non-IE origin, and to a status of a loanword. Otherwise, distribution extends from the Atlantic to Pacific along the Steppe Belt and its fringes. The fanciful “IE etymology” ascends to phonetically similar, but semantically odd notions of “cut, split, divide, separate, shed”, and as example cites the A.-Sax. scearn (shearn) “dung, muck”, allophonic to the same Türkic šıč- (shıch) “poop”. There is no need for scholastic equilibristics that makes shit a cousin to science and conscience. A.-Sax. directly reflects the Türkic šıčıt- (inf.), recorded complete with the Türkic adjectival suffix -l, instrumental suffix -an, and 3rd pers. verbal suffix -tï/-ti internalized as abstract infinitive verbal suffix in some “IE” languages.

3.159
“” “” “” “” “” “” § & * = ≠ ~ ≈ ≡ ± °– → ↔ џ(dž)aæδεχƔɣčšäïüӧəǯØΣ/
English shock (v., n.) “rock, jolt” (Sw N/A, F1948 0.003%) ~ Türkic sok-, čok-, šok-, soq- (v.) “strike, beat”, soku: (n.) “blow, beat”. “Shake” is a second allophonic form of the same origin, Türkic forms sık-, sığ-, sig (v., n.) “press, strike”, silk- (v.) “shake, swing”, with extended semantics “shake, swing, brandish, tremble, glide, hasten, flee, depart”. Cognates: A.-Sax. sceacan (sh-, inf..), scoc (sh-, past tense 3 pers. sg.) “shake”, MDu. schokken (sh-) “push, jolt”, OHG scoc (sh-) “jolt, swing”, ONorse, Sw. skaka (sh-), Dan. skage (sh-) “shift, turn, veer”; OFr. choquer “strike”, MFr. choc “attack”; Welsh ysgogi “move”; OCS skoku “leap”; Skt. khaj “agitate, churn, stir”. The Türkic examples lean toward warfare, matching the Fr. examples, with plenty of semantic extensions matching and overlapping the other European semantics: “beat, strike, crush, dig, pierce, peck, bite, card (wool)”. The Türkic phonetics with initial s-, ch-, sh- matches that of the A.-Sax., Gmc., and Fr. forms; the Sl. form matches that of the Scandinavian forms. The Skt. form matches the s-/h- alternation typical for Aral basin vernaculars, the Skt. auslaut -j matches Türkic final -k/-ğ/-y alternation; that allows to trace the Skt. form to particular locations and dialects. The “IE etymology” has no claimed cognates outside Gmc., and even does not extend a dubious PGmc. “proto-form” to the cousin shake. A phonetic and semantic match is perfect and near-perfect, concordance leaves no doubts of the Türkic origin. The triplet sock, shock/shake, tremble constitutes a hard case of paradigmatic transfer from the Türkic phylum. See sock, shake, tremble.

English shove (v.) “push, press, drive, impel” ~ Türkic sav-, saw- (v.) “drive away, repulse”. The base notions are “push away” and “disperse”, metaphorical notions are “escape” and “disappear”. The Türkic verb sav- is an exceptionally generic abstract concept not connected with any specific act, and perfectly suitable for polysemantic development. On the Gmc. soil it continued innovations that produced derivatives scuff, scuffle, shuffle, shovel, etc. Cognates: A.-Sax. scufan (shuf(an)) “push away, thrust, push with violence”, ONorse skufa, skyfa, OFris. skuva, Du. schuiv(en), OHG scioban, “push, thrust”, Goth. skiub(an), also suggested Balto-Sl. (Lith.) skubti “haste”, skubinti “hasten”. No “IE” links whatsoever, the “IE etymology” does not even reach the Lat. The “IE” etymology, in its efforts to create a single original PIE “proto-word” for the cognates, comes up with a tailor-made scenario for each phonetic form of the allophonic cluster, inventing different asterisked models for obvious cognates, like *skeubh- and *skublo-, with remarkable resemblance to the Türkic original. The Lith. examples are unrelated to the word shove, they are confused with the allophones of the Tr. verb čap-/cap-/šap- connected with hurrying and driving chattel by making noise, a very peculiar retention. The queer A.-Sax. Romanized alphabet coded -sh- as -sc-, masking the anlaut consonant that survived in the original palatalized form -sh- of -s-, and in written metamorphosed form -sc- (-sk-). The European Türkic languages tend to pronounce the -s- of the eastern languages as -sh- of the western languages. Migrations of populations disseminate both forms in opposite directions. The auslaut -l is a Tr. passive voice suffix. Confused with the root in the above example, it makes derivatives formed on the model of shoved (“shovel”, deverbal noun) and scuffled (“scuffle”, deverbal noun). See scuff, scuffle, shuffle, shovel.
58

English sick (v.) “vomit, disgorge”, (n.) “dejection, excreta” (Sw N/A, F541 0.02%) ~ Türkic sök- (v.) “have diarrhea”, “destruction of some kind” (OTD 510). The root sök- is more suitable for the specific semantics then the root sık because cognates of sick “ill”, limited to the Gmc. group, do not universally support the notion “vomit”, making it concordant with the Türkic sök-. In English to sick “to destroy (them), set upon (them)” parallels Tr. semantics. A derivative of sök- (v.) is sökäl (n.) “sick person”, formed with poly-functional suffix -al, still active in Türkic and English. In this case sökäl is “to turn ill, sick”, equivalent to English “is sick, turned ill”. Türkic sök- also has a verb sökmak, lit. “make sök” - equivalent to “(be) diarrheic (v.)”. Cognates: A.-Sax. siht “flux, diarrhea”. The notions of sick/ill and vomit probably already conflated within the Türkic milieu. That is attested by a presence of semantics vomit in the allophones of sık- in other Gmc. languages. A simplification of phonetics to sick was a result of Gmc. internalization. The “IE etymology” goes standard “of uncertain origin”, a euphemism for “we poor linguists do not have a clue”. English has plenty of related semantic innovations, while Turkish uses the stem sök-, and not sık- to form an innovation “patient”.

English sicker (v.) “ooze, percolate, trickle” ~ Türkic sarq- (v.) “ooze, seep, leak”. The form sayik-, sayeg- “shallow, dry riverbed”, a derivative of sa:y (šay) “shallow, dry riverbed” also means “trickle”, phonetically it is close enough. That also apply to saɣ- which produced Eng. “soak” and “suck”. These acoustic twins describe overlapping notions, the sicker, sok, and sarq-/sayik-/sayeg-/saɣ- are allophonically equidistant from each other. In English, sicker “ooze” is rated as a provincial talk, with no etymology. It does not even merit to be included in standard dictionaries, has no date of first record, and is an example of a real folk language. Agewise, it may be older than a Corded Ware itself, with a knack to survive, at least as a trade term. Cognates: A.-Sax. sic “small stream, runnel”, sicerian “trickle, penetrate, ooze”; Sl. sochitsya, sok, sochnyi (сочиться, сок, сочный) “to ooz, juice, juicy”, also acoustic twins in both languages with no established etymology and apparently no Balto-Sl. cognates. The Slavic lost -r- in comparison with Middle Asian Türkic, and English transposed -rq-, pointing that the Western Türkic source probably was not exactly of the Middle Asian form. A likeliest source for both the English and Slavic forms is Sarmatian, since Sarmats covered both the C. European Anglo-Saxon and Slavic areas. See soak, suck.

English sing (v.) “vocalize” (Sw N/A, F1375 0.01%) ~ Türkic siŋ (sing) (v.) “ring, buzz”. Apparently, the semantic shift or extension from “buzzing” sound to “singing” sound was specific to the western Türkic languages of the Scythian-Sarmatian circle. The eastern (largely Oguz) group of Türkic languages is using a synonymous verb yarla-, which found place in Heb. (yarla- “sing”), in the Sl. (gorlanit, горланить, “loud utter”) the word comes with Ogur-type prosthetic initial -g. The Türkic stem siŋ has two meanings, “sing” and “sink”. Both have survived into the modern English, a salient case of paradigmatic transfer. An A.-Sax. galan- “sing” is a reflex of yarla-/garla- and a cognate of the Eng. call, A.-Sax. ceal-, fr. Türkic kol-. Cognates: A.-Sax. sing-, OSax. sing-, OFris. siong-, ONorse syng-, Goth. sigg-, OHG sing-, MDu. singh-, Du. zing-, Gmn. sing-, Sw. sjung-, “sing”. Demonstratively no cognates outside of Gmc. and Türkic languages, no common “IE” “proto-word”. A faux “Gmc. proto-word” *seng is plainly identical with the real Türkic siŋ (sing). Dazed by its own brilliance, the purblind “IE etymology” shamelessly dupes “no related forms in other languages”. Ironically, the “IE etymology” legitimized “sink” with an invention of a faux “PIE root” *sengw-, a feeble distortion of the homophonic real Türkic siŋ-, while the unlucky companion “sing” was left out in the cold. With the A.-Sax. homophones sink and sing, and galan- and ceal-, the paradigmatic transfer case includes a quartet of similar words. Such chance event by a random coincidence is absolutely impossible. This is a clear case of paradigmatic transfer, unambiguously attesting to the common origin from the Türkic milieu. See sink, call.

English sink (v.) “go under” ~ Türkic siŋ- (v.) “dissipate into the ground, be absorbed (water), be sucked up”. For such primeval notion, a spread of phonetic forms is uniquely narrow and predictable: only sin-, sig-, syŋ-, xiŋ-, iŋ-. A Türkic bifurcation “sink”, “digest” was paradigmatically transferred to A.-Sax, a salient case of a common origin. With a spread of kitchen sinks, the word gained a status of a true international word. Cognates: A.-Sax. sincan “sink, become submerged”, “digest easily”; OSax. sinkan, MDu. sinken, Du. zinken, OHG sinkan, Gmn. sinken, Goth. sigqan “sink”; Mong. siŋge- “sink”, Kalm. šiŋg-, Bur. šǝŋgǝ- “sink”. Some of those and other eastern languages also retained the meaning “digest”. Distribution is across Eurasia and linguistic barriers. All European cognates are Gmc., no “IE” cognates, a positive attestation of a non-IE origin. That makes any “IE” pretensions ludicrous. A suggested unattested PIE *sengw- is just a poor man's distortion of the real attested Türkic siŋ-. A claimed ONorse pseudo-cognate sökkva is an allophone of an unrelated Türkic stem saɣ- “soak”. An agglutinated Türkic suffix -an/-en in the Gmc. forms marks passive voice and participle. All Gmc. words are close allophones of the Türkic word. The Türkic stem siŋ has two meanings, “sing” and “sink”, both have survived into the modern English, a salient case of paradigmatic transfer. With the A.-Sax. galan- and ceal-, the paradigmatic transfer forms a lexical quartet of sing, sink,. Such chance event by a random coincidence is absolutely impossible, this is a clear case of paradigmatic transfer, definitively attesting to the common origin. See sing, soak.

English sip, sup (v.) “drink small mouthfuls at a time”, sip (n.) “small mouthful of drink” ~ Türkic syp-, sеp- (v.) “by drops”, syp (n.) “drop (of liquid)”. It is a phonetically modest (8 allophonic forms), semantically capacious lexeme (4 semantic clusters, ~40+ meanings). Of those, Eng. retained 2 meanings (sip, seep). Cognates: A.-Sax. saep “sap, juice”, seaw “sap, juice, moisture”, supan (WSax.), suppan, supian (Northumbr.), sype “wetting, act of soaking”, sypian, sipian “absorb, drink in”, soppian “soak”, ONorse supa, MLG supen, Du. zuipen, OHG sufan, Gmn. saufen “to sip”; Hu. chepp “drop”; Sum. sheks (n.) “drop”; Hu. szepla “freckle”; Mari šuvaš “pour, shower”; Mong. seb “scale (fish)”, sebke “hives, freckle”; Kalm. sevg “freckle”. The notion “freckle” and the like are connected with meanings “drip” and the like. Like Türkic, Hu. and Sum. agglutinate suffixes to the stem to produce derivative verbs and nouns. Distribution spans across Eurasia and linguistic barriers. The “IE etymology” is funny, it circles and blunders, asserting “from a Gmc. source”, thus completing a full circle from enigmatic Gmn. into the bushes and back to enigmatic Gmn. It turns to notions from “press out juice” to “juice”, “rain”, “to suck”, “flowing sap”, A.-Sax. seaw “sap”, “eat the evening meal”, and finally OFr. super and soupe “broth, soup”. Some of these accidentally are derivatives of syp-, sеp-and thus are true cognates of the Türkic original precursor. The Gmc. sup and Eng. sip are allophones with identical semantics. Ultimately, the notion of a sup ~ sip “drop” is connected with water, in Türkic su/suv/sub, and must be its early derivative. The Türkic su/suv/sub must have sired the enigmatic Gmn. sup and its Fr. version soupe “broth, soup”, MDu. sop, Lat. suppa. The Eng. sap also belongs to the same circle of derivatives, with cognates A.-Sax. sæpm, MLG, MDu, Du. sap, OHG saf (sav), Gmn. Saft “juice”, Ir. sug “sap”, Balt. (Lith.) sakas “tree-gum”, Sl. sok “sap”, Skt. sabar- “sap, milk, nectar”. Ditto the Lat. sipho and the Gk. siphon “siphon”, both “draw liquid by sucking” (v.), “device to draw liquid by sucking” (n.), Hu. szop (sop) “draw liquid by sucking”. Starting with the Sumerian cognate dating to the 4th mill. BC, numerous derivative semantics and a collection of allophones all point to the Eurasian continental-wide distribution of the root su/suv/sub, and a slew of derivatives long preceding the Indo-Aryan migration to India ca 1500 BC and the birth of the Latin and Greek.

English sit (v.) “squat, hunker, rest on butt, lounge” (Sw N/A, F421, 0.12%) ~ Türkic si:t-, si:d-, sıt-, sıd-, siδ- (v.) “squat”. Türkic men urinated sitting (squatting), that was and still is one of national ethnological idiosyncrasies not mentioned in the linguistic dictionaries. The stem si:t-, sıt- means “urinate squatting” or “squat to urinate” (Cf. er sitti: “man squatted to urinate”); which part is primary is obscure and etymologically irrelevant. Thus, the Türkic verb si:t-, sıt- is “to squat” (Eng. sit, seat, and stool (chair), and “to urinate” (Eng. stale, stool (excrement)), the last extending to “to defecate” and in Tr. to “defile”. The CT form of the stem si:t-, sıt- is siy-, Cf. Az. siymək, Kor. swiya. A complimentary form čıj-/čij- (čıž-/čiž-) (chij with -j- as -j- in jest, -g- in gel) (v.) is translated as “lay down” (of the horses) and “sag, droop” (of the horses). Those forms are close phonetically and semantically to suspect a common origin with a notion “get down”. Judging by the spread of the term sit “sit”, squatting and excreting was a salient occupation of the Eurasians ever since they could name their fave. The notion “sit” must have preceded an adoption of the fire, and belongs to the most ancient elements of the human speech. Its commonality across later language families is natural. Some semantic derivatives are: yearly - seat (n), late - sedentary (adj.), etc.; the verbal form seat is practically synonymous with the form sit. The modern Türkic word olur- “sit” with a sense of “settle temporarily, occupy” initially applied specially to rulers (Clauson EDT 150), it is the form that survived to the present. It is a dignified form of the archaic inelegant verbs si:t-, sıt-, čıj-. Both forms left enduring traces specific for the notion “sit”: čıjdı: (2nd pers. sg.) is homophonic with the Sl. sidi (сиди) - imperative “sit”, and sidet (сидеть) - infinitive “sit” (Skt. sidati “(he) sits”, is homophonic with both Tr. čı- and 3rd pers. suffix -ti), čıj- is phonetically homophonic with siju (сижу) - 1st pers. sg. “(I am) sitting”; so do the Ir. shuío(chán)“seat”, Fr. siege (sij), Taj. čoj (ҷой) “place”, Ch. zuo(wei) 座位 “seat”, Jap. shito “seat”. A Sl. y-/j-/d- alternation is consistent with that of the Turkic languages. A dental plosive -d-/-t- is routinely interchangeable with the semiconsonant -y- and the dentipalatal affricate -j-. A ch-/sh-/s-/z- alternation is routine. Thus, the forms sit, sidi, and čıj-/čıjdı: and siju are allophones expressing a notion “sit”. That is an overwhelming line of evidence: there is no doubt that sit and sidet are cognates, that sidet and siju are cognates, that sidi and čıjdı: are cognates, and siju and čıj- are cognates. The other variations of the čı- words point to a notion of flexing: čıp “slender twig”, čıbık “flexible rod”, “trilby cap”, či:če:k “flower”, čıča:lak “little finger”, či:t “silk”, čı:ğ “reed”, čı:ğlan- “measuring flexible cloth”, čığa:n “poor, destitute” (flimsy, slender living), čik “bent (concave) side of a knucklebone”, and so on. That is consistent with the CT form si:- “break” in a sense of “flex” and the forms si:t-, sıt-. Taken along with translations, čıj- lit. expresses a type of flexing at the hips, below the back and above the knee, and thus it is an appropriate stem for the verb “sit” and the noun “seat” (Cf. genuflex “bending of the knee” fr. yinčür- (v.) “bow, bend”, bow (n.) “bending in the spine” fr. buq-/bük- (v.) “bend, bow”). In the eastern Türkic languages the uncouth stem sit- and the fuzzy stem čıj- were supplanted by a more couth stem olur- “sit” with a sense of “settle temporarily, occupy”, while the western languages have retained the primeval stems sit- (sit-, sid-, zit-) and čıj- (sež-, sizz-). Cognates: A.-Sax., OSax. sittian, ONorse sitja, Dan. sidde, OFris. sitta, MDu. sitten, Du. zitten, OHG sizzan (Cf. čıž-/čiž-), Gmn. sitzen, Goth. sitan; OIr. suide “seat, sitting (remaining in one place)”, Welsh sedd “seat”, eistedd “sitting”; Lat. sedere; Gk. ezesthai with a prosthetic anlaut e-; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) sedmi, (OCS) sežda, sedeti, (Sl.) sidet (сидеть); Skt. sidati “(he) sits”; Mong. sige- “urinate”; Manchu site- “urinate”. A preponderance of evidence identifying relict forms sit- and čıj- with the versions scattered across Eurasia from Ganges to Atlantic (verb) and from Pacific to Atlantic (noun) excludes a fortuity chance for their uniform appearance, connecting genetically various descendent forms. In many instances the root -sit- contracted to -st-: stable, static, etc. The peculiar Fr. form probably was introduced by Burgunds, independently from the source of the peculiar Sl. form. The Celtic examples indicate the existence and the form of the lexeme prior to the Celtic departure from the Eastern Europe in the 5th - 4th mill. BC. Eastern languages carried on the original sense of “peeing”. The word, in a form echoing čıj- and sit-/sid-, probably was brought to Europe between 4500 and 2800 BC, probably via numerous paths separated in time and space. The morphological wrapping of the common to the Türkic - Sl. - Skt. verbal conjugational elements (e.g. -ti/-di, -t) can be dated by the 3rd mill. BC, i.e. the latest time when Skt. and Sl. shared a common Eastern European territory. The lexical, semantic, and morphological elements of the batch sit “squat” and stale “urinate”, sit “squat”, pee “urinate”, mark “tag, track”, connected by dual semantics of sitting (squatting) and excreting constitutes a paradigmatic transfer loaded with nuances and idiosyncrasies. They supply ample evidence for genetic connection to a common source propagate by restless nomadic Kurganians. See bow, genu, seat, stale.

English smile (v, n.) “sweet facial expression” (Sw N/A, F1336 0.01%) ~ Türkic (gülüm)seme (n.), (gülüm)semeye (v.) “smile”. The Türkic gül is “laugh”, a suffix seme has a connotation of “sprouting, seed, beginning, genesis”, Cf. Sl. semya (семя) “seed”, the part seme/semeye of the jingle expresses “joyful, happy, cheerful”, so the compound gülümseme accentuates a notion “smile” as opposed to a full laugh. In the west, correlated with the populace marked by the Pit Grave Y-DNA groups R1b-CTS7822 and R1b-Y14512 (European branch), descendent from the Y-DNA group R1b-Z2108 subclades CTS1843 and Z2109, the part seme split and continued its own happy independent life. Cognates: A.-Sax. smerian “to laugh at”, smearcian (modern smirk), Dan. smile, Sw. smila, OHG smieron “smile”; Balt. (Latv.) smiet, smeju, smeju, smaidit, smidinat, sminet; Sl. derivatives trail the Balt. (Latv.) smekh (смех); Skt. smayate, smayati, smeras, smitas. Distribution of the word points to a procession Türkic > Gmc. > Sl., with Skt. forms budding off after an initial European development. A telling absence of parallels in the Romance and other branches of the “IE” family attests to a non-IE origin. An unattested fictive “IE proto-word” *smoisos was mechanically derived from the Türkic reflexes in the Gmc./Sl. languages. The Latv. smaidit “to smile” – smaidigs “smiling” has preserved a reflex -īg of the Türkic suffix -gen used to form qualitative adjectives from verbal stems. The Skt. forms with Türkic verbal suffix -te/-ti point to a E. European connection prior to ca. 1500 BC and probably ascending to 2000 BC.

English soak (v.) “imbue with liquid” ~ Türkic saɣ(ur)-, suğ(ur)- (v.) “soak, absorb”. The form saɣur is a derivative of the verb saɣ- “to milk (an animal)”, a root that has a long trail of allophones and a spectrum of semantic meanings, where a particular semantics of “extract milk” (v.) produced derivatives “suck”, “suckle”, “soak”, “absorb”, “get”, and the like, and then some more. Saɣur consists of the root saɣ- + suffix -ur (active voice marker) ~ “soak, absorb”. An alternate form saɣen is a deverbal noun derivative formed with a suffix -en/-an. Cognates: A.-Sax. sucan, WFris. suge, OSw., OHG sugan, ONorse suga, MDu. sughen, Du. zuigen, WFlem. soken, Gmn. saugen “suck”; OIr. sugim, Scots souke, Welsh sugno “suck”; Lat. sugere “suck”, succus “juice, sap”; Sl. sosasat, sosu, soska, sosok, sosunok (сосать, сосу, соска, сосок, сосунок) “suck”, “suckle”, “nippel” etc; Mong. saga “suck”; Fin. saada “get”. Distribution - across Eurasia from end to end. No sane “IE” etymology. The “IE etymology” offers two different, both unattested, separate origins for the siblings “soak” and “suck”, a PG *sukon “absorb” modeled on attested and real WFlem. soken, and an “IE” root *seue-“absorb”. The origin of *seue- in a circular illogic mode is brazenly derived from a notion “soup”. Or a Lat. neologism absorb from ab- “from” + sorbeo “suck”, even without connecting the word “soak” with some “reconstructed” PIE word. But at least moving in a right direction by inventing a clone sobriquet for the Türkic real and attested saɣ-, suğ “suck”. The WFlem. example comes with the Türkic suffix, the Sl. cognates are marked by s/k alternation. The pair “soak” and “suck” constitutes a clear case of paradigmatic transfer, unambiguously attesting to a common origin from the Türkic linguistic store. See suck.

English sock (v., n.) “beating” ~ Türkic sok-, suk- (v.) “beat”. The sok- and suk- have overlapping topologies and semantics (the other semantic is an unrelated “insert, socket”), and “it is simply a matter of judgment which verb is involved”. Cognates: A.-Sax. aetsacan, oðsacan “beat off (deny)”, onsacan “beat off (contest, attack)”, sac, sacan, sacu “beat off (conflict, battle)”, sacful “beat off (contentious)”, Goth. sakan “beat off (rebuke, dispute, strive)”, sakjö “beat off (strife)”; Mong. tsoh, Kalm. tsokh “strike, beat”; Sum. sig- “beat”. The Eng. word is direct and unchanged Türkic word, it comes to English as a part of a massive paradigmatic transfer case, complete with morphological elements and its semantic cluster, and along with synonymous bat, beat, also ascending to Sum. via Türkic. Distribution spans a width of the Eurasia. A bedazzled “IE etymology” is non-existent, no cognates offered. So comes a routine refrain “of uncertain origin”. It can be positively stipulated that the 3rd mill. BC did not carry a massive demographic movement of the Sumerians to England to bring over that paradigmatic transfer. In both cases the only viable alternative are the Türkic Kurgan horse nomadic tribes. See bat (beat), sock (stocking), socket.

English squeeze (v.) “press firmly” ~ Türkic qïs- (qys-), sïq- (syg-) (v.) “squeeze, press”. A base notion of the word qïs- is “tight, narrow” with 7+ semantic clusters. The word has a constellation of semantic and grammatical derivatives, all developed from a semantic cluster “squeeze, press”. Both verb forms qiïs- and sïq- could produce the Gmc. and English forms. Cognates: A.-Sax. qwysan “squeeze”, Gmn. quets[chen] “squeeze”, predictably defined “of unknown origin”, with no “IE” cognates whatsoever. The Gmc. form points to either the English anlaut s- being a prosthetic innovation for a particular stem, or to an areal and probably temporal dialectic preference for one or the other form. Most of the English derivatives likely came together with the base verb, squeeze “coerce, intimidate, fit, force, grip”, squeeze by “barely manage” (v.), squash (v.) and obsolete squiss (v.) “squeeze or crush”, “grip”, “tight situation (money etc.)”, “impassable situation (money etc.)”, “pressed situation (social etc.)”, squeegee (n.) “wooden scraping instrument with a rubber blade”, squeezers (n.) “pinchers”. Türkic has a number of synonymous allophones that open gate for all kinds of semantic and phonetic innovations: qarish, qavir, qavur, qurul, and phonetically more remote cognate synonyms.

English stale (v.) “urinate (horses, cattle)” ~ Türkic si:t-, sıt-, si:d-, sıd-, siδ- “urinate (humans)”. Türkic men urinated sitting (squatting), that was and still is one of national ethnological idiosyncrasies not mentioned in the linguistic dictionaries. The stem si:t-, sıt- means “urinate squatting” or “squat to urinate” (Cf. er sitti: “man squatted to urinate”); which part is primary is obscure and etymologically irrelevant. Accordingly, the Türkic verb si:t-, sıt- is “to urinate” (Eng. stale, stool (excrement)), extending to “to defecate” and in Tr. to “defile”, and “to squat” (Eng. sit, seat, and stool (chair). The CT form of the stem si:t-, sıt- is siy-, Cf. Az. siymək, Kor. swiya. Possibly, the stem si:t-, sıt- is a derivative extension of the verb si:-, attested by the Tkm. form si:- “urinate” phonetically identical with the CT si:- “break” that could signify a squatting position. Other Türkic cognates are sidük, siki “urine”, sik “penis”, sik- (v.) “sex, copulate”, sikiš “sex, copulation”, as a complex these last cognates imply some kind of a past genital notion for the primeval si:-. Eng., like Türkic, has separate words for human and animal urination with transposed semantics (Cf. Eng. stale (v.) “urinate (horses, cattle)” and pee (v.) “urinate (people, animals)” vs. Tr. kığla- “defecate, urinate (horses, cattle)” fr. kığ “dung” and si:t-, sıt- “urinate (people)” ). In this idiosyncratic example, in Eng. the Tr. stem si:t-, sıt- is a calque of the Tr. stem kığla- in Türkic. Another salient parallel is the notion of relief associated with physiological excretions (Cf. Eng. “relieve oneself” vs. Türkic qašan (kašaŋ) (n.) “relieve, relax” and reflexive form qašan- (kašaŋ-) (v.) “relieve (urinate)” especially of horses, derivatives of qaša- (kaša:-) “relieve (by scratching), scratch”). In this idiosyncratic example the Tr. noun qašan is replaced by synonymous idiomatic calque “relieve oneself”. By now, in respect to sitting, the CT word olur- “sit” with a sense of “settle temporarily, occupy” completely supplanted the word si:t-, sıt-. G. Clauson's misinterpretation of the verbal stem si:t-, sıt- as a term solely for “urinate” propagates into his admitted confusion with its derivatives, caused by truncated interpretation of one component of the semantic complex. The duality of the notions sit and urinate expressed by the same verb permeates the Eng. q.v. lexicon but does not earn any explanation. According to the “IE” etymology, the verb sit is an allophone of the PIE verb *sta- “to stand”, and the stale “urinate” is an allophone of the Frankish *stal- “position” fr. stall (in a stable), the same PIE *sta- “to stand”, unrelated to either “sit, squat” nor to “urinate”. The verb sit “squat, sit”, according to the “IE” etymology, ascends to another PIE verb *sed- “sit” connected with “sedentary” but in reality probably older by eons. The “IE” etymological speculations are completely irrational, whimsical, apparently mechanically driven, unsustainable, and disconnected from cognates. Cognates: the MDu. stel (adj.) “stale” (of old urine) is puzzling, what's the MDu. name for new urine, for regular urine? Probably the citation is on stratified (settled) urine as a construction or medicinal fluid, and then stel is not a cognate of “urine”, but of “distilled”. Sl. sat (сать) “urinate” is singularly and in compound pisat (писать), pisyat (писять) “urinate” fr. the common Eurasian pi-/bi-/be-/mi-/vi- “urinate” + sat (сать) “urinate”. Sl. has a rich endowment of sat (сать) derivatives: sykun, sykach (сыкун, сыкач) “pisser”, sykuha (сыкуха) “pisser (fem.)”, saki (саки) “urine”, etc. Discounting the irrational MDu. “cognate”, “IE etymology” knows no European cognates at all. The closest cognates are all Türkic. The A.-Sax. stale is very polysemantic, but “urine” or “urinate” for it is not listed among the “IE” languages ( “urine” is Gk. non-IE ouron (ουρον) “urine”). Thus the verb stale “urinate” appears to be a hapax legomenon in Europe and within the “IE” languages, unequivocally attesting to its Türkic origin. The stem pi-/bi-/mi- “urinate” is a singular common Eurasian term scattered from Atlantic (Cf. Basque pixa, Icl. pissa, míga, Lat. mio) to Pacific (Cf. Ch. 排 pai, Kor. baenyo), while the stem sit- shows up episodically (Cf. Ch. 撒 sa, Kor. swiya, Turk. sidik, etc.). The stem pi-/bi-/mi- is connected with the attested Türkic excretion lexicon: mayaqa:- (bañaqa:-) “defecate” (stem may-/bañ), also “leave traces, markers”, mayaq (bañaq) “dung”; semantic bifurcation points to a metaphorical derivative origin of the notion “defecate” from the notion “mark”, and would point to the origin of the Gmc. “mark”. The duo stale “urinate” and sit “squat” constitutes a paradigmatic transfer case, complete with nuances and idiosyncrasies. The paradigm also includes the stem pee and the notion mark, supplying ample evidence for the Türkic genetic connection. An outstanding trait of the pee/mark bifurcation is a b/m alternation widespread across Eurasia. It could not have emerged spontaneously among drastically diverse Eurasian human lines, it is a universally spread effect of a single cause. The semantic transposition and semantic shifts and losses, and intensive lexical supplanting attest to deep antiquity of the Gmc.-Tr. separation, much deeper than the Sarmatic period. That antiquity is masked by the endurance of the Türkic stem phonetics, later amalgamations with kindred vernaculars, and peculiar demographic movements. The origin of the Western European forms can confidently be asserted as coming from the Eastern Europe at a point later than the Baltic-Slavic divergence. See sit.

English stay (v., n.) “stand, be upright, stop” (Sw N/A, F235, 0.11%) ~ Türkic üstü- (v.) “stay”, lit. “on feet, standing”. The üstü- is a form of the verb üst- “get up”, “standing on feet”, lit. “atop, aloft, upward”, formed with a verbal locative suffix -t/-d “up, upward movement” modifying the base üs, Cf. Eng. stay, stand (v.) “to stay” and stay, stand (n.) “layover”, “pedestal”, etc. The base üs, in turn, denotes a notion “top, above, over (something)”. In the native language, it does not denote a notion “stop”, which is a form of the word top “closer, block” with a prosthetic anlaut s-, see stop. In the process of dispersion and internalization, the initial vowel in üstü- was elided, although in some instances the word had preserved the initial vowel or added a prosthetic vowel, Cf. the initial e- in the Eng. establish, Sp. estacion “station”, Sl. ustanovka (установка) “installation, establishment”, lit. “standing”. In some particular internalization processes, phonetic resemblance of the particular forms for “stand” and “stop” had conflated two different words into a semantically extended single word, leading to confused etymological explanations for some particular languages. Depending on the language, the etymological semantic field is also extended to etymologically unrelated metaphorical additions, like “be, exist”. Cognates: A.-Sax. standan “stand, stand still, stop”, stow “spot, site, station, locality, position, place”, stowian “retain”, OHG stantan, stan, sten “stand”, OLG stouwen, stauen “retain, block, dam”, Goth. standan “stand, stand firm”, stojan “steer”; OFr. estare “stay, stand”; Lat. sto “I stand”, restaurare “restore”, Lat., It. stare “stand, stand still”; Gk. stoa (στοα), Eolian stoia (στωiα) “pillar, porch”, istimi (ιστημι) “stand”, Homeric sti (στη) “stand”; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) stoveti, stoviu “stand”, stoti, stoju “start, become”, (Latv.) stavet “stand”, stat “become”, (OPruss.) роstat “become”, (Sl.) staviti, stavya (ставити, ставя) “to stand”; Pers. istadan “stand”; Skt. astht “rose, became (aorist form)”, tisthati “stands”, Av. hištaiti “stands”. The “IE etymology” offers a cluster of explanations for a jumble of similarly-sounding st- words without discerning between the root and a prosthetic s-, without differentiating between the verbal and noun roots, and without differentiating the deverbal and denominal morphology. Apparently a thought of an elementary morphological analysis never donned on the “IE” linguistic school. A thought of the Eng. verbal -ed, Skt. -t/ti, Av. -t/ti, Sl. -t/ti, Türkic -di/-ti being allophonic morphological elements originated from a common source has never struck the “IE” etymologists. Pers., Skt. and Av. retained the stem üstü- almost intact. Among the “proto-words” are a jumble of an unattested “PIE *sta-” (v.) “stand”, an unattested “PIE *stak-” “stand, place”, an unattested “PIE *steh₂-” “stand”, an unattested “PIE *steh₂tis” “standing”, an unattested “PIE *(s)teg-” “rod, pole, stick”, an unattested “PG *stagaz” “stick, stake”, an unattested “PG *stadiz” “standing, place”, an unattested “PG *stako” “stake, bar, stick, pole”, an unattested Frankish *staka “support”, an unattested ODu. *stad “site, place, location, standing”. That cheerful cornucopia is further adorned by the last finishing strokes of the OFr. estaye, estaie “be, stand, continue, remain”, an allophone of the Eng. is “be” in all its semantic glory, and completely unrelated to the notion “stand up, be upright, stop”. The presence of the word in the Skt. and Av. sets a lower limit on the time of internalization as before the 2nd. mill. BC. The absence of the direct cognates in the Celtic languages points to its absence before the onset of the Celtic migration, ca. 5th mill. BC. None of the “PIE etymologies” are sustainable. In contrast, the Türkic etymology lays a direct path form an attested verbal root to the raster of the Eurasian languages, each with its own internalization specifics. It is a member of a large family of internalized verbs ingrained into the “IE” languages, such as act, are, awe, bash, bath, be, bear, step, stop, etc., cumulatively constituting a case of paradigmatic transfer from the ancient Türkic milieu. See step, stop.

English stick (v., n.) “implant, put, fix, force” ~ Türkic tik-/dik- (v.) “stick, insert, implant, erect”. Cognates: A.-Sax. stician (v.) “stick, prick, stab”, sticca (n.) “stick”, OSax. stekan, OFris. steka, ONorse stik (n.), OHG stehhan (v.), stehho (n.), MDu. stecke, stec (n.), Du. stecken, Gmn. stechen “stab, prick”, Lat. instigare “goad”, instinguere “incite, impel”; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) tukat “poke, insert”, (Sl.) tknyt, tyk (ткнуть (v.), тык (n.)), shtyk (штык) “bayonet”; Mong. čig “direction”, čike “vertical, straight”; Manchu čiŋ, či- “vertical, straight”; Kor. čik “straight”; Sino-Kor. čik “directly”. Eng. derivatives dyke, dike “standing barrier”, ditch “channel”, Sp. dique “levee, upright wall”. Distribution centers on NW Europe and Eurasian steppe belt extending to Pacific. The “IE etymology” confuses prefixes and euphonic modifications with roots, and semantically close, but different phenomena of sharp sticks (nail, thorn-like) with blunt sticks (club-like). The “IE etymology” does not even reach Lat. A “PG reconstruction” is a bland clone of the Gmc. forms with the Gmc.-specific prosthetic s-, with no “IE” links whatsoever. Both Gmc. and Sl. forms are regular attested phonetic modifications, and the semantic match is perfect. Gmc. version starts with etymological s-, Sl. versions start with etymological v- (votknut, vtyk (воткнуть, втык)) indicating direction of action. A Gk. stizein “prick, puncture”, stigma “mark with a pointed instrument” belongs to a second semantic class represented by Tr. sibling verbal form tik- (v.) “sting, pin”, tikän (n.) “thorn, spine”. There also belong the OPers. tigra- “sharp, pointed” and Av. tighri- “arrow”. An utter confusion is demeaning, and not due to an absence of prior scholarship. See tack, tick, tuck.

English step (v., n.) “pace, stride, tread” (Sw N/A, F751, 0.01%) ~ Türkic tep- (v.) “stamp, kick”, tap(a)- (v.) “stomp, stomping, stamping, stumping, tromping”, tap (n.) “trace, mark, scar”. Apparently, ultimately fr. noun tab/tap “trace, mark, scar”, with particular derivatives “sole of foot”, “foot (measure of length)”, “foot (of leg)”, “stomp, flatten (the ground)”, “run over”, and many more. Usual phonetic variations include d-/t-, -a-/-e-/-ö-/-ə, and -b/-p/-v/-w/-m, Cf. tab-, tam-, tav- (Mong.), taw- “foot, sole, paw”, tüp(lïk) “shoe sole”. The Gmc. versions are fairly uniform, attesting to either a recent internalization or extensive amalgamation. They are also not numerous compared with the host of the A.-Sax. synonymous feðelast, fotmaelum, fotstapol, fotswaeð, fotswatðu, grad, gride, last, middelfot, siðstapel, stride, swathu, tredan, treddan, treddian, tredel, and their derivatives. Abundance of synonyms indicates extensive spatial and temporal amalgamation. At the same time, modifiers and compounding demonstrate deep internalization. Cognates: A.-Sax. taeppelbred, taeppilbred “footstool”, staepe “step, pace”, “step, stair”, steppan “to step”, steop/-dohtor, -faeder, -modor, -sunu “step/-daughter, -father, -mother, -son”, steppescoh “slipper”, WSax. stæppan “take a step”, OFris. stapa, OHG stapfon, MDu., Du. stappen “step”; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) tарat “stomp, to step”, tара, tарu, “stomp”, tарat “walk, stomp”, (Lith.) tарuоti “stomp, to step”, tарšt “tap”, tapštereti “to tap”, (OCS) stopa “step, pace, foot”, stepeni “step, degree”, (Sloven.) tǝptati, (Cz.) deptati, (Slvt.) dерtаt, (Pol.) dерtаc “to stomp”, (Rus.) tоpot, toptat (топот, топтать) “stomping, to stomp”, stupnya “foot”; Gk. typto (τυπτω) “kick, strike”, typos (τυπος) “mark, press”, tympanon (τυμπανον) “tambourine, drum”, stypos (στυπος) “stick, handle”; Skt. topati, tupati, tumpati, tumpati, pra-stumpati “nudge, push”; Fin. tap “stomp, push”; Nenets tap- ditto; Mong. tab- “foot, paw, sole”; Ch. ta- 踏 “to stomp”; Kor. dangye 단계 “step”; Jap. teppu テップ “step”. Distribution spans across Eurasia and linguistic barriers. Without demography of the physical carriers conveying cultural influence, there is no place for the faux “PIE” root *stebh- to penetrate innumerous far-flung alien languages. While the Balto-Sl. languages have the initial t-/d- and st-/sd- evenly, and the Skt. and Gk. have both initials, the Gmc. group nearly exclusively has st-/sd-. That distinction points to the morphological, and not prosthetic function of the initial s-. It is a universal Eastern European areal prefix to mark a perfect tense, Cf. Eng. tab/stab, lather/slather, mud/smudge, Rus. delat/sdelat (делать/сделать) “to do, make/was done, made”. That points to the Corded Ware (3rd mill. BC) archeological culture, with a Gmc. internalization after the modified prefixed form gained a wide areal acceptance. Internalization of the forms with the alien prefix s- had likely occurred without understanding its grammatical significance. The consonance of the Far Eastern forms with the Türkic tab/tap corroborates that the Zhou-type “Scythians” reached the Pacific zone and amalgamated with the local populations at the turn of the 2nd millennium BC. There is no alternative in the 3rd - 2nd millennium BC for the Stone Age-technology society to spread the word across Eurasia from Atlantic to Pacific except for the mobile Türkic nomadic pastoralists. See stop.
59

English stop (v., n.) “halt”~ Türkic to:-, tu:- “to close, block”. Ultimately fr. an adj./adv. to “much”, and its utilitarian verbal form toδ-/tod- “satiated” with passive suffix δ-/d-. A suffix -p forms deverbal analytic nouns, to:- > top “closer, block”. Semantically identical, the Gmc. forms differ by a morphological anlaut s-. The anlaut s- regularly shows up in the N. European or Gmc. and Sl. forms of the words (see crunch “crackle” Lith. skrudeti “crack, flake”, Latv. skraustet “creak, rattle”; sconce “fortification”, Du. schans “earthwork”, OHG schanze “bundle of sticks”, Sl. kucha (куча) “pile” fr. Türkic qučaq “bundle, armful, pile”). A version stop evolved and then emanated from the Gmc. phylum, and now is an international word. Cognates: A.-Sax. -stoppian (for-stoppian “stop”, Eng. stopper “plug”, OSax. stuppon, WFris stopje, OHG stopfon “plug up, stop up”, OLFrankish (be)stuppon “to stop (the ears)”; It. stoppare, Fr. etouper “stop by plugging”; Skt. stambh (caus. stabhayati स्तभायति), stha (caus. sthapayati स्थापयति) “stop”. An “IE etymology” is confused and divided. With no “IE” “proto-word” across a predominant majority of “IE” languages, the word is a loanword within the “IE” family. The It. form, without a Lat. precedent, points to a loanword status. The Fr. word, without the initial -s, may have passed from Burgund, and gained a Mediterranean prosthetic anlaut e- on the way. The Skt. forms attest to the presence of the word in the 2nd mill. BC among the demographically mixed Indo-Aryan farmer migrants from the Eastern Europe. The utilitarian use as a “stopper” likely propagated the word along Eurasia before it reached international spread in the modern times. Türkic offers a morphologically, phonetically, and semantically sound etymology where the “IE” has none. See step.

English suck (v.) “draw, absorb (by vacuum)” ~ Türkic saɣ-, suğ- (v.) “suck”. Across 42+ Türkic languages and uncounted dialects can be found numerous slightly different forms: sak/sag/saq, and the like. Suck and soak are semantic siblings of the same root. The OTD gives 40 derivative forms found in Middle Age literature, probably at least as many did not get on the paper. Dictionaries do not list meanings like fellation, but they can be suspected to be there and survive through millennia and upheavals. In nomadic ranching society, the origin of the word and its main meaning are natural, “to milk, extract”, and likewise natural are the numerous derivatives that correspond to English “suction”, “sucking”, “sucker”, “suckling”, and so on. Cognates: A.-Sax. sucan, OSw., OHG sugan, ONorse suga, MDu. sughen, Du. zuigen, Gmn. saugen “to suck”; OIr. sugim, Welsh sugno “to suck”; Lat. sugere “to suck”, succus “juice, sap”; Sl. sosasat, sosu, soska, sosok, sosunok (сосать, сосу, соска, сосок, сосунок); Mong. saga “suck”; Fin. saada “get”. Distribution - across Eurasia from end to end. A suggested unattested “IE” *sug-/*suk- with primitive “of imitative origin” was derived from the Türkic reflexes in western European languages, without pondering on the Slavic cognates, which obviously descended from the same Türkic root with s/k alternation or with Eastern European endemic palatalization. One of the Türkic derivatives is saɣur “soak, absorb”, mirrored in English soak with unreal “IE” unattested etymology of P.Gmc. *sukon modeled on attested and real WFlem. soken, reputably “from (unattested) “IE” root *seue- “to take liquid”, but in reality ascending to the same Türkic root saɣ-. Phonetics and semantics show perfect match. English has preserved some derivatives together with their Türkic suffixes: sucan = sak + -an (verbal suffix to produce noun), suckling = sak + lïg (lyg, noun suffix to produce abstract, collective, or specific semantics). The confluence of Gmc. and Celtic forms points to deja vu of circum-Mediterranean and overland sources separated by 2 to 3 millennia. Lat. words join numerous others that testify to common Türkic roots of Lat. and English forms. The pair “soak” and “suck” constitutes a clear case of paradigmatic transfer, unambiguously attesting to a common origin from the Türkic linguistic milieu. See soak.

English surrender (v.) “give up” ~ Türkic süren- (v.) “to be dragged off”, süründi (adj., n.) “dragged off”. The stem of the Türkic word is a polysemantic universal verb sür- “lead, chase, drive, strip off, pull off”, with numerous semantic derivatives. A notion “surrender” is a reflex of the notion “driven, submitted”. The part -ündi/-undï/-ündi is deverbal suffix forming adj. and nouns for type or result of action: “led away, chased away, driven away, displaced, expelled, stripped off, pulled away” (n.), or “be led away” (n.) etc., or “(one that is) led away, taken, seized, scattered, mushed” (adj.) etc. The Türkic also has a very specific derivative noun süründi (n.) describing a disenfranchised and expelled potential successor (heir) to the throne, fief, and the like. The Slavic calque izgoi conveys the Türkic semantics with the Slavic vocabulary: an offspring ineligible for succession, since the early Slavs followed the Lateral Succession Order of the Türkic tradition. Cognates: OFr. surrendre “to give up”. The “IE etymology” is unsuitable. It presents the word as recent neologism without “IE” cognates at all, and forges a circuitous construction: stem der (dare) “give” > rendre = ren + dre “give back” > surrendre = sur + ren + dre “over, above, beyond, in addition” + “back, again” + “give”. That suits the modern legal semantics of “turning something back over”, like surrendering a property, but is in conflict with the underlying meaning of “going to captivity”, “stop resisting, fighting”, present in the Eng. original and in the Türkic semantics. On the European scene the neologism is unrelated neither to the “IE” languages nor to the Gmc. phylum. In contrast, just a single A.-Sax. language has 5 synonyms of “surrender” other than surrender. Among dozens of etymologically perfectly transparent European synonyms, “surrender” sticks out as a sore thumb. The “IE etymology” does nothing for the etymology of the word but illustrates the length of casuistry employed in furthering the “IE” paradigm and obfuscating European history.

English susurrate (v.) “chirr, murmur” ~ Türkic šar šar (v., n., adj.) “chirr, murmur”, šaršara “waterfall”, specifically using a sound of running water churring in a creek to convey a general idea. Cognates: A.-Sax. ceorran “to creak”, ceorung “churring” (both probably with anlaut -ch, Cf. Gmc., Rus. forms), Gmn. schwirren “to buzz”; Fr. sourd “deaf”; Lat. surdus “dull, mute, unheard, silent” (supposedly, sound); Gk. syrinx “lute”; OCS svira- “to whistle”, Rus. shurshat, shurshit (шуршать, шуршить) “chirr”; Skt. svara- “sound, resound”. With a near-perfect phonetic and semantic concordance, with the attested Türkic šar and šar šar spread across Europe and carting to India, no farfetched “PIE imitative base *swer-” is needed. To support an “IE” case, the “IE etymology” also offers some loose unrelated homophones as supposed cognates: swarm, pipe. An etymological suggestion of echoic origin of the word šar/chir is quite reasonable, but leads to nowhere etymologically. A suggestion should lead to a source. In Türkic languages, šar is used separately and in reduplication, as reflected in the Rus. allophone shurshat. Reduplication is a colloquial feature with a diagnostic value. In a flush of quite a glorious carrier for a quiet creek murmur, by a chain of metaphoric analogies, in 14th-15th centuries the primeval šar has produced most outstanding scientific words surd and absurd, the first to define irrationality (number) via the notion “dull, mute, unheard, silent” of the Lat. surdus, and the second as a Lat. compound absurditas “out of tune”, figuratively “incongruous, silly, senseless”, fr. ab- “intensive prefix” + surdus. The origin of Skt. form ascends to the 2000 BC departure date of the Indo-Aryan farmers from the Eastern Europe, and the Gmc. forms came to Europe with the prehistoric and historic Kurgan waves.

English swear (v.) “take an oath” ~ Türkic vara (n.) “piety, reverence (fear) of God”. The stem of the word is the verb be:r-/ber-/ver- “bear, give, convey”, the “IE Tocharian” Agnean and Kuchean pär-, see bear (v.). That allows to suggest that the notion of reverence formed as a consequence of sacrificial offering. The word is indelibly connected with the cognates “faith”, “faithful”, and “veracity”. The origin of the word ascends to the pre-historic times, because it is found in all three branches of the European “IE” languages, and in the Asian languages. The initial has become v- in the southwest, particularly in Azeri and Ottoman vernaculars. That is consistent with other indicators that the English substrate language was carried from around the Aral-Caspian basin. Cognates: A.-Sax. (OE) swerian “take an oath”, OFris. swera, OSw. swerian, ONorse sverja, OHG swerien, OGmn. wara “truth, faithfulness, grace”, war “truthful, loyal”, Goth. swaren “to swear”, tuzwerjan “to doubt”, unwerjan “discontented”, MDu. swaren, Dan. sverge, Gmn. schwören; OIr. var “vow, solemn promise”, fir “true, veracious”; Lat. verus “veracious, true”, veritas “truth”; Bulg. bir- “give”, berü-; Av. var- “believe”, varǝna- “faith”; Brahmi ber-; Hu. ber-, bir-; Evenk bərin-. Distribution: Across Eurasia and across linguistic barriers. In this listing, all entries are straightforward, clear, and consistent, e.g. “Under fear of God's penalty, I swear...”, except that in few cases a more accurate translation could be selected, and Av. and Goth. need clarification. Av., like Türkic, is an agglutinative language with master stem and suffix modifiers, thus all grammatical forms of verbs and nouns can be obtained from a single non-flexive stem; “I faithfully swear” ~ “I take an oath” is one-word construct. With the Türkic vara, there is no need for scholarly manufactured unattested “IE” *bheidh- to come up with English, Gmn., and Slavic forms for swear and faith. Gmc. languages sport both s- and v-/w- initial, with s- systemically appended in front of the root, attesting that it is a morphological prefix (marking a perfect tense?) rather than a prosthetics: each form with s- at one time had a companion without s-. The Goth. tuzwerjan is transparent rendition of the inverted Türkic veransiz: ver + an (noun suffix, rendered yan) + siz (negation suffix, rendered tuz) “faith (n.) without”, i.e. “infidelity” => Goth. tuz + wer + jan. Both the inversion and the translation are suspect, but inversion is theoretically possible. However, neither “doubt”, nor “infidelity”, as an august “IE” pundit M.Vasmer would want us to believe, are synonymous with “oath, take an oath”. In fact they convey the opposite. The Goth. unwerjan “discontented, not allegiant” is a similar case, the inverted Türkic veranаŋ: ver +an (noun suffix, rendered yan) +аŋ (negation suffix, rendered un) “faith (n.) none”, i. e. “infidelity” => Goth. un + wer + jan (See un-). Both the inversion and the translation are suspect, but inversion is a frequent linguistic assertion and must rest on some positive attestation. Only the “infidelity” translated as “discontented” is out of line and unrelated to taking an oath under fear of God's punishment. M.Vasmer lists these two Goth. words under the entry of Sl. vera “faith”, a Türkic word in Sl. lexicon. The Lat. fides is a rendition of the same Türkic vara (n.) “faith”, with all its Lat., English, and international derivatives: fidelity, Lat. fidelitatem, fidelitas, fidelis, fides “faithfulness, adherence, faithful, true, faith”; faith, Lat. fides “faith”, and so on. The OIr. forms attest that the word was carried in Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration of the 3rd mill. BC. Millenniums later it shows up in the Indo-Aryan records. The Eng. duplex swear and oath constitutes a transfer paradigm of two basic Türkic words, an irrefutable evidence of a genetic connection. See bear (v.), faith, oath, ought, un-.
60

English sweep (v.) “brush” ~ Türkic süpür-, sipir-, süple- (v.) “sweep” with various phonetic changes across Türkic languages (-i-/-ü-, -p-/-b-). Ultimately fr. an undifferentiated noun/verbal root süp “scrap, trash”; denoun verbs are also formed with verbal suffixes ür-/-ir/-le. The old undifferentiated form attests to a deep antiquity of the word. The verbal form denotes a notion “clean (v.)” with 14 semantic clusters, from “sweep” to “exaggerate”, 8 of them directly relate to “clean (v.)”, including “sweep”. A semantic extension “rub clean” opens an etymological path to the “soap” (Cf. Norse sopa) and swipes aside unneeded “IE” etymological fantasies. Cognates: A.-Sax. swapan, WFris. swiepe, ME swope, Eng. swoop “sweeping movement”, NE Eng. soop “sweep”, ONorse, Icl., Norse sopa, Gmn. Schwung; Ir. scuab, scuabadh, Gael. sguab, Welsh ysgubo; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) sužerti, (Sl.) smatat (сметать); Hu. söpres; Mong. ši'ür-; Ch. saopin 扫频; Kor. seuwib 스윕, seuwipeu 스위프; “sweep”. Distribution truly Eurasian. Etymology: “of uncertain origin”, or a faux PG *swaipana. That should equally apply to the swipe and soap, negating a flimsy “IE etymology” for soap. No sane IE-centered etymology for sweep and soap. No “IE” or European cognates outside the N. European and Türkic phylums, but otherwise plenty across Eurasia. The m/b(p) alternation is systemic, Cf. Ch., Sl. and N. European forms. Celtic forms show amazing retention, a presence of cognates in Celtic languages attests to the word's existence prior to the Celtic departure from the N. Pontic before the 4th mill. BC. The phonetic forms are consistent, the semantics is pinpointed and perfect, leaving no room to doubt a Türkic origin. Only Kurganians could have seeded the word from Atlantic to Pacific. See soap.

English tack (v.) “attach, fasten”, (n.) “attachment, fastener (pin, short nail)” ~ Türkic tak-, taq-, dak-, daq- (v.) “tack, fix, pin, put up”. Ultimately fr. da/ta (conj.) “and”, an allophone and sibling of Gmc. “and”. A powerful notion of “attach, fasten” could not fail to develop a constellation of derivatives in a wide range of spheres and grammatical forms. A listing of prime meanings numbers 11 semantic clusters. It is echoed in a sibling verbal form tik- (v.) “sting, fix, pin, put up”, tikän (n.) “thorn, spine” (lit. and metaphoric). Either of these synonymous forms could have originated a common Gmc. form tak; that is illustrated by the Eng. synonyms for “sew”, tick, tack, tuck, and attach, attack. Like their Tr. cognates, the first three synonyms also convey a notion “fix, attach, fasten”, attesting that the interchangeable forms survived with their dual and complementary semantics. A semantics “sew” is a particular use of the notion “fix, fasten” alluding to the underpinning verbal application of “thorn, spine” for needlework. A semantics tick- “tap, light touch” is another particular verbal derivative of the notion “prick” of the “thorn, spine”. An archetype of tik- is seen as tiŋ-, which adds a related form tin- with few articulations of -n and further semantic developments. The sense “thorn” points to the technology predating a use of bone and stone needles. Some derivative forms carry into the modern Eng. a Tr. passive voice suffix -l (Cf. tığıl-/tagil- “blunted (tip)”): tickle, tackle. Others preserved both passive voice and deverbal abstract noun suffix -ish: ticklish. It is a stochastic whim that we do not have treats like attacklish to tease etymological ingenuity into a clone of *h^wadeklic. Cognates: A.-Sax. ticla “tick (insect)”, Fris. tak “tine, prong, twig, branch”, LGmn. takk “tine, pointed (something)”, MDu. tacke “twig, spike”, Du. tik “tap, jab”, Gmn. Zacken “sharp point, tooth, prong”, MHG zic “tap, jab”; ONFr. taque “nail, pin, peg”, OFr. tache “nail, spike, tack, pin”; Mong. taqul “infection”; Tungus takul, takus “fastened, stuck”; Kor. takta, takka “stick to”. The whole bouquet of forms and semantics has no “IE” links whatsoever, the “IE etymology” does not even reach the Lat., the best cogitation is a not impressively deep “probably from a Gmc. source” and (for tickk) “perhaps ultimately echoic”. The last elucidation, supremely popular with “IE” etymologists to explain indigestible issues, is definitely invalid, since the tick both phonetically and semantically is a clone of somehow “explainable” tack and tuck. See sew, tackle, tick, tickle, ticklish, tuck.

English take (v., n.) “grab, acquire, convey” (Sw N/A, F101, Σ0.25%) ~ Türkic teg-, tek-, deg- (v.) “take, reach, convey”. An ultimate origin is fr. a directional root de with allophones, Cf. Eng. abide, hide, side, slide, stride, trade, etc., all with a flavor of direction. It is undoubtedly one of the most popular and conservative verbs in any language. It is extremely versatile in both English and Türkic, English numbers 42 distinct meanings, and Türkic also has an inordinate number of meanings and derivatives in 13 clusters, “take” one of the prime meanings of the first cluster “touch, reach”, Cf. Goth. tiuhan and tekan, see touch. Like most languages of the world, European languages have a dozen unique native words, they reflect native languages of the Old Europe before their amalgamation with Türkic and Lat. vernaculars. The Türkic base notions are touch, take, and an element of reciprocity. The notion of reciprocity leads to acts of mutuality like exchange, meeting, etc. In addition to “take”, words rooted in teg- are translated to Eng. with a cornucopia of concrete synonyms: attain, absorb, bring, convey, deliver, dues, perception, sensation, and so on; Türkic extensions are facilitated by a wealth of suffixes and relict use of a stem as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb, paired compound, and so on. In many cases a semantic connection of an overly extended or metaphorical meaning with teg- is obscure. The phonetic and semantic connection of the words take and touch probably led to some etymological confusion, Cf. Lat. example. European cognates are limited to the Gmc. group. Cognates: A.-Sax. tacan (takan?), MDu. taken, Sw. ta, ONorse taka “take, grasp, lay hold”, OIcl. taka (pret. tök) “take”, MLG tacken, Goth. tiuhan “take”, but tekan “to touch”; Lat tolle is a stand-out; Spanish tomar “take”; Fin. ottaa “take”; Mong. täda, teda “touch, reach”; Kor. tei “touch”. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific, and across linguistic barriers. Etymologically, take is rated “of uncertain origin”, “probably of Gmc. origin”, it does not fit the “IE” paradigm. A suggestion for that paradigm, floated theretofore on purely phonetical homophony, that the notion “take” is a derivative of the notion “tough”, is unsustainable. As a rule these unconnected notions are systemically distinct and unrelated. The Türkic teg- has at least two documented allophones, tey- (Kuman. Kipchak) and tek-, and since “take” is semantically equivalent to “seize, grasp”, it is possible that the form tut- (v. & n.) “seize, capture” appeared as a dialectal allophone of the form teg-/tek-/tey- or their ancestors.. In the process of segmentation and re-amalgamation, allophones gain their own independent life, typically of close semantics with distinct cognitive shades; both forms are attested. The form tut- “seize, catch” appeared in the only surviving Hunnic phrase of the 4th c.: Süčy tiligan, Pugu'yu tutan “Army commander would order (to march, go), Pugu would (be) taken”. Tentatively accepting the allophonic nature of the two forms, the Hunnic phrase said at the capture of Luoyang in 328 in the future China contains three English cognates: tili- “tell, order”; teg-/tut- “take, capture”; and 'yu “would, 'd”. Gmc. languages had native synonyms for take in local European languages. They bear a diagnostic value and depict a pre-amalgamation linguistic situation, Cf. Eng. grasp, Du. nemen, Goth. niman, fahan, greipan, haban. Gmc. languages bear the legacy of both parents. Phonetic and semantic parallelism between take and tek- are striking, and that includes parallels within the polysemantic spectra. Semantic clusters in polysemantic spectra alone attest powerfully to a case of paradigmatic transfer, providing indelible evidence of a common genetic origin from the Türkic phylum. Most likely, the word take originated form the Sarmatian/European forms of the Ogur-type Türkic languages, via amalgamated vernaculars of the Burgundians, Vandals, Goths, and their ancestors. See talk, tell, touch.

English talk (v. and n.) ~ Türkic til-/tel-/dil- (n.) “language, tongue, speech”. The notion “talk”, “tell” is a denoun derivative of the word til/dil (n.) for “tongue” and “language”. Related to Eng. tell, tale, and told. Cognates: A.-Sax. talken, ME tale “story”, East Frisian talken “to talk, chatter, whisper”, OScand. tulkr “translator”, Goth. talzjan “teach”, OHG tolk, Du. taal “speech, language”, Dan. tale “speech, talk, discourse”; OIr. þulr “poet, sage, weave”, Ir. ad-tluch “thank”, totluch “ask”, Balt.-Sl. (Lith.) tulkas “translator”, (Latv.) tul̃ks “translator”, (OCS) tlk- (тлък-) “discourse, explain”, tolmach (толмач) “translator” (Türkic tolmač, ditto). Notably, a wide swath of Europe is using derivatives of the Türkic tolmač “translator”, lit. “talker”, for “interpreter”; that attests to close relations and an imparted need for translations into a variety of the local vernaculars. The etymology of the Rus. tolmach from the the Türkic tolmač is well established and documented, negating attempts to re-fashion the stem as an “IE” “proto-word”. Ironically, the proposed “IE etymology” with unattested PIE root *del- “to recount, count”, the absence of Indian/Iranian cognates notwithstanding, reverts back to the Türkic verb tili-/tele-/dili-. Apparently, the Türkic concept tili “speech” is a later development compared with söy “say”, which is mirrored in the Chinese 说 (shua) “say, tell, talk” as a reflex of the Scythian Zhou component in the Chinese language. The authentic Ir. semantic derivatives attest to the presence of the word in the N. Pontic before the Celtic departure way back in the 5th mill. BC, if they are not relicts of the later NW European Sprachbunds. See say, tale, tally, tell.

English tally (v., n.) “total (score, count)” ~ Türkic töla-, töle:- (v.) “pay, pay off”, tölač (n.) “compensation, fee”. An ultimate underlying notion is connected with final delivery: birthing, cropping, delivery of newborn, Cf. töl “newborn, moment of birthing”, see doll, toll. The meaning “pay, pay off” is a metaphorical derivative, popularized in the Middle Ages by ubiquitous tolls for roads, crossing bridges, and ferries. Cognates: A.-Sax. talian “reckon, account, count, calculate, esteem, value”, tellan “to reckon, account, calculate, consider”, OSw. tellian, ONorse telja, OFris. tella “count”, Du. tellen “count, reckon”, OSw. talon “count, reckon”, OHG zalon, Gmn. zählen “count, reckon”, erzählen “recount, narrate”; MLat. talliare (v.) “tax”; Mong. tölö- “pay (debt), repay (loan)”. There is a degree of conflation with a near-homophonous tele-/tili-/dili- (v.) “tell”, in a right context it is close enough semantically and phonetically to produce “tally”, see tell. A Chinese reflex shua (说) “say, tell, talk” is likely a reflex of the Scythian Zhou component söy “say” in the Chinese language. A related semantic synonym known as Fr. conter “to count”, raconter “to recount”, It. contare, Sp. contar “to count, recount, narrate” ascend to another Türkic word köni “count, quantity, measure”, see count. The A.-Sax. talian attests to a link töle:- “pay” > talian “count” > tally “count”. Distribution runs across Eurasia from Atlantic to Far East, crossing linguistic barriers. Ironically, a proposed “IE etymology” with faux unattested PIE root *del- “count, recount”, is a mirror image of the Türkic attested töle:- and tele-. No Indian/Iranian cognates exist. An “IE” *del- had no chance to ever establish a Mongolian cognate in Mongolia, it had to come from a Türkic milieu. An “IE” etymological excurse into chiseled marks on wood to produce “IE” *del- “account”, with the same argumentation could have produced “IE” “tell”, “IE” “tally” or what you have. A paradigmatic transfer of the Türkic quartet töle:-, töle:-, döl/tö:l, tele- “tally”, “toll”, “doll”, “tell” respectively vividly attests to the origin of the “tally” from a Türkic linguistic milieu. See count, say, tale, talk, tell.
61

English tangle (v.), better known as entangle (v.) “jumbled mass” ~ Türkic taŋ (tang)/daŋ (dang) (v.) “tie, fasten, bandage”. Cognates: A.-Sax. teag “tie”, tagilen “entangle, involve (in difficult situation)”, ONorse taug “tie” tygill “string”, Sw. taggla “disorder (entangle)”, ONorse thongull “seaweed”; Mong. tanu-, tamu- “tie”; Evenk. daŋama “tight, tightly”; Kor. tan “bundle, sheaf”. Distribution covers entire width of the Eurasia across linguistic barriers. A suggested unattested PIE root *deuk- “to pull, to lead” is semantically unsuitable faux construct. A vowel rendition -ea-, -au-, -y- points to attempts to depict an original laryngeal -a- with alien tools. Close phonetics and exact semantics validate the Türkic origin. In a nomadic world, strings and tying were a major utility. Thus an abundance of derivatives, one of which has fossilized into a European “enigma”, fr. taŋığma: (homophonous with tanığma:) “riddle”, of taŋ + ığ + ma: (root + deverbal noun suffix + negation), lit. “untangleable”. A Türkic origin is unchallengeable. See tie, enigma.

English tap (v.) “attain”, “attain by drawing from”, (n.) “faucet in pipe or cask” ~ Türkic tab-, tap- (v.) “receive, attain”. Ultimately fr. a root tap- “stomp, hurry” and its semantic extension “rush, dart, jump to action”. Of those come four distinct basic notions, “attain”, “scratch”, “serve”, “find”. The sense “attain” is an extension of a notion “find”. Due to minuscule length of the word, every Eurasian language has its own homophones. That drives, along with the tap/tab and loans internalized into the Türkic, an ever increasing semantic expansion, Cf. A.-Sax. toppa “thread” vs. A.-Sax. top/Türkic töpü (highest part), see top (n.). In every case, only some of a choice of the Türkic notions were internalized by the inheritor languages and have survived. Cognates: A.-Sax. tappa, tæppa “tap, spigot”, MDu. tappe, Du. tap, OHG zapfo, Gmn. Zapfe, ditto. No “IE” cognates; off the cuff an ingenious revelation “ultimately imitative of a sound of tapping”. All cognates are limited to Gmc. group, a positive indication of the loanword status within “IE” family and thus confidently of a Türkic origin. On top of that, the “IE etymology” erroneously conflates unrelated homonyms tap “draw from”, i.e. “attain from”, and tap “light strike” that ultimately comes from the same Türkic root but is a different notion. The Türkic tap- matches the English tap “attain”, phonetically and semantically. A group tap “attain”, get “obtain”, tap “touch”, and tab “account” constitute a case of paradigmatic transfer to English, attesting to a common origin from the Türkic phylum. See get, tab, tap “strike”, top (n.).

English tap (v., n.) “strike (gentle)” ~ Türkic tab-, tap- (v.) “strike (lightly)”. Ultimately fr. a noun/verb notion “trace, footprint, mark, stomp” of the root tap/tap-. The polysemantic word has a rich direct progeny and indirectly “worship” (e.g. tabernacle < taber, with causative suffix -er), see tab. The word belongs to a small class of the most basic, single syllable three-phoneme lexemes with innumerous allophones and derivatives across Eurasia and linguistic families. Due to its minuscule length, every Eurasian language has its own homophones, presenting along with the Türkic tap/tab an ever increasing semantic expansion, Cf. A.-Sax. toppa “thread” vs. A.-Sax. top/Türkic töpü (highest part), see top (n.). In every case, in the inheritor languages only some of a range of the Türkic notions were internalized and have survived. A duality of the auslaut b/p probably recombined the initial dialect-specific articulation, it was carried over to the host languages, e.g. tap/tab “knock, spigot, bill”, Cf. bifurcation guest/host etc., see guest, host. Cognates: A.-Sax. tapereax “small (tapping) axe”, taporberend “acolyte” (compound of two Türkic roots, tap “poke, scratch” + ber- “carry” with tapor refering to the wick hole pocked in an oil lamp, tappian “to tap (a vessel)”, taeppa “tap, spigot”, taeppere “tapster, tavern-keeper”, ONorse taparox “ax”, MDu. tappe, Du. tap, OHG zapfo, Gmn. Zapfe “tap, spigot”; OFr. taper “tap, strike”; OIr. tараrа- “ax”; Latv. tapat “stomp”, tapa tapu (interj.) “top, top”, Lith. tарšt (interj) “slap, bang”, tapštereti “slam”, tapuoti “stomp”, OCS tepya (тепѫ) “beat, strike”, topor (топоръ) “ax”, (topat) топать “stomp”; MPers. tabrak, NPers. teber, Kurd tefer, Balochi tараr, all “ax”; Arm. tараr “ax”; Fin. tарраrа, Mari tabar, Fin.-Ugrian. tap “ax”, Hu. tipor “stomp”, Nenets tap- “beat, shove”, Türkic täbär “ax”, tap tap “stomping sound” (see tap “attain”), Türkic (Kipchak, Tatar, Kazakh) tapta- “stomp”. The “IE etymology” suggests independent origins for most of the allophones and derivatives, a bouquet of custom-devised “PIE proto-words”, and a range of semantic roots: “uncertain origin”, an ingenuous Slavic origin, sound/noise, stopper, tent, hut, cabin, dwelling, beam, timber, and so on. The only phonetic law that is never broken is a systemic myopia and incoherency. None of the phonetic recreations are able to address an extent of the Eurasian spread, a remarkable spread across far-flung linguistic families, an absence of the historical lexical amalgamation between disparate languages like the Nenets and Persian, etc. At the same time, all the mentioned populations had experienced a documented Türkic demographic, political, and/or cultural influence during some periods of their history, and have retained archeological, biological, and etiological evidence of their past. The Near Eastern/Southwest Asian forms for “ax” can be attributed to the Indo-Aryan migration of the 2nd mill. BC from the fringes of the Corded Ware populations. The Ir. form attests to its presence two millenniums earlier in the same Eastern European vicinity before the Celtic circum-Mediterranean departure. Today that form covers northern Eurasian space from Atlantic to Pacific. So also do the allophonic forms for its ascendant word tap/tab “strike”. The common origin is also attested by the paradigmatic transfer of unrelated notions expressed by the same word, the Eng. “strike” and “receive/attain”. A bundle of evidence is intertwined so tightly that any attempt to rig a partial storyline is due to fail because it brings more unknown than explains the known. The common genetic origin from a Türkic milieu is way beyond any doubts. See guest, host, tab, tap “attain”, top.

English tar (tarred, tarring) (v.) “toil” ~ Türkic ter/der (n.) “sweat, work, earned wage”, terit-/derit-, terle:-/derle:- (v.) “sweat, work, earn wage”. The Türkic noun is used literally and metaphorically “earn by sweat”, the verb lit. means “to sweat” with figurative meaning “work hard” and the same with extensions, e.g. terči: “laborer, toiler”. A Türkic idiom “to sweat” meaning “work hard” is calqued in the English “to sweat” meaning “work hard”. Reference to sailors is an example of an agent noun. Also, a Türkic idiom tis teri “tooth tarring (lit. sweating)” in Eng. tuned into a calque “sweat through the teeth” with outwardly nonsensical identical semantics. Cognates: A.-Sax. taru “rent”, etymologically confused with unrelated teran (v.) “rip, tear” and tar (n., v.) “pitch”; Rum. terlik, sterlik “slippers” ; Bulg. tajakter “reward for walking”; Serb. terluci “fem. galoshes”; Alb. tirk, terlik “gaiters”. The unrelated teran q.v. is a derivative of a Türkic homophonic root ter-/der- “gather (harvest)”, tarı:- “cultivate”, and the like. The documented A.-Sax. semantics is modern interpretation, the “rent” in feudal economy was paid in kind with a share of the harvest by a corvée, i.e. hard labor. The trade terms “tar the roof” and “tar the boat” are generally out of circulation, the semantics “coat (with tar)” and “mar” is unrelated, the word tear “rip” gained its own form, the word tear “eye secretion” for some reasons has not even been appealed to by the “IE” etymologists, and the verb tar survived with its original Türkic metaphorical meaning “work hard”: tarring it up, tarring away, tarring over, etc., frequently conflated with the semantics “marred”. The Balkan languages' cognates came from a Turkish inheritance, a Turkish idiom ayak teri “foot sweat” lit. “reward for walking (to deliver something, for foot effort)” was first adopted by the Türkic Bulgars, then by Sl. Bulgars, and then metamorphosed into a Balkanic concrete term for footwear. No cognates outside of Türkic languages. Notably, the semantics “work hard” has never separated from “sweat”, it still has connotations of “sweat it out”. The Türkic deri “skin” and der- “to sweat” are genetically connected, they have developed into specialized allophones. The word is a salient case of paradigmatic transfer, it was transferred complete with lit. and metaphorical semantics, and complete with peculiar idiomatic expressions. See derma.

English taste (v., n.) “savor”, tasty (adj.) “savory” (Sw N/A, F1452, 0.01%) ~ Türkic tat-, tatïɣ- (v.) “taste, savor”. Common derivatives extend to “try”, “savory”, “sweet”, “pleasure”, “eat”, “drink”, “flavor”, “accustom”, “get used to”, which exceed by far the extent of the OFr./Fris./Eng. semantics. None of the Türkic originals use a prosthetic inlaut -s-, it must be a product of dialectal internalization, Cf. Fr. tater vs. taster. Native words for “taste” existed on the European scene long before the arrival there of the horsed nomads with their peculiar lexicons, e.g. A.-Sax. had already 6 prior roots for “taste” before the Fr. form tast, tat was adopted. Cognates: OFr. tast, taster “taste”, Fr. tat; Mong. dad-, das- “accustom, get used to”; Manchu tačı- “accustom”; Evenk. tatiga “accustom”; Ch. dan (味) “taste”, Hui (~Uigur) ta (味道) “taste, suppose”; Kor. that “accustomed”. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific. The Ch. dan and Hui ta directly reflect the Türkic phonetics and semantics of taste and food, linking Atlantic and Pacific oceans via a Türkic linguistic bridge. No credible “IE” etymology. Apparently, English, Frisians, and French are oddballs among the Europeans and “IE” Asians in using this Türkic word. Conventional “IE” etymology ascends to a nonexistent VLat. taxtare, a frequentative form of nonexistent Lat. taxare “evaluate, handle”. A real Lat. had instead “gustum” and “sapor” and no dreamed-up taxare from tangere “to touch”. The real Lat. words are reflected in real Eng. “gusto” and “savor”. The “IE etymology” ascends “taste” to the notions of “tax” and “touch”, dubious phonetically, weird semantically, and in a stark conflict with the available linguistic evidence. The Ch. ta, dan “taste” have native synonymous forms 啖, 尝 chang “taste”, mirroring a guest status of the word in a real European lexicon. The Fr. form tat is an unadulterated Turkism unaffected by local idiosyncrasies.

English tell (v.) “narrate, inform” (Sw N/A, F81 Σ0.57%) ~ Türkic te-, ti- (v.) “say, state”, til/tili/tele/dili (n.) “language, tongue, speech”. Ultimately a derivative of te:-/de:- “say” as opposed to söy- “tell”. Related to tale, talk, tattle, and told (ta-, te-, to-). Interestingly, the semantics of “tell” and “say”, unique to the Türkic languages, is the same but inverted in English, Türkic “tell” is Eng. “say”, and vice versa. That trait alone signals a genetic connection. Türkic has numerous forms of denoun verbal derivative “tell, say”, vacillating around tell and told: te-, teyän, teyin, tep, tiyin, tildä-, tilde-, tïlda-, tïlta-; tildä “eloquent”, to cite the few listed in OTD 1969. Cognates: A.-Sax. tellan (v.) “account, reckon, calculate, consider”, OFris. tella “tell, count”, tälle “say, tell”, telle “count”, fertelle “tell, narrate”; allophonic EFris. MDu, MLG, tateren “chatter, babble”, MFlem. tatelen “stutter”; OCS deet (дeеть), deskat (дескать) “says” (fr. de- “say”); Hu. tolmacs is a loanword of Türkic derivative talmač, “interpreter, translator” in both languages, lit. “speaker, talker”; Mong. khelekh, khelev “tell, said”; Kor. tel 텔 “tell”; Sum. dal, danol “sing, song”. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific, crossing linguistic barriers. European distribution is focused and limited to the Gmc. group, excluding the rest of the “IE” family, a sure indication of the non-IE origin and a “guest” in Europe. The “IE etymology” throws in the same pot phonetically distinct OHG zalon, Gmn. zählen “to count, reckon”, Gmn. zählen “to count”, erzählen “tell, narrate, recount”, all semantically and phonetically allophones and derivatives of the Türkic sa:- “count, reckon, think”, see say, talk. The “IE etymology” cites unrelated Fr. conter “to count”, raconter “to recount”, It. contare, Sp. contar “to count, recount, narrate” in an effort to genetically link disparate lexemes, see talk. A Hunnic phrase said at the capture of Luoyang in 328 AD in the future China contains three English cognates: tili “tell, order”; tut “take, capture”; and 'yu “would, 'd”, like in “Would he tell/order” ~ “He'd tell/order”. The absence of Indian/Iranian and other “IE” branches' cognates notwithstanding, an “IE etymology” suggests for tell a faux “PG proto-root” *talą, “number, counting” and an unattested faux “PIE root” *del- “recount, count”, reverberating back to the Türkic base til/tili/tele/dili. The Eng. duplex tell - say constitutes a transposed transfer paradigm of the Türkic duplex til - söy, an irrefutable evidence of the genetic connection. Notably, the transfer paradigm transplanted not only the basic phonetics and semantics, but also preserved the semantic subtlety between tell and say, apparent in the idioms “tell apart” “tell off” vs. impossible “say apart” “say off”. In a feat of paradigmatic transfer, Eng. possesses four main action words related to communication: say, tell, call, and gabble, the direct siblings of söy-/söyle-, til-/tili-, qol-, and gap-/gapir-. Although overlapping and interchangeable to some degree, each one conveys its own spectrum of very basic communication notions. See call, gabble, say, tale, talk, tally.

English think (v.) “reason”, (n.) “thinking” (Sw N/A, F54 Σ0.45%) ~ Türkic saq-, sa:k-, sa:ğ-; saqan-, sağın-, saqın-, sa:qın-; san-, sana-, sanğar-; sez-, se:z- (v.) “think, consider, take for something”. an emphatic derivative of sa:- “think, reckon, count, desire, worry”. Ultimately derivatives fr. sa:-/se:- “think” + “reckon, count, desire, worry”. In turn, it possibly ascends to a primeval form ö:-, Eng. awe, with a fundamental notion “think”, see awe. The stem sa:- has sired a multitude of progeny. Along their historical paths, derivatives stratified, amalgamated, adjusted phonetics to local type, and developed their own flavors and semantic extensions which could shift or supplant a primeval semantics. In addition, a Türkic toolbox has three more stems, bïš-, tüš-, and us- for “think”, the us- may also ascend to a primeval ö:-. Alternation of anlaut s-/th-/t-/d- is probably connected with a consonantal specifics of the early Gmc. recipients, ditto with the alternation of the inlaut -q-/-k-/-ğ-/-n-/-m-, where -m- is specific to some Sl. languages. Some languages do not handle interdental sibilants and that may be a case with the saq- to thaq- transition. Cognates: OE þencan, A.-Sax. þencan, þohte, (ge)þoht “conceive in the mind, think, consider, intend”, OFris. thinka, teenk, taanke, tanke, toanke, tinke, OSax. thenkian, ONorse thekkja, huginn (“thought” in Edda), Dan. tænke, Du. enken, Sw. tänka, Icl. þekkja, hugsa, OHG denchen, Gmn. denken, Goth. doms “thought”, thagkjan, all “think”; Latv. duoma “thought”; Sl. dumat (думать) “think” (n > m); Ch. sikao 思考 “think”; Kor. saeng-gag 생각 “think”, saeng 생 “student”. Distribution spans from Atlantic to Pacific along the Steppe Belt and its fringes. An “IE etymology” supposedly comes from a “proto-IE” unattested faux root *tong- “to think, feel”, a mechanically concocted surreal proposition practically indistinguishable from the attested Gmc. and Tr. forms. Forms thekk- and thagk- signal a path distinct from þen- and then. The A.-Sax. þencan is misinterpreted to be a causative form of a distinct OE verb thyncan, thuhte (ge)thuht “to seem or appear”, a proto-form for “seem”, a Gmn. dünken, däuchte. Its Türkic allophone is sakı:- “see faintly, seem, reciprocal of watch”, with the deverbal noun sakığ “vision, mirage”, ascending to the common verbal base sa:- above. A Romanized phonetics is blurred with a cornucopia of phonetic conventions reflecting a clearly non-Roman phoneme: Türkic ṣ-/ṭ-/s- (ṣağ-/ṭalğ-/sak-), compare OE þenc-, OFris. think-, OSax. thenk, ONorse thekk-, hug-, OHG dench-, Gmn. denk-, meinen “think”, Goth. þagk-. The OTD spelling saq- (МК I 85) is also a phonetic approximation, since the Rus. Cyrillic rendition does not distinguish interdental phonemes. The OTD is using only a voiced form δ, and no unvoiced symbol. A Mahmud Kashgari's form may be thaq, much closer to the English phonetics, while the ONorse huginn points to an s ~ th ~ h/x variation typical for the Aral basin vernaculars. The h form of the s/h alternation is associated with the Aral Sea - Horezm area, a homebase of Ases, Alans, Tokhars (i.e. the real Aral Tokhars, not the misnamed Kucheans and Agneans of the Tarim basin), Masguts, and their neighbors, quite consistent with the contents of the Edda. On top of the obvious phonetic parallelism, the Eng. and Türkic semantic parallelism is not less striking, demonstrating nearly perfect paradigmatic transfer: OE “think, imagine, conceive in the mind; consider, meditate, remember, intend, wish, desire” vs. Türkic “think/reckon/ponder/deem/count, imagine, conceive/plan, consider/ponder/meditate, remember, intend, desire/wish”, plus metaphorical “worry, alert, wary, protect, keep distance”. The Türkic semantics correlates perfectly. Notably so with the additional semantics of “to seem or appear”. The pair think and seem constitutes a complimentary paradigmatic transfer case, in addition to the stand-alone phono-semantic paradigmatic transfer for think. In English, think, sane and sanity, and mind form a cluster that ascend to the eidetic Türkic cluster of san- “think” and ming “brain”. The multifarious parallel lexical clusters constitute cases of paradigmatic transfer, a positive attestation of the genetic origin from a Türkic vocabulary. See mind, sane, sanitary, sanity, seem.

English thrive (v.) “flourish” ~ Türkic tir-/dir- (v.) “live, alive”. The notion “live” can also be expressed with the verb bol- “to be”, its cognates are also spread among Eurasian languages (Cf. A.-Sax. bide, bidan, buan “live, remain”). The tir-/dir- has a secondary notion (flavor) of inchoative dynamics, of “coming alive”, which distinguishes it from the stationary “to be” and makes its application more descriptive. The notion “live” has also meanings of “nimble, agile”, “energetic”, “authentic”, “active”, etc. A dynamic notion “live” can be positive and negative, flourish vs. endure, and physical vs. metaphorical. The same A.-Sax. expressions on the positive side used native, non-Tr. words. Such peculiarity points to a social stratification based on ethnic affiliation. A.-Sax. had numerous neutral and negative metaphorical derivatives ascending to tir-/dir- and expressing the burdens of life, in two basic forms, dreogan and dragan. Cognates: A.-Sax. droht “condition of life”, also “pull, draught”, drohtað “mode of living”, drohtnung “condition, way of life”, drohtian, drohtnian “lead a life, live”, dragan “drag, draw”, with conjugational forms trog, drog, troh, ðroh, trugon ascending both to the stem tir- and dir-; ONorse þrifask, Norse trives, Sw. trifvas, trivas, Dan. trives, Du. tieren, Icl. þrífast, OHG. tragan “drag”, Goth. driugan “to soldier”, dragan “drag”; Lith. tarpti, all “thrive, flourish” except as noted. Distribution covers most of the Eurasian width, apparently falling short of the Far Eastern part. No “IE” cognates. “IE etymology” ignored depth and spectrum of the A.-Sax. lexis, confining to mechanical inclusion of phonetic clones. Accordingly, the “IE” etymological verdict is an unwarranted routine “of unknown origin”. Or alternatively from faux unattested “PG proto-word” *þrībaną “to seize, prosper” and faux unattested “PIE proto-word” *trep-, *terp- “to satisfy, enjoy”. There is a substantial morphological difference between the Türkic forms (Cf. tirig “living, alive; life”, tirgür- “revive, bring to live”, tiril- “revived, brought to live”) and the Gmc. forms (with elision of the vowel -i-, peculiar to Gmc. and Sl. languages). Celtic languages do not have cognates. Both factors attest to internalization of the stem prior to the Sarmat expansion to the Western Europe, to before our era but after the Celtic departure. See be, draw, draft.

English tick (v., n.) “clicking or ticking sound” ~ Türkic tiki (v., n.) “sound, noise, murmur”, tikir “make light cracking, crunching, ticking sounds”. Cognates: Du. tik, Gmn. zic; Ir. tic (n.), ticeáil (v.), Welsh tic/dic/thic with derivatives; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) tikškešana (n.), tikšķet (v.), (Sl.) tikat (тикать) “tick”. No “IE” cognates. The word's distribution extending to the Balto-Sl. milieu points to a common, and likely echoic, Türkic origin of the source expanding in the NE Europe. Phonetic forms are consistent, semantics is pinpointed and perfect, leaving no room to question an origin. This peculiar Türkic form of “echoic origin” had to travel mightily to spread to the Denmark and England from the Chinese borders. Two Türkic words tiki and tik-/dik-, likely related, constitute a case of paradigmatic transfer to the Eng. tick “sound” and tick “insect”, an irrefutable evidence of a genetic connection. See tick (insect).

English tie (v., n.) “fixate (by cord)” (Sw N/A, F1721, 0.01%) ~ Türkic taŋ- (tang), tay-, tüg- (v.) “tie, fasten, bandage, wrap”. Türkic has five stems (ba-, saru-, tаŋ-/tay-, tüg-, urun-) expressing a notion “tie, bandage” with different and shifting semantics, of which three (ba-, tаŋ-/tay-, tüg-) are found in the historical NW European languages, Cf. band, tie, tangle, and one more (saru-) in the recent past came as a visitor via India, Cf. sari. A variety of the forms reflects the antiquity of the term, probably ascending to the pre-horse husbandry times of foot hunters and backpacks, 6th mill. BC. Cognates: A.-Sax. teag, Ang.-Sax. teag, tiegan “tie, bind”, tan (in becnyttan “to knit, tie, bind”), ONorse taug “tie”, tygill “string”; Sl. tük “bundle”, (za)tyan(ut) (затянуть) “tighten (bundle)”, tugoi (тугой) “tightened up” and corresponding reflexes in other Sl. languages; Gk. tai (-ται); Tr. derivatives tüglun- “wrap into bundle” and tüglüš- “tied with knots” preserved the original stem tüg- and the narrow semantic of tying/tightening a bundle; Mong. tanu-, tamu- “tie, bind”, Kalm. tanха “tie, bind”; Evenk. danama “tight”; Kor. tan “bundle”. A spatial distribution of the word, in Europe limited to the Gmc., Sl., Gk., and than the length of the Eurasian steppe belt allows to narrow the source to the steppes from Pontic to Altai. No “IE” cognates, the proposed unattested PIE root *deuk- “to pull, to lead” is semantically and phonetically unsustainable. An absence of cognates in Baltic languages indicates a later borrowing into Sl. The OE and ONorse forms point to an effort to render the phonetics of the rounded -ü- with the limitations of the novel Roman alphabet, the vowel rendition -ea-, -au-, -y- point to attempts to render the original rounded -ü-, also present in the Sl. forms, or the laryngeal -a-. A phonetic contraction of ŋ > g probably reflects the local Türkic languages or dialects, the forms tüg- and taŋ- are dialectal allophones that separated and formed distinct semantic shades deep within the Türkic milieu. A Türkic cognate taia-, identical to the English form tie- (v.), means “to support, to brace”, like in “tied with braces”, a perfect semantic and phonetic match; that form and the tay- propagated into the modern English. A Türkic compound kurultai, made famous by Chingiz Khan, uses the word tie/tai in a sense “family ties”, kurultai lit. means “be cured (family) ties”, “cure (the family) ties”. In the same sense the word tai (sai) is used in the names of the Scythian eponymic ancestors Targitai, Koloksai, Lipoksai, there tai (sai) refers to the clan ties. The Gk. suffix -ται is a specific marker of family, clan, and tribal ties: in addition to Targitai, Koloksai, Lipoksai of the 5th c. BC, we have 10th c. AD Bechens Patzinakitai (Πατζινακΐται), Bechen's prince Kourkoutai (Κουρκοΰται), Sarmats Σαρμάται, Kherosenesans Χερσωνϊται, Stenon's sailors Στενίται, Islamic Fatemites Φατεμΐται, and hundreds more. The borrowing of a generic term with specific semantics indicates the direction of the borrowing from Türkic to Greek. The use of the marker in Herodotus' time allows to date the word by no later than 5th c. BC. A close phonetics and exact semantics validate a Türkic origin. A presence of three recognizable forms, tüg-, taŋ- and ba- (i.e. teag-, tieg-, tan, bundle), in the NW European languages demonstrates a profound case of paradigmatic transfer from a Türkic phylum. See band, tangle.
62

English till (v.) “harrowing, plowing” ~ Türkic til- (v.) “slit into narrow strips, furrow”. The word till/til- is intrinsically connected with the Türkic allophone or- “cut, break, reap” of the Eng. ard “scratch plough”, and refers to breaking the earth before planting. It may ultimately be a semantic derivative of til (n.) “tongue”, as the narrow strips are called tongues, Cf. idiom “tongues of flame”, and thus be a cognate of tell, talk, tale, etc., and of dole “share, part”. Cognates: A.-Sax. tilia, tillgea, tilian, OFris. tilia, OSax. tilian, MDu., Du. telen, OHG zilon, Gmn. zielen, all connected with cultivation; Serb. dilum “piece, chunk of bread”; Türk. tilgä “strip of land”. OE used tile for “bricks”, semantically also connected with striping. Etymologists conflated that with the origin of till “harrowing, plowing”, although the stems and the paths of these two words are obviously separate, with English tile and Fr. tuile “tile” related to A.-Sax. tigel, tigele, Du. tegel, ONorse tigl, Lat. tegula “tile” fr. Lat. tegere “roof”, which quite uncertainly may ultimately ascend to the Türkic til- “slit into narrow strips” applied for roofing. The distribution of the trio till, ard and dole is focused in Gmc. group, with a Lat. outlier, pointing to separate paths, one of which was probably via the overland Türkic-Sarmatic migration preceding the rise of the Western Huns in the 4th c. The trio presents a case of paradigmatic transfer, profoundly attesting to a genetic origin from a Türkic vocabulary. See ard, tale, talk, tell.

English till (prep.) “up to, before the time, until” ~ Türkic tiy-, teg, tegi:, degi: (postp.) “up to, before the time, until”, ultimately a derivative of tiy-, teg- “reach, achieve”. Cognates: OE (Northumbrian), ONorse, Dan., OFris.; possibly related to Gmn. Ziel (n.) “limit, end, goal” and Sl. do (до) “until”; Skt. tevat; the attested distribution is focused on the Gmc.-Sl. family. Other Türkic forms include semantically identical tegi, tegïn, teginč, tegü, all obvious variations of teg; in Türkic languages the auslaut hard g tends to be dialectally articulated with semi-consonants y/j, which in Gmc. case apparently reverted to dialectal liquid l and in Skt. to v. The “IE etymology” for the time notion “untill” appeals to the phonetic allophones of “convenient” (Goth.), “scope”, “death”, “end of life” (Icl.), the case of last two is obvious the Icl. derivative form aldrtili of the Türkic noun öl “death”, with the part tili being either a reflex of the Türkic verb til- “to scratch” (See till (v.)), or the till “until”, which makes the Icl. noun compound aldrtili either a “stroke of death” or a phrase “until death” with the til “to, until”. In addition, the “IE etymology” attempts to confuse the time notion “until” with the notion “to plow” of the homophonic verb till “to plow”, which is an allophone of the Türkic verb til- “to scratch”, all these incoherent scholastic speculations are semantically implausible. See and, at, be, in, on 1, on 2, to.

English tire “weary” (v.) ~ Türkic tu:r-, tal- (v.) “loose strength, consciousness, be exhausted, faint, dull”. The verb is very polysemantic; out of seven semantic clusters, main meanings are “tire”, “weaken, dystrophy”, “submerge”, “namb, murky, sick” illustrated in the following cognates. The forms tu:r- and tal- may have originated from different verbs with much overlapping semantics. In that case. they practically conflated into one with largely synonymous semantics but two ways of articulation. In dictionaries the stems are listed separately, with episodic cross-reference. Cognates: A.-Sax. teorian “to fail, cease; become weary; make weary, exhaust”, аdeorclan “dull, murky”, adl, adle “disease, infirmity, sickness”, adlian “diseased, ill, languish”, adlig “sick, diseased”, Eng. dull “blunt, numb”; Dan. uitlaat, Norse trett, Sw. trött; Ir. tuir- “tire”; Sl. ustal (устал) “weary”; Georgian daghl-; Arm. tsel-, all “tire, weary”; Rum. daldisi “dive”; Serb. daldisati “dive”. Distribution: spotty in NW Eurasia plus Steppe Belt. “IE etymology” is peculiar: No cognates, no “IE” connections, no “IE” etymology, no English etymology; declared “of uncertain origin, not found outside English”. That is pitiful. On closer inspection, it is surely found outside English, in Khakass, Uigur, Chagatai (Karluk), Horezmian, Kirgiz, Turkmen, and other Türkic languages. Even in England, q.v. Türkic wide spectrum of semantic extensions and metaphoric meanings, and the wide distribution indicate an ancient origin. Some more tar-/tal- semantic extensions can be expected in the Eurasian areas adjacent to the steppe belt. See murky.

English topple (v.) “tumble down”, “to tumble or roll about” ~ Türkic topul-, tepul- (v.) “rip, rupture, breach, punch”. The English top/topple corresponds to the Türkic töpü/topul, in both cases the stem is modified by the Türkic transitive suffix -l. The semantic, the grammatical, derivational, and phonetic parallels are absolute, topple is pronounced tó-pul. A Türkic transitive verbal suffix -l is a now nonproductive and obsolete (inactive): tusu “use, usage” > tusul “to use”, see use. The Eng. suffix -le in topple is explained as a frequentative suffix -l, but in case of denoun verbal derivative that would be a grammatically unsuitable suffix. And in case of deverbal verbal derivative that would be a semantically unsuitable suffix: from top “exceed” to toppl “(often) exceeding” does not make a semantics of “tumble down”, “tumble or roll about”. This is one of the cases when a Türkic derivative is adopted with its archaic suffix. On top of that, the root top has no “IE” connections outside the Gmc. branch and Roman words, and those few are clear borrowings. The Türkic-English succession is traceable down to phrases, Cf. tepildi: yi:r lit. “toppled earth” (earthquake). Even pronunciation did not change thru eons and migrations, /tó-pul/ “topple” is still topul-. See earth, top, use.

English toss (v.) “lightly throw” ~ Türkic tüš-/düš- (v.) “spread, pour, fill”. The notion of the root tüš- is a general down direction: fall, precipitate, alight, land, reef, descend, dismount, diminish, collapse, halt, stop, fail, happen, occur, depose, and so on. A wide semantic spectrum creates limitless variety of applications in the host languages, Cf. cognates douche (v., n.) “spray” and toss (v., n.) “fling, spurt”. A semantic notion “falling event” is identical with Eng. notions, Cf. idioms “it donned on me”, “it fell on me”, see don. Cognates: A.-Sax. toscea(cerian) (with -sh-, toshə-) “scatter”, tosawan (with -s-) “strew, scatter, spread”, tosaelan (with -s-) “unsuccessful, fail, lack, want”, toscaenan (with -sh-, toshene) “break, break down into pieces”, toscead (with -sh-, toshə-) “distinguishing, distinction, difference”, tosceadan (with -sh-, toshed) “part, separate, scatter, divide, discern, discriminate, distinguish, decide, differ”, and more, Norse tossa “strew, spread”, the ss corresponds to the Türkic š; Hu. döl-, ditto; Pers. toš, ditto; Rus. tushevatsya (тушеваться) “diminish, melt away”, the Rus. word is distinct from the Sl. synonymous lexicon, an obvious loanword. The unique word spreads from Atlantic to Pacific and is shared by Gmc. and Türkic families, is a loanword in Pers. and Rus. A grammatical and semantic abundance demonstrates a long history of internalization. Like many other Turkisms in English, the word was lurking in the “folk speech”, and popped up late. The A.-Sax. forms alternate between -s- and -sh-, they inherited a full spectrum of the Türkic semantics, and developed some more. That lexical treasure was nearly entirely lost in English. The initial t-/d- alternation has a diagnostic value: the d-forms tend to center in the Caspian-Aral area, i.e. Azeri, Ottoman, Turkmen. The “IE” linguistics is utterly dumbfounded: “of uncertain origin” for toss and an irrelevant Lat. ducere, dux “to lead” for the douche. The demeaning assertions should be gracefully retracted. In English, douche is a recent (1766) addition, it is a deja vu of the long separated siblings.

English touch (v., n.) “tap” (Sw N/A, F678, 0.01%) ~ Türkic teg-, deg-, teɣ-, deɣ-, tei-/tey- (v.) “touch”, toqï-, toki:-, doki:- (v.) “beat, knock, pound”. A polysemantic word of 13 semantic clusters with 113+ concrete meanings is matched by its English descendent with 15 meanings. One of the clusters carries a meaning “dig” paralleling that of the Eng. tap “dig, mine”. The verb semantically overlaps with numerous meanings of the Türkic verb toqï “pound, pestle” and may descend from a primeval common root. Some semantic expansions in English to a “stirred emotionally”, “affecting emotions”, “concern”, “refer, relate” and the like are later developments, and expansion is still continuing. Cognates: A.-Sax. ðaccian “touch” (toqï ?), OFr. touchier “touch, hit, knock”, touche (n.) “touching”, Sp. tocar (with -k-), It. toccare (with -k-), Lat. tangere (n.) “touch”; Mong. täda, teda “reach, touch”, tege- “hook”; Kor. tei- “reach, touch”. Distribution extends across linguistic barriers from Atlantic to Pacific. Positively no “IE” parallels, the word is alien within the “IE” family. A standing “IE etymology” is an uncouth routine: “perhaps of imitative origin”. In contrast with teg-, “IE etymology” furnished toqï with with its own devised roots closely mimicing the attested Türkic original. The European phonetic shift -k-/-g-/-ch- is consistent with with the areal tendency for palatalization, Cf. clatter vs. chatter. The word reached Gmc. and Lat. areas by different paths and times. See tack, tuck.

English trash (v., n.) “scrap” ~ Türkic tarıš (n.) “trash, scrap”, tarıšla:- (v.) “break up”. Ultimately fr. the verb ta:r- “scatter, disperse, divvy up, separate, cause dissension, distress” that with the initial sc-/sh- formed the base for the Eng. “scatter, shatter”, see scatter, shatter. Other semantic prongs of the verb ta:r- are the notions “sow” lit. “scatter (seeds)”, and “break up” tarıšla:-. The last is denoun verb formed with a verbal suffix -la fr. an apparently extinct noun tarıš “debris, scrap” that had survived in Eng., Scandinavian, and Sl. vernaculars. Of the two notions “sow/scatter” gained a wide circulation, and “break up”, predominantly used by the northwesterly communities, is spotty in the east. Cognates: ONorse tros “rubbish, debris”, Norw. trask “trash”, Sw. trasa “rags, tatters”; Ir. bris(-eadh, -teadh) “break” also echoes the root ta:r-; Sl. tara (тара) “waste”, dermo (дерьмо) “trash”, der (дерь) “rag, rags”, drat (драть) “break”; Mong. tarka- “scatter, disperse”. Distribution extends across linguistic barriers from Atlantic to Far East. А standing etymology of a routine “of unknown origin”, a euphemism for no “IE” connection, a guest from a another linguistic family. The eidetic semantics and phonetics, focused distribution, and non-IE origin testify in favor of its Türkic origin. Phonetic modifications parallel those of other similar cases: loss of vowel after adoption of consonant-dominated language, -s-/-sh- alternation, transformation of the Türkic deverbal noun suffix -iš into “IE” forms -ash/-os/-as, and an initial marker s-/h-/sc-/sh- in case of cognates scatter, shatter. The -s-/-h- alternation is an articulation of the -s-/-k- alternation anchored in the Aral-Caspian basin of the Central Asia. See scatter, shatter.

English tremble (v.) “twitch (of body parts)”, “shake, shiver, jerk involuntarily”, tremor (n.) “trembling, shaking”, trembler (n.) “quaker” ~ Türkic tebrä-, teprä-, depre-, ditre-, titre:-, ditre:-, četre (Chuv.) (v.) “to tremble”, “twitch (of body parts)”. A prime notion of the word is “move”, the notions “shake” and “vibrate, swing” are secondary, with a total of 8 semantic clusters. A trait of neutrality to transitivity attests to deep antiquity. Not too far from a rich English assortment, Türkic has 9 roots and 11 basic forms to express “shaking” (aj-, bez-, birgä-, četre- (Chuv.), ïj-, ïrɣa-, yay-, sapï-, silk-, tebrä-, teprä-), three of which, “tremble”, bez- “quake”, and silk- “shake”, were carried to English in a case of a paradigmatic transfer. A notion “quiver, dread, trepidation” is a European innovation. Cognates: OSax. thrimman “jump, hop”, Gmn. zittern “to tremble”; OIr. tarrach “tremble”; Balt.-Sl. (Lith.) trimti, trimu “shake”, tremti, tremiu “tumble”; (OCS) treso “shake”, (Rus.) trepet, trepetat (трепет, трепетать) “tremble, to tremble”, droj, drojat (дрожь, дрожать) ditto, tryaska, tryasti (тряска, трясти) ditto; Lat. tremulus, tremere “to tremble, shiver, quake”, Vlat. tremulo, It. tremolare, Sp. temblar, OFr. trembler; Gk. tremo, treo (τρεμω, τρεω) “shiver, shake”, tromos (τρομος), tremein “trembling”, atrestos (ατρεστος) “fearless”; Alb., Tosc. trëmp “shake (in scare)”; Gheg trem “scare”; OAgnean (euph. Tokharian A) träm- “tremble”, OKuchaean (euph. Tokharian B) tremem “tremble”; Skt., OHindi trasati (त्रसत) “tremble”, Av. trsaiti “tremble”; Mong. derbe-, Kalm. derw’хǝ “rush about, scratch (cattle), flutter”. Distribution is truly Eurasian, from Atlantic to Indian and to Pacific. A Chuv. čětre “to tremble” has produced the Gmn. zittern (with suffix -n/-an/-en) “to tremble” (tebrä- is eastern Oguz form, čětre- is western Ogur form). A skewed distribution, shared by Türkic, Romance and Balto-Slavic groups, points to an Eastern European origin of the Romance loanword, apparently brought to the Romance group with their reverse migration back to the Central Europe in the 2nd-1st mill. BC. Geographical spread points to movements of the Türkic mounted nomadic tribes across Europe, the two different forms point to the eastern Hunnic (tebrä-) and western Sarmatian (čětre-) heritage. The transposition -br-/-rb- points to a direction of borrowing, it is near impossible to reach tebrä- from trem-/treb-, but the opposite is normal and should be expected after landing on the Gmc. soil. The amateurish “IE etymology” is purely phonetical, the “reconstructed IE” *trem- “to tremble” is a clear mimicry. Mong. forms are later, coinciding with the later Türkic form terbe, a source for Mong. forms where appeared an initial d-. A “reconstructed PIE” root *ter- simply mimics an attested Mong. derbe- and its Türkic predecessor terbe. The alternation b/m (p/m) is regular in a number of Türkic languages, the form tremor (without -b-) vs. tremble (with -b-) echo the elided -b-. Mongolic tribes, marked by Y-DNA haplogroup C, could acquire the word when they joined the Eastern Huns, marked by Y-DNA haplogroup R1a, in the 3rd c. BC, or later, when 500,000-srtong population of the Hunnic nomads submitted in 93 AD to a ruling minority of Syanbi (pin. Xianbei 鮮卑), essentially making the Hunnic language a language of the Syanbi. A close phonetic and perfect semantic congruency, and the obvious case of paradigmatic transfer do not allow doubts on the Türkic origin of the words. See quaver, quake, shake.
63

English tuck (v.) “fit snugly, gather in folds” ~ Türkic taq-, tak-, dak-, dağ-, daq- (v.) “tack, fix, attach, fasten”. The word numbers 11 semantic clusters with a prime notion “hook up, hitch”. Probably, Türkic mamas kept this word alive, tucking in their kids from generation to generation and from homeland to homeland. Cognates: A.-Sax. togian “draw, drag, tow”, tucian “disturb, ill-treat, torment, punish, bedeck (decorate) [tuck]”, MDu., MLG tucken “tug, pull up (stop), draw up (stop)”; Sl. (podo)tk(nut) (подоткнуть) “tuck in, tuck up, tuck under”; Mong. taqu- “infectious (disease)”; Tungus taku- “join, reinforce”; Kor. takta “replenish, follow (something)”. Distribution is peculiar, NW Europe isle, Eurasian Steppe Belt, and Far Eastern fringes. An “IE etymology” is fascinating: 3 uncouth versions and one reverting to an unannounced correct Türkic verb. The last unwittingly cites A.-Sax. togian, a derivative of the same Türkic root daq- (v.) “hitch, tie, fasten” with a quirk of misinterpreting it as “pull” which it is not, but may be one of consequent actions. It also cites unrelated A.-Sax. tucian that also may only be one of consequent results. The other three ideas come up with faux PG *teuh-, *teug- “to draw, pull” and faux PIE *dewk- “to pull” that substitute for the attested taq-/daq- q.v., or suggest OFr. estoc “rapier”, It. stocco “truncheon”, or suggest irrelevant OFr., OOccitan tocar “strike, touch”. Those three are beyond criticism. “Reconstructions” imitate attested Türkic verb. Phonetic and semantic concordance is perfect, down to the Türkic reflexive verbal suffix -in in an idiom tuck in.

English turn (v.) “change orientation or direction” (Sw N/A, F391, Σ0.06%) ~ Türkic tön-, tö:n-, tün-, dön-, dün- (v.) “turn, return”. The word numbers 4 semantic clusters with a prime notion “turn around” and one of secondary notions “return (sickness)” echoed in Even. Semantic application is completely identical, the Türkic tön- as a verb includes connotation of return found in the later English. Semantic clusters of the word in both languages include figurative abstract extensions like convince “turn somebody around”, refuse “turn down”, influence, bend, tilt somebody “turn”, repulse “turn off”, turnaround, turnabout, turn upside down, turn over, and the like, with each language using its own morphological tools. Cognates: A.-Sax. tyrn(an) “turn, move round, revolve”, turnian “rotate, revolve”, OFr. torner “turn”; Fr. tourner, Lat. tornare “turn (lathe)”, tornus “lathe”; Gk. tornos (τόρνος) “lathe, compass”; Even. tönŋer- “dizziness, reeling”. Distribution is typical for European Turkisms, Steppe Belt plus spotty fringes. A stipulated “IE etymology” from an unattested “IE” root *tere- (Sl. teret (тереть) “rub” fr. Türkic ter-/der- “move, touch, wriggle” ) “to rub, rub by turning, turn, twist” is sorely laughable. There is no need to invent fictitious roots, while an attested root is very real. The inlaut -r- (tön- > turn) serves as a prosthesis used to transmit the phonetics of the labial -ö/ü-, later fossilized and articulated. The difference between the Türkic labial ö and English u most likely came about by reflecting that in Türkic ö and ü are not clearly differentiated. Many words have forms with either vowel not differentiated in the Runiform script, like kök and kük standing for “blue”, at times in the same text. The English turn (v.) is articulated identically to the Türkic tün- (v.) “turn, return” with the same unmistakable semantics.

English twist (v., n.) “turn, curve, bend, braid, writhe” ~ Türkic tevir- “twist, turn”, a derivative of the verb tev- (tüv-) “string, pin, pierce, impale”. The Türkic allophones reported by Clauson (1972, 443) to be late versions (13th c.) are evir- and čevir-. That means that A.-Sax. inherited an earlier version. For the archaic form tevir-, Clauson cites Khakass (Enisei Kirgiz), Koman, and Kashgar (Tarim Basin) example of M. Kashgari, giving some indication on the provenance of the Eng. twist. A reflexive form teviš- (tevish-), lit. “gyrate, revolve (+ -ing?)”, is phonetically closest to the A.-Sax. form twist. A deeper analysis leads a root tev- to an ancestor form teg-, its predecessor ten-, and its predecessor teŋ-, pushing its origin millenniums back (EDTL vol. 3 172) from the form tevir-/devir-. A.-Sax. has a rich throve of documented cognates, connected with ropes. In English, of the 26 synonyms of twist, the most conspicuous are “braid” and “twine”, connected with daily use of ropes, with twine producing its own nest of derivatives. That throve of synonyms is a fairly good mirror of the Türkic derivatives emanating from tevir- and its allophones evir- “turn, overturn, skirt, alternate, plait” and čevir- “twist, rotate, turn, translate”, tevrat-/devrat- “twist, spin”, Kumandu tabrat- “turn (something) on a spit” with semantics connecting this word with tevir-. The Eng. twine with its derivatives “double up, fork, double object, divided object” mirrors the Türkic semantics “plait, braid” with doubling thread back upon itself, reflected in the Gmc. cognates of the form tevir-. Cognates: A.-Sax. mæsttwist “mast rope”, candeltwist “candle rope, wick”, twin “double thread, twist, twine”, twistrenge “two-stringed”, ONorse tvistra “divide, separate” (unwind?), Du. twist, Goth. twis- “in two, asunder”, Gmn. zwist “quarrel, discord” apparently remote derivatives; Serb. deverein “scythe blade”; Mong. tögüri-, tögüre- “encircle, circle”, dӧgürgei “round”; Kalm. tögrxa “round”. Distribution of the form devir-/tewir- is peculiar, Oguz and Uigur languages but without Turkish. That is a potent diagnostic marker. Other forms, especially degir-, are widespread in the Türkic milieu across Eurasia with its fringes and across linguistic barriers. The unsustainable “IE etymology” zeroes on the meaning “double”, leaving the remaining broad semantic spectrum undisturbed, and suggest a later development of such attested basic notion as “rope”. The “IE” logical jump fr. “two” to “rope” is way beyond credible, while evolution fr. “turn” to “twist, rope” and “double” is reasonable and traceable.

English ululate (v.) “long loud crying, howling”, ululation (n.) “long loud emotional utterance” ~ Türkic ulï- (v.) “howl, wail, moan, bellow”. The -l- is an archaic verbal marker. Ultimately fr. a polysemantic verb yel-, yek- “shout”, a homophone of “wind, blow”. Those, in turn, share a primordial root ye- “wind, wind howl”. As a rule, words with yek- denote negative aspect, see yuck. Cognates: A.-Sax. gylian, gyllan “yell, shout”, Norse. hyle, ule, Dan. hyle, Sw. howl, yla, Du. huilen, huilt, gehuil; Welsh wail, hwyl; Lat. ululatus, ululare; Sl. (Russ.) ululukat (улюлюкать) (v.), ululukanie (улюлюканье) (n.); Skt. lolati; Hu. üvölteni “howl”, szel “wind”; Pers. Sum. i-lu, e-lu, u-lu (v.); Heb. urla-; Mong. salki “wind”; Tungus (Evenk.) nəldi, nəldə “blow”, nələ- “wind”. For more cognates see howl. These all are dialectal variations of the Türkic “wind” and “howl” carried by different paths to different areas of Eurasia. Distribution is Eurasian-wide from Atlantic to Pacific across linguistic barriers. The “IE etymology” did not perceive that “howl, wail, yell, yawl, yowl” and “ululate, lull” are allophones, and on purely phonetic grounds tried to seek and invent diverse individual “PIE precursors” for this series with close semantics. Those patriotic assertions need to be retracted. Gmc. languages have prosthetic anlaut h-/g-/j-, probably a relict of the Türkic Ogur dialects. Slavic languages have forms with prosthetic anlaut v-. Thus, Gmc. languages have form gyl- and howl, while Slavic languages have form voi (вои) (n.) and vyt (выть) (v.). Türkic languages had forms with consonants -d-, -b- instead of -l-, which produced essentially the same forms that differ only in the second consonant. Some post-Lat. languages added prosthetic -r- in the inlaut, e.g. It. urlo, urla, unless they are, together with the Heb. urla-, allophones of the Türkic yırla:-/ırla:- “sing, recite”. The Sum. cognate attests to the existence of the word in the 5th mill. BC. The Skt. word attests to the presence of this word in the N.Pontic lexicon prior to the 2nd mill. BC, unless it was carried to the Indian subcontinent directly in the course of pre-Arian Kurgan migrations. A universally near perfect phonetic and perfect semantic concordance does not leave any room for doubts of the Türkic origin of all these dialectal forms, including the form howl. See howl, lull.
64

English unite (v.) “join” ~ Türkic una- (v.) “have unanimity, consensus, understand”, um- (v.) “hope, expect”. Ultimately, they ascend to a primordial root on-/oŋ- > un- “succeed, right, good, fair”. They express strictly abstract, non-material notions of mental process and products. Phonetics and semantics of three linguistic instances overlap and diverge, with time gaining new applications. The verb una- expresses secondary notions of “understand, recon”, “want”, “yield, listen (agree)”, “adjust”, “suit”, “like, prefer”, “trust”. The verb um- has secondary notions of “want”, “believe”. The Türkic etymology ascends to the root cause for uniting - “to agree”. Both English and Türkic have uncounted number of derivatives with semantics “agree on”: union, unanimity, united; uniting, disunited, unionize, reunite/reunion, communion, etc. The word smacks with a European cardinal “one” that lays at the foundations of its “IE etymology” and “IE” cardinals, see first. With the attested Lat. unus a derivative of the attested Türkic una-, its “IE etymology” becomes a small branch on a genealogical tree of the primordial Türkic root on-/oŋ-. A primacy of the Lat. word disappears, it enters a community of Eurasian nations like its any other member. Cognates: A.-Sax. an, ONorse einn, Dan. een, OFris. an, Du. een, Gmn. ein, Goth. ains; OIr. oin, Breton un; Balt.-Sl. (Lith.) vienas, umas “sense”, aumuo “mind”, aumenis “memory”, omenis, оmеnа “senses”, оmе “habits”, (Latv.) viens, uoma “wits”, omen “omen”, (OCS) inu-, ino-, (Pol.) um “wits” ; Lat. unus; Gk. ενας (enas); OPers. aivam; Mong. onu- “guess correctly, foresee, find answer, penetrate (mentally), solve, understand”; Kalm. onox, nox ditto; all related to unity unless otherwise noted. Distribution merits the semantic breadth, semantic shards are ubiquitous across Eurasia and across linguistic borders. An “IE etymology” deduces unite fr. Lat. unus “one”, LLat. unionem, unio “oneness, unity, uniting”, with semantics “to become one”, qualitatively a substantial difference with the primeval nature of the Türkic-based etymology. In favor of Türkic etymology attests the presence of stem una- in nearly all 42+ Türkic languages, many of them geographically quite distant from the Apennine peninsula: Enisei Kirgiz, Khakass, Uygur, Uzbek, Altaic, Kazakh, Tatar, Kumyk, Cuvash (a few Türkic languages use a Mongolic word). In the “IE” family the word un for “one” has a distinct northern European flavor. A presence of the word in Celtic languages attests to its existence prior to the Celtic departure from the N. Pontic in the 4th mill. BC at the latest. The “IE” families may have inherited the Eastern European areal “Sprachbund” word of the 3000 BC, which at 2000 BC migrated toward Mediterranean, India and Middle East, and at 1000 BC migrated to the Northern Europe. The “IE” languages carried the notion of numeral “one”, while the Türkic languages carried the notion of “agreement, unity” across the Kurgan steppe area, and into the Mediterranean and Northern European fringes. See first.

English use /yooz/ (v., n.) “use, employ, practice, make use of” (Sw N/A, F364, 0.09%) ~ Türkic tusu-, tušu- (v., n.) “make use of, suitable, occasion”. Ultimate meaning is “run into, meet, encounter” with a notion “moving toward, opposite, facing”. The notion “useful, suitable” is a secondary semantic extension. Homophonic with düš- “fall, down”, and probably originated from a common predecessor, see descend, toss. A CT form is tušu- fr. tuš-, the form tuz- /t-yooz/ that matches Eng. articulation /yooz/ is cited specifically for Saryg-Yugur (Yellow Yugurs). A.-Sax. had well-ingrained 4 native words for “use”. Their complete replacement suggests that some allophone of a form use was used in A.-Sax. under a radar of grammarians. Cognates: OFr. user (v.), uss (n.) “use, custom, skill, habit”; OLat. oeti (n.), Lat. uti (v.) “use”, usus “use”; Mong. tus “opposite, facing”; Mongor tus “face to face”, and more. Distribution is typical for the European Turkisms, from Atlantic to the Far East. “IE etymology” holds “of unknown origin”, positively pointing to a non-IE origin. The unvoiced anlaut t- elided still on the Romance soil, Cf. uti > usus, the Tr. form likely had a weakly articulated t-. The coincidence of form and semantics, the spread of the word across most of the Eurasia, and a non-IE provenance attest to the Türkic origin. A derivative usual is formed with poly-functional Türkic/English suffix -l, here a verbal suffix of passive voice and adjectival/adverbial suffix. See descend, toss.

English usher (v.) “host” ~ Türkic üšer (üsher) (v.) “to gather, to meet”, üšsera (üshsera) (v.) “visit, call in”, a derivative of a stem üš- (v.) “assemble, gather, inflow”. With an aorist (past tense) participial suffix -er it forms (rare) nouns and noun/adjectives “greeter, host” and the like. Suffix -er also forms inchoative mood of the verb, üšer “(to come) to gather, (to come) to meet”, expressing a shade of “show up”, “coming”. The üšsera- is a specifically Kipchak synonymous form. A sibling form of üš- (v.) is tuš- (du:š-) “meet, encounter” with a shade of “drop down”, a verbal form of an adjective tuš (du:š) “equal, equivalent, opposite to, facing”, which points to a common origin of both stems. Cognates: OFr. (12c.) ussier, uissier “porter, doorman”. Distribution: Türkic much of the Eurasia and one stray wonderer. An “IE etymology” builds a sand castle from faux “PIE” *os- “mouth” to “door, entrance” to Lat. stiarius “door-keeper” to a faux VLat. *ustiarius “door-keeper” to attested OFr., of which only the OFr. allophone is credible. The “IE etymology” does not offer any attested cognates within the massive “IE” family. That positively attests the non-IE origin of the word and renders baseless the “IE reconstructions” as a zealous exercise. The spelling of the initial ui points to an attempt to render a rounded vowel like -u- in mule. An origin of the OFr. form is likely Burgund of the Provence-Savoy time. Phonetic and semantic continuity is perfect, leaving no room to doubt a direct genetic connection of the two words. The consonance of the tentatively Burgund and attested Kipchak forms is consistent with the assertions that Burgunds are a Kutrigur Bulgar tribe, and that at least some Bulgars spoke a Kipchak-type language. The A.-Sax. and OHG form lesan “collect, gather” and Goth. form lisan “gather together, meet together, assemble” may render the Türkic üš- “assemble, gather, inflow” with an atypical anlaut prosthetic l-, their hapax nature leaves their provenance unprovable.

English vouch (v.) “summon (order) into court” ~ Türkic buč- (buch-), buy- (v.) “(to) order”. The original verb did not survive, and by the time of the earliest records even derivatives were already obsolete. Two conjugated forms are documented, bučur- and buyur- “order, command”, with further cognates, e.g. buyruq “commanding (officer title), executive, executor, officer, official, order, command”. In British army, it was an “orderly sergeant”. The derivative bučur is formed with verbal suffix -ur forming 1st pers. verbal active voice, absolute participle, and predicate. An allophone vučur would be a dialectal form. Cognates: A.-Sax. weman (peman ?) (v.) “sound, heard, announce, persuade, convince, lead astray”, wemman “defile, besmirch, calumniate, profane, injure, ill-treat, abuse”, wemend (pemend ?) “herald, declarer”, wemere “procurer”; OPruss wackis “cry”; Gmn. er-wähnen “mention”; no other cognates sited for Gmc. branch, A.-Sax. is a stand-alone; Non-Gmc.: OFr. vocher “call, summon, invoke, claim”; Lat. vocitare “call to, summon insistently”, voco, vocare “call, name, invoke”; Gk. epos (επος) “word”; Skt. vakti “speak, say”, vacas- “word”; Av. vac- “speak, say”; Chinese buchun, po-čhuŋ (憑證), pyn. pingzheng “make up, compensate”. Distribution: the archaic title buyruk/buyuruk and his orders are mentioned for 9 prominent groups, including Oguz and Uigur on the opposite ends of the Steppe Belt. Of those, Tuhsi/Tohars, Chagatai, and Naymans are often erroneously held as non-Türkic. An “IE etymology” builds a case for an “IE” origin via a notion “voice/vocality” fr. hypothesized “PIE proto-root” *wekw- “speak” where in few instances “invoke” is interpreted or translated as “summon”. That concept is unsustainable. The path from the theoretical *wekw- “speak” to the A.-Sax. weman (peman ?)“sound” is also unsustainable. A path from the attested weman - unattested peman to vouch is unsustainable either. The entire linguistic chain is built of wanton speculations and logical holes. The archaic word is most remarkable: once ubiquitous across vast distances, it practically vanished from a Türkic lexicon, but became a fixture in a remote fringe. From early days, the buč- “order” was a word of state administration, a word of authority. In a Middle Age Khakass, it was “title of a man who puts notables in their order of precedence in a presence of a king” (Clauson EDT 387). Türkic, probably still of Zhou nomads' milieu, has derivative cognates in English and French, and none in alleged Gallo-Romance, Lat., and Gmc. The forms indicate a western (like Ogur Sarmatian or Hunnic) and eastern (like Zhou, Tokhars/Uezhi, early Huns) types of phonetics. The source of the borrowing could be one of the overland Kurgan waves of the 3rd - 2nd - 1st mill. BC. The words vouch and voucher lurked somewhere in the European Sarmatia and reached Fr. with a torrent of nomadic Goths, Burgunds, or Alans. The archaic word lurked in English until it popped out sometime in the 17th c. A meaning “guarantee” is a late local innovation. See voucher.

English was (v.) “past tense sg. of to be” (Sw N/A, F28, Σ0.76%) ~ Türkic var-, bar- (v.) “to be” (i.e. in Eng. “was”, in Türk. “is”). An r/s alternation var-/was- is connected with the Ogur/Oguz distinction, q.v. Partial demographic ratio determined predispositions. The trait bears a certain diagnostic value. Grammatically, var-/was- initially was an undifferentiated nominal for anything existent or present, that distinction is preserved in the modern languages. Main meanings of the nominal stem are “existing, present”, “existence”, “all”, “everybody, everything”, thus concrete “property, belongings”. In the modern languages, its predicate applications grew to a dominance, leaving a verbal function in a position of archaism. But what is archaism in Türkic languages was vivified in the Gmc. languages. That is likely a result of the archaic nature of the Oguric Sarmatian languages of the 3rd mill. BC. A.-Sax. took a full advantage of the var-/was- bifurcation, actively using both forms, Cf. wæs, wær-. In A.-Sax., wesan “to be, happen” was a distinct verb that became used for the past tense of the 1st pers. form am of the verb to be, a process shared with Goth. and ONorse. A phonetic parallelism between Gmc. and Türkic forms of “be” is as striking as it is for the pronouns. Cognates: A.-Sax. wesan, wæs, wæron (1st, 3rd pers. sing.) “to be, happen”, OSax. wesan, ONorse vesa, OFris. wesa, MDu. wesen, Du. wezen, OHG wesen, Dan. var, Icl. var, Norse var, Sw. var; Skt. vasati; Hu. van; Mong. baraɣa “property, belongings” and others. Distribution is along the Eurasian Steppe Belt with digressions to the NW Europe, South-Central Asia, and Far East. Historically, all non-Türkic (“IE”, Fennic, Tungus) examples are contiguous with the Great Steppe, and either contain, or used to contain sizable Türkic R1a/b component. The “IE” etymology, apparently on a premise that Skt. is a a mother of all “IE” languages, ingeniously “restored” the Türkic real var-/bar-/par- as an unattested faux PIE root *wes-, soundly ignoring the doctrinally inconvenient Dan., Icl., Norse, and Sw. forms. Among its 42+ modern languages, Türkic has numerous variations of the base form: bar- (Karachai, Kazakh, Kumyk, Tatar, Turkmen, Sakha), pur- (Chuv.), var- (Azeri, Gagauz), boluu- (Kirgiz), bolur- (Tuv.), wor- (S.Altai), bor- (Karluk gr.), par- (Khakass). The Dan., Icl., Norse, Sw. form var has preserved the original phonetics, matching exactly the Türkic form var-. The path of the –r forms generally differs from the path of the complementary –s forms. That enables linguists to examine their historical development, in particularly the path to A.-Sax. and Skt. The trio bol-, var-, and dur- constitute an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to traceable and verifiable genetic connection. See be.

English watch (v.) “observe”, (n.) “guard duty and period, patrol” (Sw N/A, F430, Σ0.04%) ~ Türkic aɣtur-, aqtur-, axtur- (v.) “rouse, wake up”, a causative form of the verb a:ğ- “rise, climb, ascend” (Cf. high). The antiquity of the verb shows in its relict distribution, supplanted by four other synonyms, its neutrality to transitivity typical for pre-literal times, its ubiquitous presence in the oldest records. European forms preserved a semantic element of a causative voice of the duty, some forms have preserved Türkic suffixes for causative (-ur, -ung, -a), passive (-l), and abstract notion (-an, -en), demonstrating diverse paradigmatic transfers from a same source to numerous destinations. Cognates: A.-Sax. wacen, wæcce “wakefulness, watching, vigil, division of the night”, wacian “to be awake, keep awake, watch”, with developed derivatives, A.-Sax. wacol “awake, vigilant, watchful, attentive”, OSax. wakon, OFris. waka, WFris. weitsje “wake, watch”, ONorse vaka, Dan. vaage, Du. waken “(be) awake”, OHG. wahhen “watch”, wahta “service period (duty or patrol)”, Gmn. achtung “attention”, and its cognates, wachen “(be) awake”, Goth. wahtwo (n.), wakan (v.) “watch”; Lat. vigil, vigilia “watchful, awake”; Sl. vaxta (вахта) “watch”, with developed derivatives; Mong. aɣsa- “rise”. Once, distribution was ubiquitous across Eurasia with its western and eastern fringes, since the semantics “on guard, watch” was of a vital importance both for sedentary and pastoral societies. No “IE” cognates, the word is an alien guest. The “IE etymology” is mum on the etymology, the best it offers is “perhaps a Northumbrian form”, an etymological non-statement. It is tough to etymologize Türkic substrate without turning to a Türkic lexicon. A faux “PG proto-word” *wakona, *wakjana is a jazz ouverture on an old tune, unconnected with what is held as etymology. All cited accidental phonetic resemblances have no connection with a night patrol duty or a duty turn period. Most of the European forms have prosthetic anlaut v-/w-, typical for Gmc. and Sl. forms (Cf. Tr. ulï- “howl”, Sl. vyli (выли), Eng. yawl, yowl). They probably originated still in the western Türkic milieu: unlikely that the Gk., Lat., Sl., and Gmc. forms came via a single demographic, spatial, and temporal path. It is embarrassing for linguistic professionals not to be aware of the prosthetics in their areas of study, especially so in their native languages. Vigil is LLat. (12th c.), pointing to a Burgund Provence-Savoy source. Bacchus and bacchanalia, connected with traditions of night orgy, are likely ritually canonized reflexes of the same root and of the same night patrol notion. The Türkic etymology not only fills vacuum produced by the “IE” etymology, it offers regular phonetic transitions, perfect semantic match, and a path for innovations like watch “timepiece”, vigilance/vigilante, and a wealth of metaphorical extensions. See high, wake.

English wiggle (v., n.) “rock, sway” ~ Türkic ügril-, öğrel- (v.) “rock, sway”. The ügril- and öğrel- are passive forms of the allophonic stems ügri:- and öğre- “wiggle, rock, sway” with numerous derivatives. Part of them has survived into English as a paradigm: “rock (cradle, boat)”, “sway (talk into)”, “trick”, “fidget”, “wiggle out”. In Türkic the leading and probably the initial semantics is “to rock a cradle”, also predominant in the Gmc. languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. wagian “move, shake, swing, totter”, wagung “moving, shaking”, waeg “wave, billow”, OFris. widze “cradle”, MDu., MFlem. wiegen, wigelen (v.) “rock”, wiege (n.) “cradle”, OHG wiga, Gmn. wiege “cradle”. Distribution typical for the Gmc. Turkisms. No cognates outside of Gmc. and Türkic languages, no connection with the rest of the “IE” family. No connection to the semantics of “weigh” or wein “waggon”, ingeniously suggested on purely phonetic resemblance. A prosthetic anlaut w- is typical for Gmc. (and Sl.) forms of the stems starting with vowel. It may be a graphical result of adjusting to Romanized script to convey a rounded vowel. The -r-/-l- liquid alternation could have originated from the stem ügri:-, öğre-, or as likely be a contraction of the passive form ügril- and öğrel- as a morphological paradigm. The semantics of the whole paradigm is perfect, the phonetics is close and consistent with the Türkic forms.

English will (v., n.) “choice, decision, intention” (Sw N/A, F76, Σ0.58%) ~ Türkic bil- (v.), an auxiliary (modal) verb denoting “ability or skill to act”. The Türkic verb has a wide semantic spectrum of 11 semantic clusters from a noble “know” to humble “visit”, but in popularity the “will” beats them all. The verbal root has its nominal correlate bil, Cf. billüg (bil-lüg) “known, famous”. The Türkic verb is ubiquitous, its noun is known only in derivatives. A transition from an anlaut b- to w- is routine in Gmc. internalizations. There are some uncanny correlations with the bi- notions “sharp, tip, blade” and “to be” (buol, be) that may connect the origin of the word with a long-lost ancestral notion bi-. From two separate semantic clusters, the Türkic bil- has engendered three English daughter words, “will (aux. v.)”, “will (n.)”, and “feel (v.)”, see feel. An internalized Eng. form further developed its own grammatic words: verb, noun, and auxiliary, with further semantic extensions. The Eng. verb has two senses: 1. intention, 2. volition, both of the substrate bil-. An origin of a vowel in wolde lacks explanation; it may be a recycled vestige of divergent articulations like the attested bul-, bül-, pyl-, and the like. An internalized Sl. developed its own extensive lexical trail. Cognates: A.-Sax. will, willa wyll, wylla, “mind, will, determination, purpose, desire, wish”, gewill “will, wish, desire”, verb wilian, wile, wille, wieile, wolde (pret.) “to will, willing, wish, desire”, nyllan, nolde “refuse, prevent, unwilling” out of ne willan with elision and compression; OSax. willian, OFris. willa, ONorse vilja, OIcl. val, OHG wellan, Goth. wiljan “to will, wish, desire”, waljan “to choose”, Du. willen, Gmn. wollen; Ir. beidh, Welsh ewyllys, ewyllysio; Lat. volo, velle “to wish, will, desire”; Skt. varas “desire”, vrnoti “chooses, prefers”, varanam “choosing”; Av. vara- “will”, verenav- “to wish, will, choose”; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) valià “will”, velyti “to wish, favor”, pa-velmi “I will”, viliuos “I hope”, (Latv.) vala “power”, (OCS) voljo, voliti “to will”, (Sl.) volya (воля) “will”; Fin. varmaan; Mong. bilig “knowledge”, bolno “will”. Balto-Sl. extended semantics from “wish” to “order” etc., pointing to the social status of the word. The South-Central Asian inlaut liquid -r- for -l- calls for a closer assessment. Distribution: far exceeds the areal of the Gmc. languages, reaching across Eurasia from Atlantic to Mongolia and across linguistic barriers. An idea that there was a self-contained PG language that engendered Gmc. languages is as asinine as an idea that there was a self-contained PEng. language that engendered English. Ditto with the PIE language. The faux PG *willjan and *wiljon-, and PIE *wel- “to wish, will” have never existed, they are jazzy improvisations on the theme of the attested bil- with its many phonetic and semantic shades adopted by a host of the host vernaculars. The conjectural nature of the “restorations” is an acknowledged reality. Conjectures are tested by reality and dropped in the face of the fact, they should be dutifully and timely rescinded. Any idea of Lat., or Gmc. borrowing into Mong. is patently absurd waiting to be rescinded. The ubiquitous distribution and deep internalization of the bil-/will attests to millennia of infiltration and amalgamation. The ubiquitous continent-wide lexical spread could only be accomplished by supremely mobile nomadic populations and their dominating political role with cultural consequences. In contrast, dozens of native forms for “will” used by various Eurasian sedentary populations are not internationalized, remaining confined to their native linguistic areal. A likeliest timing for a linguistic amalgamation is the Corded Ware period. That is corroborated by the European distribution pattern focused in the Gmc. branch, and by the assessed ratio of the nomadic and sedentary populace in the Corded Ware area by disciplines of archeology and genetics. The perfect phonetic correspondence and the paradigmatic transfer of the semantic versatility and specificity vividly attest to a Türkic origin. See feel.

English write (v.) “mark with letters” (Sw N/A, F863 Σ0.03%) ~ Türkic čiz-, čïz- (chiz-, chyz-) (v.) “draw, draw lines”, with a base meaning “scratch, chisel”, a cognate of Eng. chisel, see chisel. Ultimately, allophones čiz-, sız-, yaz- “scratch, chisel, draw (line), write” are forms of diz- “string (beads), row (series)” and its diverged siblings tiz- “compose”, düz- “compose, invent, create, construct”, der- “compose” and unrelated doqa- “compose, invent, create”. In all those cases, the above cited semantics is secondary, a derivative of a respective prime semantics. In most cases, a presumed precedence of prime semantics is tentative to some degree as a matter of individual judgment. A root riz- “draw, draw lines” is an allophone of the root čiz- “draw, draw lines”, with a base meaning “scratch, chisel” for both forms, a cognate of Eng. chisel. The surviving forms riz- and čiz- “scratch, chisel” are allophones produced by the phenomenon titled r/s split, with the initial č- being a form of š- which is a form of s- ultimately ascending to d- in the form of the attested diz-. The phenomenon is likely an assimilation to articulation specific to different groups, i.e. Sl. fricative trill -rz-, or Udmurt ʤ- vs. Komi r-. see section Phonetics. The origins of the western form riz- as a source of the western ancestral notion “scratch, chisel” and the north-western “write”, and correspondingly of the western Türkic rizan, resim “draw (picture), drawing, image, likeness” are well established separately for each one. The two attested siblings of etymological chain are conjoined by a link of r/s articulation. Cognates on the r- side: A.-Sax. writan “to score, outline, draw the figure of”, later “to set down in writing”; OFris. writa “write”, OSw. writan “scratch, write, tear”, ONorse rita “write, scratch, outline”, OHG rizan “to write, scratch, tear”, LGmn. wrieten, rieten, Gmn. reißen “sketch, draw, design, tear, pull, tug”, Sl. risovat, risowač (рисовать) “draw, paint”, risunok, rysunek (рисунок) “drawing”, all congruent with the Türkic rizan. Distribution: at the turn of the eras the r- version was confined to the north-central isle of the W. Europe, surrounded on three sides and intermixed with various generations of the č- version Türkic Kurganians that extended across Eurasia to Mongolia. This is one of primary examples on impropriety of family tree model applied to real languages. A paucity of cognates attest to confinement in close quarters and a loanword from outside. Both groups used customary non-codified overlapping versions of a runic script for their writing and parallel identical etymology for the word “write”. No credible “PIE etymology”, no similar word exists in any other “IE” branch, clear attestation of a guest status within the “IE” family. A -z-/-d-/-t- alternation is endemic for the Gmc. languages. Slavonic preserved the original Türkic semantics “to draw” fr. “chisel, scratch”: Pol. rysowac from riʒen/riʒʒan ~ Ukr. risuvati (рисувати) ~ Russ. risovat, risunok (n), riska (n) (рисовать, рисунок, риска), with numerous cognates and derivatives in every Gmc., Slavic, and Türkic language. In the compound writer both stems, rit and ar are Türkic: “draw” + “man”. “Write” is a cultural word, it is intrinsically connected with the appearance of the runic writing in the NW Europe. The earliest European runic writing coincided with the Sarmatian migration to the NW Europe. Temporally it coincided with the references to the As ancestors and the almighty Thor in the Younger Edda. On the parallelism between the Türkic and Gmc. runes, see section Runes. The appearance of European Sarmatia temporally coincided with the disappearance of the Early Sarmat males from the Southern Urals, and their replacement by the horse nomadic males attributed to a Jezkasgan archeological culture of the Middle Asian interfluvial. Temporally, the Gmc. runes concord with the Issyk runiform inscription (5th c. BC), the Chinese records that Huns write on wooden planks (3rd c. BC), and the runic notations left in the Hunnic royal kurgan cemetery (1st c.) in Egyin Gol. On a short side, the suggested etymology is no worse than the de-facto absent “IE” etymology. On a long side, the suggested etymology offers a viable path with traceable phonetic correspondence and semantics identical with the Skt, Gk., and Lat. examples. See chisel, Phonetics, Runes.

English woo (v.) “woo, court, charm” ~ Türkic bü-/bö (v.) “sorcery, witchcraft”, a base for the derivatives bögü:/bögö: (n.) “magic, sage, wizard, sorcery” which combines notions of wisdom and magic, bölcs “wise”, bögä “hero, strongman, bagatir”, bögtag/böktag “blessing, mystical help”, and uncounted plenty more across Eurasia and linguistic families. The A.-Sax. had preserved in a pristine form one of the oldest religious terms on the planet. Since the Stone age, the woo (n.) was not used to attract consorts, there were more tangible allures. A semantic shift was predicated by the forced introductions of new religions and condemnation of the old beliefs, the old was driven underground to have blossomed and survived to the present to meet the utilitarian needs of the populace. The new religions offered plenty of prayers and good wishes, while the old one took care of the medicine, love affairs, revenge, and the like. Syncretization was unstoppable. Wooing spirits was a daily affair in all human societies, and globalizations of the Middle Ages and modernity only complements its staying power with a global dispersion. On the paper, wooing was frequently reduced to sexual affairs. In reality, all forms have survived, and many carry the woo name of Vudu, Voodu, Voodoo, Woodoo, and the like, on all populated continents across the globe. An A.-Sax. words for a magical spell were a native hagorun and an allophonic derivative galdor/galder of the Türkic stem kol- “ask for”, see call. A mini-sampling of cognates: Cognates: A.-Sax. wogian “to woo, court, marry”, wogere “wooer, suitor, sweetheart”, wogerlic “amorous”, wogung “wooing”; Gael. buid(seach) “witch”, Welsh wrach “witch”, Sl. bog (бог) “God”, ved(ma) (ведьма) “witch”; Lat. (py)thonissam (b/p alternation) “witch”; Gk. py(thonistis) (πυθονιστης) (b/p alternation) “diviner”, mag(issa) (m/b alternation) “witch”, fagein (φαγειν) “edacious god”; Skt. bhagas “giver (deity), possession, fortune”, bhaja- “provide, endow”; Av. baɣa “god”, baɣa-, baga- “dole, fate”, baχšai- “godsend, fortune”; OPers. baga- “god”; Mord. (Fennic) pavas, paz “god”, Mong. bükü, bügü, buɣu “diviner, divination”; OCh., wu 巫 “witch, magical women”, Kor. ma(nyeo) 마 (녀) (m/b alternation) “witch”, Jap. ma(jo) 魔 (女) (m/b alternation) “witch”. Distribution: the spread of the word woo covers entire Eurasia except small isles in Europe (god, deos), see God, Near East (al, allah), and some extreme fringes. The “IE” asserted etymology is “of uncertain origin and with no known cognates” a profoundly deprecating claim. Side suggestions of an origin from a notion “bend, lean, crooked, twist, corner” of the A.-Sax. and ONorse origin in reality revert back to the Türkic homophonic verb buq-/bük- “bend” unrelated to the mystic nature of the Eng. woo. The ancient Chinese sources assert that not only the Chinese word wu, but the whole healing process is derived from the steppe peoples (Maspero 1978, 166). Hints of the woo/bü-/bö in the Celtic languages allow to date the word to prior to the Celtic southwestern migration of the 5th-4th mill. BC. They positively predate the Aryan southeastern migration of the 2nd mill. BC, and also connect it with the Kurgan southeastward migration of the 2nd mill. BC to China, Manchuria and beyond. With the b-/m-/p- alternation, an innocent Stone Age magic of mystical healing turned into a most powerful vocabulary of magic, might, and even the very deity Bog (Sl. God) scattered from the Elbe to the Ganges and the Sea of Okhotsk. The near-synonymous duo woo and galdor is a salient case of a paradigmatic transfer, attesting to the common origin from the Türkic linguistic milieu. See call, God.

English wound (v., n.) “cut” ~ Türkic yon-, yo:n-, yont- (v.) “wound, hew, cut, carve”. Ultimately a semantic extension of a notion “hew”. The form yont- corresponds closer to the Gmc. forms, it is recorded only in Ottoman, along with the CT yon- (Clauson EDT 221). That attests that an oddball form was peculiar only to some Türkic vernaculars, it may serve diagnostic purposes. European forms nearly uniformly start with a prosthetic v-/w-, typical for Eastern European, and particularly Gmc. allophones, v-/w- + yont-. The semantic raster of the Türkic cognates is far wider then that of the Gmc. cognates, attesting to a much wider dissemination of the word among the Türkic ethnic communities, and accordingly far deeper roots ascending to common notions “hew” and “hack”. In contrast, the Gmc. cognates are limited to the ONorse homophone without a prosthetic anlaut consonant, followed by a cluster of verbal and concrete noun derivatives starting with the prosthetic anlaut consonant. Cognates: A.-Sax. wundlan (v.), wund (n., adj.) “wound”, OSax. wunda (n.), OFris. wundia (v.) wunde (n.), ONorse und (n.), Goth. gawundon (v.), OHG wunton (v.), wunta (n.), Gmn. verwunden (v.), wunde (n.), MDu., Du. wonden (v.). Distribution is spotty both in the European arena, and on the Türkic Eurasian side. Phonetic and semantic correlation is perfect. No “IE” cognates whatsoever. A complete absence of the cognates in the Romance and Asian “IE” groups, and their ubiquity in the Gmc. group attests, first, to the areal northern and southern Sprachbunds, and second, to the later internalization by the northern Gmc. group, after the Romance farmers bounced back to the south-central Europe ca. 1500 BC, and the Indo-Aryan farmers departed on their South Asian trek ca. 2000 BC. The possible time for the internalization appears to be the long period from the Corded Ware bloom to the Sarmatization of the North-Central Europe. In support of the PIE dogma, the “IE etymology” had invented some alchemic PG and PIE “proto-words” for the wound, and separate PG and PIE “proto-words” for the harm, while allowing hurt to come from an “uncertain origin” standing for “we don't have a clue”. These drills, however, utterly fail to explain the etymology of the words, not only contributing nothing enlightening to the disciplines of history or linguistics, but rather beclouding them with unsubstantiated assumptions and idle conclusions. In historical aspect, in spite of being repeatedly jolted by the modern genetic tracing of the Kurgan peoples to the European populations, linguistics tramples backward. Hurtful as it is, the wounded discipline should finally return to our mother Earth. All cited verbal roots could be used with a prefix ga-/ge/ver- independent of the accuracy of the cited examples. A Türkic idiomatic compound ur- yon- combines two nearly synonymous expressions into an emphatic pair, ur- “beat, strike” and yon- “hew, cut” translated as “beat, torture”, see allophones of ur- harm, hurt, hurl. The Eng. and Gmc. allophones of ur- have acquired a prosthetic anlaut h- typical for the Gmc. languages, A.-Sax., and Cockney, attesting to a probable distinct path from that for the wound. That is supported by a presence of the OFr. hurter “strike, collide”, in contrast to the concentrated distribution of the cognates for the wound. The paradigmatic transfer of both words, yon- and ur- separately, and their attested compound in the Türkic emphatic idiom, provide irrefutable evidence of the Türkic origin for both words. If not for a record on the Türkic idiomatic couple, there would be little chance to validate indisputably its Türkic origin. See harm, hurt, hurl.

English yell (v.) “shout, holler”, (n.) “loud cry, yowl” ~ Türkic yel- (v.) “blow (wind)”, “gallop, race”, “conjure” (yelwillä-), “blow (excite), “fan, fend, wave, wag, flutter”, shake (excite)”, yel (n.) “wind, demonic (howl)”, “flit, flitter”, “cold (illness)”. Examples of derivative verbs demonstrate semantic spectrum of the stem yel, paralleled in the lineup of nouns and adjectives. A logical jump from “wind” to “demonic” puzzled etymologists who could not figure out a quite obvious connection. A howl of the wind was terrifying both in the steppes and in the foothills, wind was a yel tengri “wind spirit”. Etymological sources of Old Türkic imply that howl was its supernatural and terrifying manifestation. Western sources corroborate the implication. Notions of “wind, demonic (howl)” and “howl” separated along the east/west divide early in pre-historic times, but endured a parallel existence for at least a millennia. That is attested by all three semantic notions of the ONorse, a descendent of the Gothic. Cognates: A.-Sax. gyllan, giellan, Mercian gellan “yell”; allophonic cognate of the part -gale in “nightingale”, from gaile “wind”, with etymological pedigree of “origin uncertain”, howl, Saterland Fris. gälje “to yell”, ONorse gjalla “reverberate”, gol “breeze”, galinn “bewitched”, OHG gellan, MDu. ghellen, Du. gillen, Gmn. gellen “yell”; Welsh weiddi, gweiddi “yell”, Cf. Sl. veter (ветер) “wind”, vyt (выть) “howl”; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) kliegt, (Lith.) kliegti “yell”, Sl. golos (голос) “voice”; possibly Gk. kikhle (κίχλη) “songbird”; Hu. szel “wind”; Heb. hyul/hiyul/hayol (היול) “yell”; Mong. salki “wind”; Oirot. jül- (yül-) “blow it (go crazy)”; Evenk. nəldi “blow, winnow, rock, sway”; Even nələ “wind”, nəldə “blow” . Distribution is truly Eurasian, from the Atlantic to the Far East and across linguistic borders. All European cognates are limited to the N. European Gmc./Celtic/Balto-Sl. groups, with no “IE” cognates. Any references to any “PG proto-word” are bogus and misleading. The source of the -gale (“song, sound, tweet”), gail “wind”, and galinn “bewitched” reflects not “the origin uncertain” but the attested semantic faucets of the Türkic yel. Türkic allophonic remnants of yel- “blow” and “howl” are jeldir-, jeltir-, jeldirmaz, jeldirdi, etc. “blow”, and the form yarla- “sing”, likely a later dialectal form. The anlaut g- and h- (howl) demonstrate a typical property of the Ogur languages, consistent with other substrate roots with initial vowel or semi-vowel. The survived Türkic form yel with initial semi-consonant attests to commingling of the Ogur and Oguz forms. A trio chill, gale, and howl constitute an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to traceable and verifiable genetic origin form the Türkic milieu. See chill, gale, howl.
65

4.1 Body

English ache (n.) “physical pain” ~ Türkic аčï (achy) (n.) “physical pain”. Etymological origin of the Türkic idiomatic аčï comes from the аčï meaning “bitter”, then extending to “sour”, like in “sour-tasting, sour mood, sour attitude”; the аčï “sour” has extended to more meanings, first to “pain” and then to “compassion”. Cognates: A.-Sax. ece, OE æce, Icl. ache, Gk. akhos “pain, distress”. The phonetic and semantic congruence of the English ache and Türkic аčï (achy) is perfect, the use of the phoneme “k” for “ch” is a recent development ca. 1700, that is still reflected in the conservative spelling. The complete absence of cognates in all branches of “IE” languages is a good indicator of a “borrowed” lexeme, in this case a survived vestige of the substrate language in English, and a borrowing into Greek at another time, place, and from another Türkic group. The Gk. borrowing opens a gate for further tracing, since the migrations and datings of the Greek prehistory are fairly well studied, and other Gk. borrowings from “the Scythian language” are recorded in the Classical sources. Unlike the аčï lit. meaning “sour” that nearly universally penetrated all European languages, the idiomatic аčï “unhappy” survived only in the descendent languages of the Vikings/Goths, and in the Türkic languages. See acid, acidify.

English asquint, askance, askant “slanted, oblique, cross-eyed” (adj.) ~ Türkic qïŋïr (n., adj.) “slanting”, from the Türkic root qïŋ/kıŋ “mean, hateful (of a gaze)”. Some cognates are in other Gmc. languages and in Fr.: Du. schuinte, Fr. equinter, (e)squintar, It. scancio. Both in English and Türkic, the semantic meaning is a triplet, 1. glance of disapproval directed to one side; 2. slanted; 3. cross-eyed. The English inherited all three meanings, and developed new words, like askew. The Türkic root qïŋ points to the origin of the word: mean > mean glance > asquint glance > askance. The Türkic has numerous allophones with related or close meaning: kyi “slanted cut”, qïyïq “slanted (adj.)” , qïŋu “glance unfriendly, slanted, mean”, and various derivatives. Quite likely, the close phonetics and semantics conflated some forms and developed a tree of variations, one of which was retained in English. No “IE” etymology, the etymology is rated “of obscure and contested etymology”, but the phonetic and semantic congruence and continuity unambiguously connect the Türkic and English words. The inheritance of all three meanings attests to a case of paradigmatic transfer, an irrefutable evidence of the genetic connection.

English bald (adj.) “lacking hair” ~ Türkic bül, bol (adj.) “bald”. The Türkic term bül/bol is denoted specifically in respect to horses and a bald patch on the head of a horse (blaze). Significantly, Celtic bal means the same, “white patch, blaze, especially on the head of a horse or other animal”, attesting that if not earlier, the word existed at the time of the Celtic Kurgans' departure from the Eastern Europe in the 4th mill. BC. The “IE” etymology offers a range of unsuitable phonetic conjectures, essentially corroborating the non-IE origin, the word is a guest within the “IE” family. Notably, the semantically distant homophonic English bald and bold originated from close, but certainly phonetically distinct Türkic stems, bül and palt/bald. The presence in English of the duplet bald and bold constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer, unambiguously attesting to the genetic connection. See bold.

English body “entire structure of an organism” ~ Türkic bod, bo:y “body”. Contrary to G. Clauson (1972), the modality of the semantic spectrum attests that the meaning “body, carcass” was primary, the meanings “tribe, clan, mass of people, mob” were secondary, and the meanings “size, stature, height (body), physical form, branch”, etc., the “earthly, worldly, mortal, soul”, etc., and the “lineage” are grades of metaphoric extensions. English had preserved the base meaning and a few idiomatic calques, Cf. “body of people”, “body of evidence”, “bodily”, etc. The modern allophones bud and buddy designate “equal, comrade, companion”. The modern allophone boy designates “youthful male”, “subordinate, subservient”. Cognates: A.-Sax. bodig, OHG botah, Turkish beden, Arab. bädän “body”, Kor. badi 바디; these four forms belong to 4 linguistic families. Another Eurasia-wide word is the Türkic ten/tan “body”, with reflexes in A.-Sax. tin, tinn “beam, trunk”, Lat. tegus “inner, body”, Sl. telo (тело), Pers. tanu, Hu. test, Sum. teshti, Ch. di/ti 体 for “body”, this one belongs to a different group of 4 Eurasian linguistic families. Phonetic consilience attests that the Pers. form ascends to Türkic rather than Sum. via Akkadian. English has preserved the unadulterated Türkic form bod, used for a human body, informal for a person, and for a faceless mass of people. From the Türkic bod came the Türkic budun “a mass of bodies”, generic for “people”, which in the Herodotus time had already obtained an invidious semantics of “human material”, “chattel”, i.e. Herodotus' “Budini” (aka Bodini) describes the human chattel under the Scythians; ditto the budun of the Orkhon inscriptions. Except for the Türkic, the reflexes of the terms bod and ten/tan are consistently anomalous in their host linguistic families and branches, definitely pointing to a loanword status in each of the host languages. The “IE etymology” for the English “body” is a standard “of unknown origin”, attesting that the spirited “IE” linguists are weak not only in history and Türkic languages, but in Semitic and other Eurasian languages too. The secondary form bo:y is most significant, it parallels the semantics of bod, it is a faceless “servant, commoner, knave, boy”, with likewise etymology declared as “of unknown origin”. Phonetics of the form boy, as opposed to bod, is due to the peculiarities of the Türkic articulation, where a group of languages tends to use -y- for -d-. Applied generically, the word boy is a derisive term, widely used long before the colonization of America with its slavery and a derisive boy for male slaves of any age. Besides the principal modern meaning “young male”, the word retained its original notion of “chattel”, used for a wide variety of dependents, Cf. bell-boy, cabin-boy, cow-boy, errand-boy, ball-boy, and a slew of other disrespectful monikers. The legacy of three forms, body, bod, and boy constitute a tangible case of paradigmatic transfer coming from different parts of a single phylum, an irrefutable evidence of the genetic connection. See boy.
66

English brain (n.) “flesh inside cranium”~ Türkic beñi:/meñi:, beini/meini (n.) “brain”. The Türkic “brain” comes in two main flavors, with m/b and m/n alteration that created a line of b-words (brain, brainwash) and m-words (mental, meningitis), in a variety of forms ultimately ascending to beñi:/meñi:. That m/b bifurcation is continued in the Europe. Cognates: A.-Sax. brægen (bregen), MLG bregen, OFris., Du. brein; Gk. brekhmos, no IE-wide cognates, no common “PIE” “proto-word”. Of the 13 most prominent Türkic languages, phonetically closest forms to the European cognates are beini (Turkmen) and beyin (Turkish); the Kazakh and Kirgiz form could be restored to similar beyit, the Chuvash form mime could be restored to bine (articulation with m/b alternation and m/n alteration). The variety of other Türkic forms attests to widespread dialectal differences where the Eng. brain is but one of many: b-form beyin, beyni, beyini; m-form may, me:, meŋ, meŋi:, meyi, meyini, mi, mime, miŋ, miŋe, miŋi, miy, miya. The Türkic allophonic bouquet contains forms practically indistinguishable from the European forms, Cf. mental < meŋtä “mental” ~ beŋtä < beini, see mental. The suffix -tä in meŋtä/beŋtä is locative “to the brain”, the final -l in mental may be a verbal passive voice marker. With a complete absence of the “IE” cognates, the forms beini/beyin/bine/beyit are the best phonetic match for the English brain, the common origin is uniquely corroborated by parallel m/b bifurcation on both sides of the Türkic-European divide. The Frisian word may point to the Cimmerians, then the modern Türkic form is separated from the Middle Age Frisian word by combined 6,000 years distance from the common ancestor, 2,000 years on the Frisian side, and 4,000 years on the Turkmen side. See mental.

English breath (breth) (n.), breathe (breeth) “inhaling-ехhaling, aspiration” ~ Türkic bu:s/pu:s/bu:r/bug “breath, mist, fog, steam”, ultimately fr. bu: “steam, fog”, and related to the verb bula- “boil”, see boil. The bu: and most of its derivatives also carry, directly or indirectly, a notion of “smell, scent, fragrance”. Cognates: A.-Sax. braeð (breth) “vapor, exhalation, odor, scent, stink”, Dan. vejrt(rækning), Norse puste, pust “breath”, OHG bradam, Gmn. Brodem “breath, steam”; Sl. par, para “steam, steaming breath”. Türkic used various properties of the notion “steam” to create numerous derivatives of bu: “steam, fog” for smell, whirly nature of steam, human gaseous exhaust, etc., and many downstream derivatives ascend to the Tr. forms for “steam” and expand the reach of various European vocabularies, Cf. purge and purgatory, Sl. cognate forms. Explicitly no “IE” connection, the purported “PG proto-form” is a weirdly twisted overture on the Gmn. theme with no etymology other than circular reasoning. The variety of the extant forms attests to a great time depth of the word, its distribution runs along the Eurasian steppe belt to the Atlantic. Notably, the older Baltic languages have their own words for “breath” and “steam”, while younger Sl. shares Gmc. and Tr. lexicon. See boil, booze, bouillon, fart.

English cheek (n.) “side below eyes” ~ Türkic ča:k, jak, ja:k, yak, yaak, caŋak (n.) “cheek”. Ultimately fr. eŋ/ya:n (n.) that was originally an anatomical term for “hip”, it grew to mean “side”, and semantically expanded as eŋek/yaŋa:k to “cheek, cheekbone”. The juxtaposition of yaŋ- and eŋ- forms demonstrates a textbook example of Ogur CV- anlaut vs. Oguz V- anlaut; the English cheek is of the Ogur origin. Each of the two forms developed a trail of its own allophones, with the form eŋek and its forms and derivatives taking on their own life. The form yaŋa:k with the initial semi-consonant, typical for the Ogur branch, turned into Eng. “cheek”. The phonetically closest form ča:k hails fr. the Tuvinian language, originally the Tabgach tribe, which ruled the Chinese Tabgach (modern Ch. 拓拔 Tuoba, Early Middle Chinese Tak-bat ca. 600 AD) empires Northern Wei (386–535) and Northern Zhou (557 to 581), and the Tuyuhun state (284–670). These dates postdate the hatching of the Anglo-Saxon language. The other forms jak, ja:k, yak, yaak, and caŋak (with initial ch-) also could tentatively produce the Eng. “cheek”. Respectively, they hail from Kirgiz, Kazakh/Karakalpak/Nogai, Koman, and Horezm/Oguz languages. The form čaak of caŋak (with initial ch- and elided -ŋ-) of Horezm/Oguz provenance would perfectly fit the bill. Unlike the Far Eastern Tabgach, the second group of languages, especially so the Horezmian and Oguz, belong to the Aral basin areal. Pinpointed location of the distinct form affords a research diagnostic value. The Tuva form čaak appears to be the preserved in Mongolian as a Türkic Hunnic form of the Syanbi period, ca. 150 AD, when a small supposedly Mongolic grouping Syanbi (Ch. pin. Xianbei 鮮卑) took over control of 500,000 Huns. The Horezm/Oguz provenance is consistent with other linguistic pointers. The semantic of the word in Türkic languages somewhat alternates, the “cheek” in the majority of languages denotes a “chin” or “jaw” in few others. That furcation is carried into the European languages, Cf. Gk genus “jaw, cheek”, geneion “chin”. The “IE etymology” is non-existent, it blends cheek, jaw, and chin into a single undifferentiated entity, and then expands on jaw and chin to come up with cheek. However, the presence of undifferentiated Türkic words for cheek, jaw, or chin may also be a trait used for diagnosis. The closest semantically valid cognate for the English cheek comes not from the Gmc. languages, but from the Sl. shcheka (щека, ščeka) “cheek” and the Mong.: jaŋaq > jaaq > chaak “cheek” with elided -ŋ-, probably of the Eastern Hunnic descent. There is no common Sl. designation for the “cheek”, pointing that the Eastern Slavic forms constitute a borrowing, apparently from the same underlying language as the English cheek, That also positively points to the Türkic origin, since the early Slavic and especially early Eastern Slavic languages are more than saturated with Turkisms. The Eng., Sl., and Mong. “cheek” stand in opposition to the Gmc. forms centered around the form chin (Goth. kinnus, OHG. chinni, “cheek”, in contrast with the A.-Sax. form cinn “chin”). That points to the path fr. “hip” and “side”, and separate independent developments for the terms chew and jaw and cheek. That also debunks the etymological comparisons with undifferentiated Gmc. forms. Notably, the A.-Sax. native word hleor “cheek, face” also carries a notion that may be interpreted as “sidewise, sidestep”: hleor “leer, sidewise gaze”, hleoran (v.) “to go, depart, pass, vanish, die”. That appears to be a local semantic calque of the underlying notion “side” ascending to the term for “hip”. Another alternate, the A.-Sax. word ceace/ceacei/ceaceo (with initial ch-) “cheek, jaw, jawbone” is an allophone of the Türkic čügtä, čökdä (chugtə, chokdə) “jaw”, in a Romanized transcription with a loss of distinctive articulated rounded vowels, it superficially appears homophonic to the form for “cheek”, causing a confused mistranslation (See jaw). The conventional etymology is driven to confuse jaw and chin with cheek, hence a jumble of guesses and little in terms of etymology; the best morsel offered is that conflated forms for jaw/chin/cheek are not found outside the West Gmc. milieu. See jaw.
67

English carpus (n.) “anatomical assembly connecting wrist to forearm” ~ Türkic qarï (n.) “lower part of arm, forearm”. Qarï is a derivative of qar “arm” with 3rd pers. sing. and pl. poss. suffix, lit. “arm's, of arm”. Emblematic for Türkic lexical development, among numerous other things, the consonantal forms qol and qöl also mean “arm”. Cognates: Lat. carpus fr. Gk. karpos (καρπὁς) “wrist”. The Ancient Gk. karpos stands for “fruit, harvest”, semantically unconnected to “wrist”, the “wrist” is an oddball in the “IE” family, an obvious loanword, and obviously fr. the Türkic. The A.-Sax. “wrist” was wyrst, wrist, hence this Turkism passed by Ancient Gk. and Lat. With such pinpointed semantics and accurate phonetics, the Türkic origin is beyond doubts. With the attested Türkic original for “arm, forearm”, no “PIE” and “PG” inventions *kʷerp-, *hwerbaną “to turn” are needed.

(Skip) English colon “large intestine toward anus” ~ Türkic kolon, Gk. kolon, “the part of intestine that ends with anus”, from Türkic kilak “stomach ache”. Cognates: Fr. qolique, Lat. colica, Gk. kolike, also from the same Türkic root kilak.
68

(Skip) English dementia (n.) “mental deterioration” ~ Türkic dumur (n.) “weakening, atrophy, degeneration”. Numerous Türkic words ascend to the notion of cold as a symbol of bad, they cover notions from headache to tranquility and far beyond. The allophones of “cold” are tum/dum, tom/dom, ton/don, toŋ, and more; the basic dictionaries alone name 24 base stems for “cold”. The semantically closest Türkic word is duma:ğu:/tuma:ğu:/tumaɣu “headache, cold (illness), rhinitis”, which is a a deverbal noun from the duma-/tuma- “(fell with) headache, cold (illness), rhinitis”, hence the Türkic dumur “weakening” and A.-Sax. dem/demm “injury, damage, loss, misfortune”. Cognates: A.-Sax. dem/demm “injury, damage, loss, misfortune”, dumb “dumb, silent”, adumbian “become dumb, keep silence”, dumbness “dumbness”, OSax. dumb, Goth. dumbs, ONorse dumbr “dumb, silent”, Lat. damnum “loss, hurt, damage”, all related to an impairment condition, and largely confined to the Gmc. languages. In view of the A.-Sax. dem/demm based on the root dem, this etymology negates the possibility of the alternate (IE) etymology based on the root mens “mind” with a prefix de-. The alternate (IE) etymology is also little suitable semantically, it is an active form “irritate” of the passive notion “be irritated, be driven crazy, be driven insane” rather than a decease of mental deterioration. Ironically and unwittingly, the alternate (IE) etymology ultimately ascends to the Türkic noun ming “brain”, see mind, and the Türkic locative suffix ta/tä/da/dä/δa/δä “of, from”. Accordingly, the cognates of the root mens “mind” must be rejected: A.-Sax. mynd “memory, thinking, intention”, Goth. muns “thought," munan “to think”, ONorse minni “mind”, Gmn. minne “memory, loving memory”; M.Fr. démenter, LLat. dementare “to drive out of one's mind”; Lat. mens “mind, understanding, reason”, memini “I remember”, mentio “remembrance”; Balt. (Lith.) mintis “thought, idea”, OCS mineti “to believe, think”, Rus. pamiat “memory”; Gk. memona “I yearn”, mania “madness”, mantis “diviner”; Skt. matih "thought," munih "sage, seer”. All these cognates fairly relate to the Türkic min(g) “mind”, but are in conflict with the attestation of the A.-Sax. dem/demm. The timing of the suggested Romance cognates is also in conflict with the native A.-Sax. word, the M.Fr. and LLat. words belong to the later Middle Age period of immense barbaric linguistic influence, but are not attested within the Classical Latin. For the etymology of the cognate dumb, the “IE etymology” invented two roots, *dheu- and *dheubh-, with meanings of the first “dust, mist, vapor, smoke”, it is a phantom allophone of the Türkic doz/toz- (n., v.) “dust” and A.-Sax. dust “dust”, dustig “dusty” , and with meanings of the second invention “confusion, stupefaction, dizziness”, both inexplicably unrelated to either “dust” nor “dementia”. The Türkic dumur, like the English dumb, can't be derived from the Lat. de mente, but both dementia and dumb, and other Gmn. dem-/dum- cognates are derivatives of the Türkic dum-/tum- with noun/adjective suffix -ğu:/-ɣu and -ur/-ür. See mind, dust.

English derma, dermat-, dermato- (n.) “pertaining to skin” ~ Türkic deri/teri (n.) “skin”. Ultimately, deri/teri ascends to the verb tar-/ta:r-/tara- “disperse”, where the Eng. allophone tear “rip” is a concrete application of the verbal notion “disperse, i.e. tear, separate into different outcomes”. Cognates for the Türkic tar-: A.-Sax. ter- (v.) “tear, lacerate”, ter (n.) “tearing, laceration”, Goth. tair- “tear, destroy”, OHG zeran “destroy”, Gmn. zehren; Gk. derein “flay”; Arm. terem “I flay”, identical with the Türkic 1st pers. sing. form terim; Sl. drat (драть) “rip”. The origin of the English word derma is ultimately ascribed to Gk. derma “skin”, dermato- and dermo- in compounds, via Modern Lat. derma. Hence, originally Latins did not know this word, while the Greeks used for “skin” a Türkic word deri “skin”. The “IE etymology” guessed correctly the origin of the notion “skin” from the notion “tear, separate into different outcomes”, but contrary to the feverish “IE etymology” there was no “PIE root” *der- “split, peel, flay” to form derma, and the “IE” connection to the consonant Eng. verb tear “rip” comes via a separate path from the Türkic to A.-Sax. and on to Eng. There is no need to invent a phantom “PIE root” *der-, where the “split, peel, flay” are concrete applications of the notion “disperse, tear apart, separate into different outcomes”. The presence of a duplex of the Türkic words “tear” and “skin” in the A.-Sax. and then in Eng. attests to a case of paradigmatic transfer. See skin.

English dick (n.) “penis” (folksy) ~ Türkic dık- (v.) “erect, stand straight”. The derivative slang senses are very old and naturally were not recorded in the surviving records. Meaning “penis” was first attested in the British army's slang, the slang for “fellow” is synonymous with “fellow, lad, man”. No parallels in Indo-Iranian languages, PIE, or even in the *PIE, but probably a daily term among Sarmatians, Goths, and other Wendeln tribes. As an uprightly erected structure, erected posture, standing and protruding, the Türkic dık- is found in Du. (dyke, dike “standing barrier”), Spanish (dique - “levee, upright wall, vertical rock stem protruding to the surface”), and popular appellations that refer to exaggerated masculinity. No “IE etymology” whatsoever. The pair dick - cock is a case of the transfer paradigm, the transfer of synonymous set of terms for a particular object, that evidence attests for certain of the linguistic genetic connection. See cock (rooster).

English elbow (n.) “joint between forearm and upper arm” ~ Türkic el (n.) “arm, forearm”. The Türkic element el starts the English elbow, A.-Sax. elnboga, from ell “length of the forearm” + boga “bow, arch”; OIr. uilen, Cymmer. elin, Goth. аlеinа; Du. elleboog, MDu. ellenboghe, Gmn. Ellenbogen, OHG elinbogo, ONorse ölnbogi, Norse albue, Balt. (Latv.) elkonis, Balt. (Lith.) alkune, Sl. lokot (локоть, with contracted el), all expressing compound arm + bend, with bend coming in two flavors: the Gaulic kon in Basque ukondoa (probably contracted lukondoa), Gujarati koni, Hindi kohani, Hu. könyök, Balt. (Latv.) elkonis, Balt. (Lith.) alkune, Sl. lokot; and the Gmc. bog < Tr. bük in A.-Sax. elnboga, Du. ellenboghe, Sw. armbage, G. elinbogo, Norse ölnbogi. Of Gmc. languages, only Sw. changed the Türkic el to Gmc. arm: armbage. In time, the Türkic el shows up in Cimmerian in the 10th c. BC, Indo-Iranian (Avesta, Skt.) after 6th c. BC, and in the European sequence is roughly Celtic > Gaul/Irish > Goth. > Gmc. > Balt. > Sl. The Gk. (Hestius) reflects the Cimmerian Türkic form: elin > olene ὠλένη > Lat. ulna “elbow”. The part bog in various allophones is the Türkic bük- “bend, twist, curl, wrench, contortion, wring”, which produced English bow < boga < bük. All Gmc. languages uniformly inherited the Türkic bük, boq- (v.) (in modern Turkish bük(mek) (v.) “bend, twist, curl, curl up, flex, fold”, bükül(mek) (v.) “twist, bend, curve, fold, spring, wind”, bükme (n.) “bend, twist, curl, wrench, contortion, wring”; the Türkic part mek is the English make, infinitive verbal suffix agglutinated to the stem). The little elbow allows to trace two Türkic words from 6000 ybp in the Pontic steppes to the Mesopotamian Guties ~ Guzes 4300 ybp, to Mesopotamian Cimmerians 3000 ybp, via Balkans to Jutland Danes 2000 ybp, and into the literate period; and on circum-Mediterranean route from the same Mesopotamian Guties ~ Guzes to Iberia 4800 ybp (Beaker Culture), and Celtic spread up to the Western Europe, British isles and Ireland, and into the literate period. Two forms for “bend”, the Gaulic kon and the Gmn. bog attest to two independent routs, circum-Mediterranean and overland via Balkans. The Gk. and Lat. forms attest to a third path to Europe, potentially connected with the population replacement of 6500 ybp, or with the Hellenic immigration 4000 ybp. See bow, make.

English eye (n.) “organ of sight” ~ Türkic ög- (v.) “to eye, perceive”. The verb ög- comes in two allophones, ög- and uk-/uq-, both used to refer to perception expressed in Eng. idioms “I've got it”, “I see it”, “I understand (it)”; the notion of “see” in these idioms is not literal and physical, it is metaphorical as in literal “perceive”. The verb's noun forms are ukuğ and ukuš, both “seeing, understanding”, and ögli: “seeing, thinking”, with metaphorical “see”. The ög- has a dialectal form öy- in SW languages like Azeri, that form neatly matches the Eng. eye and Dan. øie. However, the Türkic allophones carry a fundamental notion “perceive, insight” forming a notion related to “seer, wisdom” instead of an instrumental derivative for “organ of physical perceiving” which is the eye. That difference attests to the time depth of the stratification, since none of the extant Türkic languages has preserved neither direct correspondence nor a derivative directly drawn from the notion “eye”. Moreover, the Celtic Welsh form appears to be an allophone of ög-/ok- with a prosthetic -l. That may be a relict carried from the E. Europe from the time of the Celtic departure ca. 5th-4th mill. BC, attesting to the existence at that time of the form ög-/ok- with distinctly singular derivative semantics “eye”. Ultimately, the Türkic-Gmc. ög- and the “IE” ok- is the same stem, distributed nearly equally to form grammatical forms for vision: A.-Sax. ege (Mercian), eage (WSax.), OSax. aga, OFris. age, ONorse auga, Goth. augo, Sw. öga, Dan. øie, MDu. oghe, Du. oog, OHG ouga, Gmn. Auge, all “eye”; Welsh lygad; Lat. oculus; Gk. okkos but opsis “sight”; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) akis, (Latv.) acs (ach), (OCS) oko; Skt. akshi; Gujarati ankha, Agnean ak, Kuchean ek; Arm. akn; Ar. 'ayn, all “eye”. The English eye closely follows the Dan. øie:, øie > øye > eye via form øğe; -ğ- may be articulated silently, or denote the phoneme -y-. That particular form points to the areal origin in the Black Sea/Caspian basin. Nearly all Gmc. forms have preserved an indicator or a tint of the rounded ö- in the Türkic ög-, and point to the direct genetic connection that, given the Welsh form and due to the Welsh exact semantics, may also ascend to the 5th-4th mill. BC. The non-Gmc. forms show separate paths; the eastern “IE” forms ascend to the 3rd mill. BC, prior to the Indo-Aryan departure ca the turn of the 2nd mill. BC. Obviously, all these forms were inherited via numerous independent paths, creating a spectrum of allophones and split semantics; the Gmc. allophones are notably closer to the Türkic version than to the Balt.-Sl.-Skt.-Gk.-Arm.-Indian (Agnean/Kuchean)-Ar. forms. Notably, the Ar. 'ayn “eye” has preserved the Türkic double semantics of “eye” and “spring”. The Eng. triplet of eye, gaze, and see constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer from a common source, albeit probably at different times and of ethnically different populations. See eye, gaze, ogle, see.

English face (n.) “nose and vicinities” ~ Türkic yü:z (ñü:z) (n.) “face”, generically “surface”, with as many semantic and idiomatic extensions as are endowed to English. The word “face” came to Eng. as a paradigmatic transfer, with a prototype ñü:z for “nose” and old A.-Sax. wlita/wlite, Goth wlits “face”, a cognate of the Tr. bit/bet “face”. Sometime during the Middle Ages, the A.-Sax. wlita/wlits lost a popularity contest to its synonym face, but it rightfully belongs to the substrate category. The transferred paradigm also transmitted peculiar idiomatic expressions, i.e. – confront: “something facing us” is “something confronts us”, “face the reality” is “confront the reality”; – orientation, across, opposite: “cafe facing the road”, “facing north”, “facing page”, “turn to face”, – surface: “Earth's face”, etc. The Eng. form starts with a version of the prosthetic anlaut v-/w-/f-, a regular correspondence between the modern Türkic and the Gmc. and Sl. languages, which sounded something like vü:z/wü:z/fü:z “face” and produced the OFr. (12th c.) face “face, countenance, look, appearance” and VLat. facies “appearance, form, figure, visage, countenance”. The appearance of OFr. and VLat. forms is obviously a late borrowing, probably from the Burgund of Provence/Savoy. The “IE” phonetic and semantic spectrums probably developed gradually in time. Other cognates: Chuv. ner, Mong. ni'ur, niğur “face”; these siblings to the Eng. face are most significant: first, they attest to the initial anlaut n-, justifying the form ñü:z for “face”; secondly, they attest that the Chuv. (and Mong. loanword) forms descended from the Ogur branch (r- branch) while the Eng. form descended from the later Oguz branch (z- branch); thirdly, they corroborate the relative sequence from Ogur to Oguz in the evolution of the Türkic languages. Since “IE” languages have a large collection of different nominals, the origin of the word “face” is clearly non-IE, obviously comes from a variety of non-IE sources, and the deficient “IE etymology” rightfully flops on it face. The close phonetics, exact semantics, and the transfer of the tri-partite paradigm and its semantic corollaries validate the Türkic origin beyond any doubts. See nose, wlita.

English foot (n.) “lower leg” ~ Türkic but (bot), bu:t, bu:d (n.) “leg, thigh”. Cognates: OSax. fot, ONorse fotr, Du. voet, OHG fuoz, Gmn. Fuß, Goth. fot “foot"; Fr. pied, It. piede, Sp. pata, Lat. pes; Gk. pos; Skt. pad-, Av. pad-, all “foot”, Balt. (Lith.) padas “sole”, peda “footstep”. It is obvious that “foot” belongs to an areal “Sprachbund” language, which at 3000 BC centered in the Eastern Europe, at 2000 BC migrated toward Mediterranean, India and Middle East, at 1000 BC migrated to the Northern Europe, and in the second half of the 2nd mill. AD dispersed across the globe. Apparently, the voiced bilabial stop b turned into voiceless p in the southern fringes, and into voiceless labiodental fricative f in the northern fringes. The foot belongs to the collection of the “Sprachbund” words common with the Türkic languages and geographically adjacent to the steppe Kurgan area. The spelling with long -u:- matches exactly the phonetics of the Eng. -oo-. The Eng. pair of foot and elbow constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer from a common source, pointing to the direct genetic connection. Notably, while under the “IE etymology” the foot is endowed with an extensive etymology and an imposter “PIE root” *ped-, its obvious sibling and allophone boot is left a total orphan, classed by the “IE etymology” as “of unknown origin”.

English genu (n.) “knee” ~ Türkic yinčür- (v.) “bow, bend”. Ultimately fr. yi:n “body, flesh, limbs, body part, skin”, with diminutive denoun suffix -č to produce yinč- (v.) “bend, bow, slight, delicate, thin, slim”; yinčür- is a causative form of the verb yinč-. Numerous derivatives of the stem yi:n convey connotation of material weakness, as opposed to the stiffness of hard materials, thus the prevailing notion is metaphorical “flesh” as a material, with adjunct secondary notions of “bow, bend” with further semantic and morphologic extensions. The semantics of “flexibility” propagates into notions of “joint”, “flexible”, and the like; the semantic of “knee” is a derivative of yinčür- with idiomatic meaning “(bow with) bent knees” as a gesture of submission. The word genu does not refer to the physical knee, as in “knee hurts”, it refers to the knee action as a hinge joint, expressed in LLat. (14th c.) Latinized neologistic calque with noun of action genuflexio “bending of the knee” and the verb genuflectere “genuflect”. Cognates: A.-Sax. cneo, cneow, OSax. kneo, OFris. kni, ONorse kne, Goth. kniu, OHG kniu, Gmn. Knie , MDu. cnie, Du. knie; Lat. genu; Gk. gony “knee”, gonia “corner, angle”; Skt. janu, Av. znum; Hitt. genu, all “knee”. The Ogur form of the Oguz yinč- is jinč-, ginč-, and other dialectal versions (like kinč-, closer to Gmc. forms) with anlaut consonant from the Ogur prosthetic consonantal lineup h-/k-/g-/d- specific to Oguric branch (see Skt., Av., Hitt., Gk., Lat. forms), the morpheme y- may be Oguric with expressed articulation or Oguzic with nearly undetectable articulation. The late adoption of the Türkic secular-religious term “genuflect” into the Church Lat. is probably connected with some Cathars escaping religious genocide by joining the Church ranks, its history may be illuminating. It may be suggested that the Gmc. anlaut kn- ment to render some version of g-/j-, that would bring vocalization closer to the Turkic Ogur jin-, gin- and its south-western allophones.

English heart (n.) “muscular pump organ” ~ Türkic (Chuv.) chäre (chere), (OT) yürek, yüräk (n.) “heart” (n.). The Türkic notion of “heart” is connected with the notion of “bravery”, that linkage was transmitted as a paradigmatic transfer into the European and Far Eastern languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. heorte “heart, courage”, Yak. süreq, Tuv. chürek, Khak. chüräk, OT yürek; jüräk, ǯüräk; OSw. herta, OFris. herte, ONorse hjarta, Du. hart, OHG herza, Gmn. Herz, Goth. hairto; OIr. cride, Welsh craidd; Lat. cor; Gk. kardia (καρδιά); Balt. (Lith.) širdis, Rus. serdce (сердце); Skt. hrid-; Av. zared-; Hitt. kir; Mong. kirüge, kürüge, kürüke, kiruke “heart”. The eastern (largely Oguz) group of Türkic languages starts with anlaut vowel or semi-vowel, the western non- Türkic languages start with Ogur-type prosthetic initial of anlaut prosthetic consonantal lineup h-/k-/g-/d- specific to the Oguric branch. The initial s- forms süreq, chürek, ǯüräk, širdis, serdce juxtaposed against initial k- forms point to the k-/s- divide of the Eurasian speech and the kentum (centum)/satem origin as a consequence of the front/rear harmony, and point to the primacy of the k- forms. The Gmc. h- forms uniformly attest to the Aral basin origin featuring s-/h- alternation. The Mong. forms, close to Eng. and Chuv., are Hunnic forms acquired by Syanbi (Xianbei 鮮卑) Mongols with ethnic Hunnic majority, they are positively identified as Türkic loanwords adopted during the Second Period.. The English form is closer to the Chuv. form. The common origin of all forms is obvious. Essentially, all forms show an international European/Great Steppe word that probably was seeded in Europe by overland and circum-Mediterranean horse-mounted Kurganians. Any idea of Gk., Lat., or Hitt. borrowing into Mong. is patently absurd waiting to be rescinded. The Celtic k- form ascends to 6th-5th mill. BC N. Pontic area starting from before the Pit Grave period. The distribution points to the Türkic languages bridging Lat., Gk., and Gmc. on one end and Mong. on the other end. The A.-Sax. and English spelling of the first vowel -ea-/-eo-, and the Goth. -ai- point to attempts to render the quality of that vowel depicted as -ä-/-ü- in Türkic transcriptions, and approximated as -e- in Gmc. versions: the -ə-. The A.-Sax. heorte “heart, courage”, figurative “breast, soul, spirit, will, desire; mind, intellect” closely follows the extensive Türkic semantic of the notions “heart” and “courage”. See courage.

English hernia (n.) “outside bulge of internal organs” ~ Türkic urra (n.) “hernia”. Ultimately, fr. the Türkic verb ur- “punch out”, the deverbal derivative ura widely disseminated in Europe long before it was formalized in the medical jargon. Hernia, with a prosthetic initial h-, is an obvious allophone, perfect semantically and phonetically. The “IE etymology” suggests that hernia, a Latinized neologism documented fr. late 14th c., relatively recently etymologized fr. a putative PIE asterisked invention for “gut, entrail”, is derived from the allophones of yarn, a somewhat circuitous and incredulous path. The yarn phonetically sounds like a distorted homophone of the real Türkic urra for “hernia”, but semantically it is as far from “hernia” as they come. That version does not answer two aspects, first, how M. Kashgari in his remote Kashgar of the 11th c. could have known that the European medics in the 14th c. would come up with the name hernia, and secondly the mechanism of that European colloquial neologism spreading across Eurasia into the Türkic languages. The possibility of Lat. borrowing into the body of the Tr. languages is unreal, and a chance coincidence can be positively ruled out as statistically unviable. The direct assimilation of the Türkic term centuries before 14th c. appears more coherent, simple, and realistic. Now, as a medical term, hernia is an international word, with local equivalents practically in every European and “IE” language.

English jaw (n.) “structural part of mouth” ~ Türkic čügtä, čügde:, čökdä (chugte, chugde, chokde ) (n.) “jaw”. The Türkic term čügtä, čökdä includes the vertical joint of the jaw: čökdä uluxsa “acclivitous bones of lower jaw” (МК 210₁₆//OTD p. 155, 157) The English jaw came from jowl, after ME chawl (late 14c.), chavel (early 14c.), A.-Sax. (OE) ceafl, with the dates attesting not the usage in time, but records in time. English also preserved jowl, ME cholle for “fold of flesh hanging from the jaw”; MHG kiver, Gmn. kiefer, ONorse kjoptr “jaw”, Dan. kæft, Flem. kavel, Du. kevel “gum”; OIr. gop, Ir. gob “beak, mouth”; they are phonetically as close to jaw/ceafl as the čügtä, čökdä, considering the vast geographical and time differences between these forms: the anlaut semi-consonants/consonants j-/dj-/ch- and the labial ö and ü are fluid between different dialects, and may be legitimately rendered -ow-/-aw- to show labial vowel, the final -tä/-dä may be reflected in the Dan. -t of the kæft. The closest cognates to English jaw comes not from the Gmc. languages, but from the Slavic: jevat (жевать) “to chew”. Slavic also has completely separate “jaw” chelust, and “cheek” shcheka (щека), pointing to separate independent developments for chew and jaw and cheek, and enlightening us to be mindful of our own confusion before we address that of the others. Among many allophones and polysemantic meanings, one that ties together jaw and čügtä, čökdä is the stem čöq- with semantics “bent, curved, knee-like”, used to produce derivatives like čügtä, čökdä and čögän, čoɣan “polo mallet”, pointing that initially the curved jaws of animals were used as tools and in games, forming nouns of the stem čöq- (with allophones čök-, čög-, čöɣ-) with deverbal noun suffixes -tä/-dä/-än/-an to make nouns meaning “hokey-stick shaped”. Note that English jaw and chin are synonymic, chin has distinct Gmc. roots, while jaw has cognates outside of the Gmc. field. In light of the forms clustering around čöq- “bent”, a temptation to connect the forms jaw and jevat with the verb ye “eat” is not sustainable. See eat.

English lame (adj.) “crippled (in legs)” ~ Türkic ulam (adj.) “continuous, lasting, permanent”, with both positive and negative connotations, also used as adverbial noun, ultimately fr. ula:- “repair, join, writhe together, union, tie”, formed with deverbal abstract noun suffix -m to name an object, express result or degree. In the context of a human, ulam means “crippled permanently”, as illustrated by its Sl. calque uvechenyi (adj.), uvechie (n.) (увеченый, увечье), lit. “forever, for ages” from the “IE” stem vek- (vech-, viej-) “old, age, ancient”. In the example, uvechie (увечье) (n.) is a noun derivative from adjectival noun/adverb, morphologically “permanency” but semantically “(permanent) injury” (Cf. Sl. direct derivative lomat (ломать) “break”). The stem ulam is multi-layered, its semantics besides “debility” conveys notions of “break/repair” and “support”, both physical and metaphorical, e.g. ulamsiz “unattached”, ulamsuz “unsupported”, making the notion “permanent” totally transparent in its content, a la “permanently debilitated by broken support”. The spread to Balto-Sl. languages points to bilingualism that allowed adoption of the multifaceted loanword into the “IE” syntaxes. The elision of the anlaut vowel u- was an adaptation to the host vocalizations, in the Eurasian southwest the word took a form leng-, like in Timurleng “crippled (or humped) Timur”. In Türkic, the anlaut u- is purportedly a prosthetic vowel typical for loanwords, but the uninterrupted etymology ascending back to the base root ula:- attests otherwise (Clauson EDT, 146). Cognates: A.-Sax. lama “crippled, lame, paralytic, weak”, unrelated to homophonous lam, loma (tool), lim (foam, day, earth), or limb, usually cited in the “IE” phonetical exercises; ONorse lami, OFris. lam, Du. lam, Gmn. lahm; Lith. luomas, all “lame”; the OCS cognates lomiti, Sl. lomat (ломать) “break” are Sl. derivatives of the Balto-Sl.. luomas “lame”. No “IE” connection whatsoever, the ulam/lame “crippled” is an oddball in the “IE” family, with a peculiar steppe belt-adjacent distribution typical to other European Turkisms. The near-perfect and consistent phonetics and perfect semantics, peculiar distribution, and the status of the guest word within the “IE” family attest to its Türkic origin.
69

English milk (n.) “secretion of female mammary glands” ~ Türkic meme (n.) “(female) breast”. The underlying form for milk is the form memeleki, a derivative formed of meme “brest” + suffix –le “with” + suffix –ki “that”, i.e. “that of the breast”, which for millennia could accumulate all incidents of dialectal modifications and allophones. The putative form, morphology, and semantics of memeleki, with its characteristic -lk of the agglutinated suffixes, is just right for the form “milk”. In the Türkic languages, the “breast”, “breastfeeding”, and “milk” süg were separate notions. Cognates: A.-Sax. melc, meolc, meoloc, meoluc, mylo, W.Sax. meoluc, Anglian milc, ONorse mjolk, Du. melk, Ger. Milch, Goth. miluks; OIr. melg; Lat. mеlса “sour milk”; Gk. amelgo, armego (αμελγω, αρμεγω); all Sl. languages have versions of moloko (молоко, млеко, etc.). The derivative verb is ONorse mjolka, Du., Ger. melken, Gk. amelgein, Lat. mulgere, OCS mlesti, Lith. melzu “to milk”, etc. In these attested forms the original memeleki is clearly visible. Geographically, the word is shared by Türkic, Gmc., Celtic, and Sl. branches, plus accidentals. The accidental is Lat., whereas the Lat. milk is lacte with allophones in all Romance languages; the accidental Gk. whereas Gk. milk is gala (γάλα); the accidental Baltic whereas Baltic milk is pien. That clearly indicates a status of loanwords for the Lat. mеlса, Gk. amelgo, Baltic (Lith.) melžti. The Lat. mеlса names specifically a sour milk, an exclusive hallmark of the Türkic nomadic diet noted by a pleiad of chroniclers across millenniums and across Eurasia. A constellation of Eurocentric-Slavophile-Iranophile presumptive linguists have dug in to come up with an “IE” etymology: Brueckner, Berneker, Endzelin, Ernu, Frenkel, Hirt, Janko, Lëve, Lyapunov, Meillet, Meyer, Obnorsky, Pereveden, Schrader-Nehring, Selishchev, Semerene, Sobolewski, Trubachev, Uhlenbeck, Vasmer, Walde-Hofmann, Yagitch, to list just a few. The suggested “IE etymology” is a preposterous phonetic speculation, deduced fr. Skt. verb marjati “wipes off”, which ostensibly produced “IE” verbs “to milk” and then on to produce a noun “milk”. That is neither lucid nor philologically, nor evolutionary sustainable, since the breast milking came long before domestication of cows and sheep. Applying the concept of Skt. “wiping, stroking” in reference to the hand motion in milking an animal to the human breastfeeding is absurd waiting to be rescinded. In the Asian “IE” languages, milk is versions of duh, dudh (see udder), and again, any reflexes of the form milk are accidental loanwords. The “Aryans” of the Eastern Europe, although genetically associated with the Eastern European farmers of the 2000 BC, attained a different ethnicity upon reaching the Iranian highlands and Indian subcontinent, because the Persian milk is shir “milk”, and “to milk” is dushidan, quite different from the Illyrian, Scandinavian, Baltic, and Germanic versions. The “Aryans” did not bring the European milk lexicon or culture to India either, since lactose intolerance is innate for India and the “IE” Persia, and the Skt. milk lexicon is a cognate of the Persian, not of the European word. The memeleki milk must be one of the most ancient Türkic lexemes introduced into European languages ca 4800 BC via circum-Mediterranean Kurgan route of the people with R1b Y-DNA marker, and ca 3,000-2,500 BC Turkification of the Europe and South-Eastern Europe via overland routes by the same Kurgan R1b people. A mechanism of introducing the word is blurry. Its presence in the Celtic group attests to its presence in the Eastern Europe at 6th-5th mill. BC, way before the first Kurgan waves ventured to Europe 2-3 mill. later. Its absence in the Baltic group and its presence in the Slavic group attests to its late northwestward movement, after the breakup of the Baltic group into Baltic and Slavic languages, tentatively dated by the 1st mill. BC. The same is corroborated by its absence in the Fennic languages and in the Asian “Aryan” languages: it smoldered from 6th to 1st mill. BC, and bloomed northwestward in the 1st mill. BC. The absence of a common “IE” word positively points to the Türkic origin of milk in the Gmc., Celtic, and Sl. languages. See udder.

English mind (n.) “faculty of reason” ~ Türkic ming (n.) “brain” with a constellation of dialectal forms for brain: meji/meŋä/meŋi and men/min/ben/bin/beñi: (m/b alternation). EDT and OTD combined list 17 allophones, G.Clauson notes: “This word occurs in a puzzling variety of forms” (Clauson EDT 348). The Türkic forms come with interspersed m/b alteration, the b- forms center around Black Sea - Caspian zone, the m- forms span across Eurasia. It is apparent that generally, the faculty notion “mind” is a derivative of the word “brain” with m/b alternation, Cf. Sl. mysl (мысль) “thought” and mozg (мозг) “brain”. Cognates: A.-Sax. mynd “memory, remembrance”, ONorse minni “mind”, Goth. muns “thought”, munan “think”, maud “remember”, ufarmaudei “oblivion”, Gmn. minne, originally “memory, loving memory”; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) smadzenes, (Lith.) smegenys “brain”, (Sl.) mozg (мозг) “brain”; Lat. mens “mind”; Skt. matih “thought, mind”. The abundance of phonetic variations points to a lengthy history of the word, the reduced g in ng may be an archaic reflex of the suffix -k/-q/-g signifying derivative nouns and adjectives. A presence of the Skt. word indicates either a time earlier than 2000 BC, or a later borrowing, the latter is likelier, since the notion of brain is not necessarily connected with thought, take for example chickens and fish that have one but not the other. The dictionaries do not necessarily include all the extant, deviant, or archaic forms. The ancient forms with prefix ge-/ga must be Gmn. innovations; the auslaut -d likely reflects the original Türkic dialectal form of the elative locative suffix ta/tä/da/dä/δa/δä, lit. “of brain”. In English, the mind, brain, mental, and sane and sanity form a cluster that ascends to the identical Türkic cluster of ming/ben “brain” and san- “think”. The cluster constitutes a case of a transfer paradigm, a positive attestation of the genetic connection. See brain, mental, mentality, sane, sanitary, sanity, think.

English muscle (n.) “organism's contractile organ” ~ Türkic muš, müš (mush, müsh) (n.) “mouse”. Cognates: A.-Sax. mus, muse, mys “mouse, muscle”, muscelle, muscule “mussel”; MFr. (14th c.) muscle “muscle, sinew”, Lat. musculus “muscle”, all lit. “little mouse”, diminutive of mus “mouse”. The semantic bifurcation “mouse, muscle” is a paradigm attested among the Türkic languages: sıčğanak “muscle” is a diminutive form of sıčga:n, lit. “little mouse”; this paradigm was transferred to Lat. (musculus), Gk, and A.-Sax. The modern science made the Gk. allophone of the Türkic muš an international word, e.g. myalgia, myotrophy, myocardium, myotome, myasthenia, and many more. Aside from the same old Türkic metaphor “little mouse” neither the Türkic, nor the European “IE” languages have a standard word for “muscle” (Clauson EDT 796). See mouse, cat.

English nose (n.) “facial central prominence” ~ Türkic ñü:z (yü:z) (n.) “face”, generically “surface”, with as many semantic extensions as are endowed to the English nose and face. Cognates: ONorse nös, OFris. nose, Du. neus, OHG nasa, Gmn. Nase; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) nosis, (OCS) nasu; Lat. nasus; OPers. naham (with s/h alternation); Chuv. ner “face”. How the Türkic ñü:z “face” became a European “nose” will likely be never known, but the fact that nose is a most prominent part of the face, and the phonetic equivalency are undeniable. The form ñü:z is a form of the “regular” yü:z, Clauson asserts that “words which began with y- in 8th century had earlier begun with d- or n-”, and specifically cites the form ñü:z as the older form of yü:z; he also asserts that “There is, however, seldom any difficulty in determining the original forms of such words (Clauson EDT 869).” Absent a contemporary record of the older form ñü:z, the phonemic study is the best initial terminus that leads to the common European word matching the archaic form and more than relevant semantics. The transfer of the Oguz form vs. the Ogur form ner is a diagnostic peculiarity, since the oldest Kurgan vernaculars of the Celtic and overland waves, and the later Hunnic-circle vernaculars, tend to attest their Oguric affiliation. The word “nose”came to Eng. as a paradigm, together with two forms for “face”, yü:z with prosthetic anlaut f-, and old A.-Sax. wlita/wlite, Goth. wlits for “face”, which are cognates of the Tr. bet “face”, and via Goth./A.-Sax. intermediary produced the Sl. litso (лицо) “face” with an elided w-. Although during the Middle Age the A.-Sax. wlita/wlits lost a popularity contest to its synonym face, it rightfully belongs to the substrate layer status and to the “nose” paradigm. The OPers. form is consistent with s/h transition typical for the languages of the Aral area. If the European forms were acquired via or from the Aral area, they would have carried -h-, its absence attests that the OPers. form originated fr. the northeastern Europe sometime prior to the Indo-Aryan migration in the 2nd mill. BC. The origin of the paradigmatic “nose” and “face” is clearly non-IE, since “IE” languages have a large collection of different nominals for the “face”, obviously taken from a variety of non-IE sources, and there, the deficient “IE etymology” rightfully flops on it face, undermining the Family Tree model. The exact phonetics, close semantics, and the transfer of the tri-partite paradigm validate the Türkic origin beyond any doubts. See face, wlita.

(Skip) English phlegm “lung discharges” ~ Türkic balgam (balɣam) “lung discharges”. The Gk., Arab. phlegma is etymologized as related to Gk. phlox “flame, blaze”, but there is a long way from the Classical Greece to the S.Siberian steppes for a Gk. loanword to penetrate into Oguz languages. A Gk. borrowing from the Western Scythians, who brought the word from the north-eastern fringes of the Middle Asia, would appear to be a better scenario, but an absence of a suitable base stem, of which balgam would have been a derivative, makes the direction of borrowing a mute matter. The Gk. dissemination at a time of the Gk. domination of the South-Central Asia is a viable path.

English quim “cunt, vulva, vagina” ~ Türkic kin “vulva, vagina”; am, em ditto. The Türkic two forms, kin and am, em, and the eb with an -m-/-b- alternation, are likely second forms of a single primary root ken-/gen- for the notions of childbearing and generations. Or the vice versa, there is no way to tell which form of the three allophones appeared first. The forms are so close that they can hail and ossify from two ends of the same Sprachbund. The anlaut q- (k-) could be an articulation of the root kin-/ken-, or an Ogur prosthetic consonant with am, em. This is one of those eternal words that are transmitted before puberty, and never go away. In pastoral societies engaged daily in reproduction of animals, butchering, and anatomical evisceration, there was nothing obscene in the nature of sexual procreation, reproductive organs, or its terminology: sik- (v.) “sex, copulate”, sikiš (n.) “sex, copulation”, dick/dık- “penis”/“erect, stand straight”, kin “vulva, vagina”, and probably other trade terms now scattered among Eurasian languages (Cf. Sl. khui (хуй) “penis” from Türkic kü:g/küy “horny (sex), sexy”). Cognates: Anglo-Sax. cynd(lim) (with -k-, -n-) “womb, genitalia (pl.)”, cwene (with -k-, -n-) “woman, wife”, MEng. cunt (1230), cunte, cwen, queen “woman, wife”, OFris., MDu. cunte, ONorse kunta, Norse kvinnе “woman”, MLG kunte, OHG. quena, “woman, wife”, Goth. qina-kunds, qineins “female”, qino, qens (qeins) “woman, wife”, ga-qiujan “give life to”, Icl. kven(sköp); Lat. cunnus, Gk. κόλπος (< am/em/eb with prosthetic k-, -l-), Alb. qepurat (< am/em/eb); Est. häbe (< am/em/eb), Fin. häpy, emätin (< am/em/eb); Kaz. qın(apşıq), Uz. qin. All cognates relate to female genitalia, female sex, and feminine production of offsprings. The auslaut alternation -n/-m is historically documented, Cf. attested continuity of cunt and quim “vagina”. The more westerly form eb is due to the m-/b- dialectal alteration. It is a cognate of innumerous derivatives, one of which is the Biblical Eve and Sl. ebat/ibat (v., n., derivatives) “to copulate”. European examples are notable for the same bifurcation “vagina”/“female” as that notable in Türkic: küŋ “slave maiden” (Cf. Goth. qina-kunds lit. “familiar vagina”), küni: “concubine”, etc. A huge trail of semantic extensions with minor phonetic variations grew from the primary root ken-/gen- and its immediate derivatives, some with reflexes in the Gmc. group, e.g. ke:nč “baby (fauna and human), child, new” (Cf. Gmc. kinder), ka:n- “satisfied, satiated” (Cf. cum “experience sexual orgasm”), kın- “desire, love, arouse” (Cf. keen “strong, impatient wish”), etc. A separate group of the apparent derivatives is the terms of kinship: kün “kin, kindred, relative, blood relative” (Cf. kin “kin”), kün (Cf. Hun “Hun”), kingü (kng, vowels not marked) “king” (Cf. king “king”), kaŋ “father” (Cf. ka:n/xa:n “khan, ruler”, kaɣan/kağan “Kagan, ruler (kaan with silent -ğ-)”; the khan and kagan are extensions of the kaŋ “father”, qunčuy/xunčuy/koŋčy “princess, female of royal blood, female noble” (Cf. Ch. 公主 koŋčy, pyn. gongzhu, ditto). Etymologically, the word is supposedly rated “of unknown origin” for both allophones, quim and cunt, in a perfunctory non-scientific assertion parochially limited to the “IE” paradigm given the weight of cognates across Eurasia. See cum, dick, Eve, ewe, gain, gene, keen, kin, king, sex, wife, woman.

(Skip) English saliva “liquid in mouth” ~ Türkic liš (lish) “saliva, spit, mucus, phlegm”. The Türkic word comes in numerous forms, attesting to the time depth and dialectal spread: lešp/lisip/lisp/liš/salya (leshp/lisip/lisp/lish/salya), and more. Cognates: MFr. salive, Lat. saliva, Ir. seile, Balt. (Latv.) seiles, Est. sülge “spittle”, Sl. sluna “spittle”, sliz “mucus, phlegm”, etymology “of unknown origin”. The Gmn. word is spit (spittle), and apparently saliva and spit survived in English due to parallel usage. The recurrent element sl in numerous European languages points to a common s- form of the word that entered the Europe from the west, the Celtic Kurgan circum-Mediterranean migration, and from the east with the Kurgan overland waves that started in the 4th mill. BC.
70

English seizure (n.) “bout, sudden attack of illness” ~ Türkic sïzğur- (v.) “get sick”, a derivative of sız (n.), sızla- (v.) “acute pain, languish, pine, ache, slenderize, stunting”. Sïzğur- is either a verbal denoun derivative fr. sız (n.) “pain, ache” or a deverbal derivative fr. polysemantic verb sız- (v.) “atrophy, shrivel, wither”. Both English and Türkic terms refer to medical condition. The velar plosive -ğ- is silent or elided in many languages, resulting in a vocalized form sïzur /si-zhur/ perfectly homophonic with Eng. seizure /see-zhu(r). The noun sız and the verb sızla- are deverbal polysemantic derivatives fr. the verb sı:- “break, destroy” with both literal and metaphorical semantics. Sı:- has produced a notion of “weakness, flaw”, conveyed by the derivative verbs sı:z- “melt, melt down, ooze”, and sızla- “languish, slenderize, stunting” loaded with the causative notion of “acute pain, pine”. The verb sız- “to melt, ooze” is a cousin of thaw, with the semantic extension of metaphorical “melt, shrivel, wither” in respect to health and body; the sïzɣur- (sïzğur-) is formed with the “rare” in the eastern vernaculars inchoative suffix -ɣur (-ğur-) that makes causative “bring about exhaustion, shrinkage, weakness, enfeeblement”. The notion “seizure” is derived from the notion “acute pain, bout”. The derivative verbs sızla:- and sïzğur- conflated all above notions, the suddenness, the sharpness, the attack, the debilitation, and the pain. In turn, the notion “seizure (medical)” has produced the notion “seize” meaning “grab, grasp”, which offered further semantic branching like the verb seize “capture, take by force” that echoes the underlying notion of “break, destroy” with semantics of “vanquish and capture”, presumed “fr. a Gmc. source”, with its own etymological history, etymologically rated “of uncertain origin”. It is semantically incongruent with the notions of “death, disease”, etc., see seize. The form sız- has an allophone sıs- (NE Türkic form, Altaic, Teleut) found in the Fr. cognate. That specifically links the European forms with the particular areal Türkic forms (i.e. sıs- for sı:z-, sı:sla:- for sı:zla:-). The “IE etymology” proposed an arbitrary derivation of the parental nominal form seizure (n.) from the daughter verbal form seize (v.), with further ascend to an unrelated cluster of the allophones for seek (with the second consonant -k-). Cognates: Brit. seise, OFr. (13th c.) seisir “take by force”, LLat. sacire (/sasire/) ditto, “of uncertain origin”. The late timing of the Lat. word and a paucity of cognates attest to the non-IE origin. The Brit. form accentuates the second consonant -s- (versus -k-). The derivative noun seizure “capture, take by force” is homophonous with the parental noun seizure “sudden convulsion, illness, pain attack”. Both seize and seizure “capture” probably came to OFr. and LLat. from the Early Middle Age Burgund (Provence, Savoy) nomads. The “IE etymology” commits double whammy, on phonetical similarity it confuses seize, seizure “capture”, a legal term in reference to property holdings or offices, with seek (Goth. sokjan “seek”, A.-Sax. secan “seek”), an obviously doomed proposition that links the incongruent “capture” and “seek”, and fails to link the seize, seizure “capture” with medical seizure “sudden convulsion, illness, pain attack”. Undoubtedly, phonetic similarity and semantic parallelism (Cf. “seized with emotions”) caused routine semantic conflation where the emphasized abruptness of the notion of “sickness” became complimentary to the alternate notion of “seize”. Notably, Sl. has a calque of the verb seize “capture” based on the Sl. root hvat- “grab” in both medical and property senses (Sl. shvatka (схватка) “seizure (med.)”, also “contest (struggle)”, zahvat (захват) “capture”, identical with English case, but unlike the Türkic languages, which did not produce synonyms for “capture” from the root sız. That particularity attests to that the notion “capture” from the root sız evolved in the NW European Sprachbunds as an amalgamation of the Türkic lexus with the areal semantics. The drastic semantic difference between “capture” and “pain, sickness” points to two independent paths, one by a southern route to OFr. and LLat. as a loanword and then to Eng. as as legal term, the other term joined English demographicly as a household lexicon. The morphological mechanisms forming these two distinct notions had to be also distinct. Over the ages, the derivative homophones conflated, confusing etymological experts. But the words' status of non-IE origin “of uncertain provenance” and the perfect phonetic and semantic match leave no doubts of the Türkic origin and ultimately from the same stem for both homophones seizure “pain, sickness” and “capture”. See seize.

English sinew (n.) “sinew, tendon” ~ Türkic siŋir (n.) “sinew, tendon, nerve, blood vessel”, fr. siŋ- “infuse” + -ir verbal suffix. Cognates: A.-Sax. sionu, seono “sinew”; OSw. sinewa, ONorse sina, OFris. sine, MDu. senuwe, OHG senawa, Gmn. Sehne “sinew”; Welsh gewyn “sinew”; Skt. snavah, Av. snavar “sinew”; Balt. (Lith.) sausgysles, sausgysliu; Arm. neard, Gk. neuron “sinew, tendon”; modern Turkish sinir. Via Gk., the Türkic siŋir entered European languages for the “nerve”. The credit of using the Gk. alternative neuron for nerve may belong to Galen. The westward and eastward spread of the word siŋir can serve as a marker of migrations: northwestern into Gmn., southwestern into Balkans and Romance, and southeastward to Skt. and Av. migration across Eurasian steppes between 4000 and 3600 ybp. The Balt. (Lith.) and the Welsh forms may point to the path around Mediterranean via Iberia to the Baltic zone starting at 4800 ybp. The “IE etymology” is notable for its choppiness, shallowness and creative inventions, and the abundance of forms in the European languages points to multiple independent sources introducing the word “sinew” into the daily life.

English skin (n.) “animal hide, epidermis” ~ Türkic saɣrï (n.) “animal hide”, particularly the pelt from the back or hindquarters. The word comes in allophones “with large phonetic changes”, attesting to pastoralism of a hoary antiquity; the Gmc. phonetic spectrum is wider still. The Türkic stem saɣ has connotations of an animal, and particularly of the sheep, this stem produces words for milking, hunt, sheep, and the like. The word saɣrï, however, is more specific, it generally refers to the horses, pointing to the steppe hunting and wild horse herding eventually developing into horse husbandry. That narrows the timeframe to between 7th mill. BC (the first Eastern European kurgans) and 4th mill. BC (Botai domestication). Cognates: A.-Sax. scinn, ONorse skinn, OHG scinten; Gmn. schind, schinden, Flem. schinde, Breton scant, Dan., Norse skjule; Welsh cuddio; Sl. shkura (шкура), Pol. skorа; Gk. skutos (σκῦτος), all referring to animal hide, fur, skin or outer cover (bark, fish scale). Eng. also has a later loan-word allophone of skin/saɣrï, the shagreen leather, which unbeknown to its users is a tautologic composite. Sl. cognates retained the Türkic r, the northern European switched r to n, among other variations. The distribution of the word, from Mongolia to Atlantic, and its absence in the Asian “IE” areas, makes etymological association with the Kurgan people and Scytho-Sarmatians unavoidable. The “IE etymology” somehow connects skin with cut, which is semantically and phonetically unsustainable and, considering uniformity of allophones and their particular distribution, unnecessary. The quartet of kindred terms, derma, leather, skin, and suave, complemented by the late acquisition of shagreen, powerfully demonstrates an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer from a common source, attesting to the direct demographic connection. See derma, leather, suave.

(Skip) English skull (n.) ~ Türkic kelle “head”, a cognate of the ancient word form which produced English skull < general Scandinavian skulle/skult “head”; Slavic glava and golova: Türk. kelle > Balt. (Latv.) galva > Sl. glava, golova, hlava, glowa, hlowa; Aramaic gulgulta, lit. “(place of the) skull”, cognate with Heb. gulgoleth “skull”, the famous name for Golgotha where Jesus was executed; Armenian gluχ “head”. The predominance of anlaut g and presence of Slavic anlaut forms hl point to original glottal stop phoneme /q/, transmitted with local phonetical tools, with the Oguz Turkish kelle being only one of the dialectal forms. The spread of the word from northwestern Europe to Levant and Mesopotamia doubtlessly singles out the horsed Kurgan riders as the source of the borrowings, and allows to assign terminal dates of the borrowing by following the traces of the migrants' genetic mutations and literary traces. Another notably shared feature is the use of the same root in numerous languages for the generic “kill”, exemplified in English, where the word “behead” stripped the word “kill” from its origin, while in other languages the semantic “behead” from the kelle has survived, like the Russ. obezglavit (обезглавить) “behead”.

English swell (n.) “abnormal protuberance or localized enlargement” ~ Türkic siwel (n.) “swelling (on skin, body)”, like wart, nipple, and piles. G. Clauson observes “chaotic vocalization” and lists a complement of allophones, with the form siwel noted in 15th c. Chagatai records, not too far from the Aral basin and Horezm, which are consistent with the address of many other English substrate words of Türkic origin and specific location of the denoted Türkic forms. A CT form is sigil/sügül/sükül, the -w- in siwel connotes a silent -ğ-, making articulation peculiar enough to narrow pronunciation to very few candidates, and allowing to further pinpoint the candidates within the Chagatai domains. Cognates: A.-Sax. swellan “grow or make bigger”, OSax. swellan, ONorse svella, OFris. swella, MDu. swellen, Du. zwellen, OHG swellan, Gmn. schwellen; the uniformly and exclusively Gmc. lexicon is not even attempted to be etymologized as an “IE” word, a mechanically produced “PG proto-word” is offered as an explanation, with a routine “of unknown origin”. The very specific phonetic form, on the background of large spectrum of “chaotic vocalizations” points to relatively focused origin in time and space, to the nomadic people called Wendeln “Wonderers” Vandals, that is the Goths, Burgunds, Turings, and other folks known under a general term Sarmats, who in the 2nd c. BC rolled into the Western Europe, which at the time became known as European Sarmatia. Notably, before the arrival of the Sarmats, that part of Europe did not have any particular name, it was largely a terra incognita. Although only a nominal form has been recorded, it is likely that the word migrated with both verbal and nominal functions, and some form of the modern Eng. verbal derivatives, like “puffed up”, have already been around.
71

English testicles (n.) “scrotum purse (external pouch that contains testes), male penis with scrotum” ~ Türkic tašaq (tashaq) (n.) “scrotum, male penis with scrotum”, ultimately fr. the Türkic tašaq lit. “little stone”, fr. taš “stone”; that Tr. metaphor became an international word spread around the globe by the modern medicine. No sane “IE” cognates, the Lat. testis “testicle” ascends to the same Türkic word tašaq. Dictionaries do not offer dialectal variations, but it is doubtless that among 42+ extant Türkic languages, variations ascending to the pre-historical periods do exist, Cf. the eidetic Sw. testiklar, complete with the Türkic pl. ending -lar, and the modern Turkish tašaklar. The ancient Greeks with their presence in Central Asia and their parastates for “testicles” could not be the originators of the Far Eastern Türkic words, any borrowing would have preserved the prefix para as a stem, and modified the part states as an appropriate Türkic string of suffixes. The only plausible far-reaching candidates for transmission and dissemination remain the fluid Türkic mounted nomads.

English tit, teat (n.) “nipple, breast” ~ Türkic töš/tö:š (n.) “breast”, tiši:/dıšı: (n.) “female”. All Türkic terms for “female”, “wife” were extensions of the notion “clan, reproduction” or, in parallel, allusion to female physical particulars. The first line is evči: “housewife” (ev “house” ), displaced by urğačı/ura:ğu:t “housekeeper” (ur- “establish, organize”) that alludes to clan, reproduction, and nascence, displaced by ka:tu:n “Queen, lady”. The second line, not always entered into dictionaries in their lit. sense, is eb/em/am “vulva, pudenda” (Cf. emig “nipple, teat”) and töš/tö:š/döš/dö:š “breast”, which produced a series of Eurasian allophones including the Eng. tit, teat. The form eb rings in the name of the pra-mother Eve “progenitor, engender” and the Türkic aba “mother”. The word mama “mother” is a derivative of word mamu: “nipple, female breast”. The connection between the Türkic forms for “breast” and “female” and the English tit/teat is obvious. It parallels the other appellations which eventually became wife, ultimately a derivative of ebi- or ebe- of the stem eb/em “female genitalia”, emig “nipple, teat”. Transition from an adjectival form to noun is documented in the idiom tiši kiši (tishi kishi) “a female”, lit. “teats' person”, and in such semantics it is also applied to mammals, like “tits camel”, “tits goat”. Another example is tö:š ba:ğı:, lit. “breast binder”, a specifically female application. Cognates: A.-Sax. titt, Du. tiet, Sw. tutt, Gmn. Titt, Welsh titw; OFr. tete; Hu. cicik, Fin. tissit, Est. tisse; Sl. (Rus.) siska (сиська), tsitska (цицка); Hebr. tyz, etc. In contrast, Lat. had a distinct form mammis “breast”, an allophone of the Türkic mamu:. Notably, Balt. and Sl. forms have different roots, and so do the “IE” languages at large in and outside of the Europe; the Sl. form agrees with Gmc., Fennic, and Türkic forms. The Eng. and Gmc. form tit came via different path from the form teat, a potentially valuable diagnostic trait for the English philology. The words tit and teat belong to a glut of the words related to femininity and female physical attributes that abundantly attests to the common origin of the Türkic and English vocabulary. See Eve, mama, wife.

English toe (n.) “front part of hoof” ~ Türkic toy(nak), tuy(aɣ) (n.) “hoof”, -nak, aɣ is a diminutive suffix. Türkic has an abundance of allophones modeled after toy + allophones of diminutive suffix -nak. Contrary to Clauson, the base root appears to be to- “stop, end”, not ton-: the -n- systemically belongs to the diminutive suffix. Cognates: A.-Sax. ta (plural tan), Mercian tahæ, ONorse ta, OFris. tane, MDu te, OHG zecha, all “toe”. The A.-Sax., OFris., and Du have retained on record the Türkic archaic pl. suffix -an “hoofs, toes”. The semantic derivative “digits of the foot” probably developed in the Türkic milieu, it is limited to the Gmc. languages, the other European languages use various terms for “finger” and not “hoof”. Gmc. languages have retained relicts of the original semantics connected with the front part of the hoof, e.g. toe crack (of the hoof), toenail, tiptoe. The distribution, limited to the Gmc. languages, clearly attests to the non-IE origin. The “IE etymology” is zanily laughable: PG *taihwo “toe”, PIE *deik- “to show”. The triplex of toe, hoof, frog, all connected with hoofs, constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer, indelibly attesting to the common genetic connection. See hoof, frog, stop.

English tooth, teeth (n., adj.) ~ Türkic tiš (tı:š, dı:š) (n., adj.) “tooth”, the oldest Gmc. form is Goth. tunthus (tunþus). This must be among the oldest known words of vocabulary shared with Türkic. Cognates: A.-Sax. toð, OSax., Dan., Sw., Du. tand, OFris. toth, ONorse tönn, OHG zand, Gmn. Zahn, Goth. tunþus; OIr. det, Welsh dent, Lat. dens; Gk. odontos; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) dantis, Sl. zub (зуб); Skt. danta; Sum. zu. All cognates are fairly transparent, with initial t-/d-/z- alternation consistent with typical Gmc.-Gmn. phonetic transformations that in this case also cover Sl., and a prosthetic -n- as a second consonant. With the direct correspondence of the attested teeth/toð/toth/det - tiš, there is no need neither for conjectural PIE *dent-, nor for PIE origin, nor for conjectural i-mutation (tooth - teeth) as both the A.-Sax. toð and the Türkic tiš were already around and ready for adoption. Alternately, the first consonant -z- and the second consonant -n- may be an Afro-Asiatic inheritance, Cf. Arab. sinn “tooth” and Sum. zu; in that case Gmc. forms have dual predecessors. The absence of cognates in the other “IE” languages attests the origin of the term as a loanword from a non-IE language. Rather, the object of the inquiry should be, what was the European “Old European” word for “tooth”, which of the European languages carried it to the present, and what Y-DNA haplogroup is connected with that language. Answers to those three questions would be a step toward elucidation of the fate of the “Old Europe” languages and the origin of the “IE” variety.

English wlita (obs. n.) “face, countenance” ~ Türkic bet, bit (n.) “face”, generically “surface”, The form bet, bit does not have an obvious etymology, which leaves room for possible origin from the local languages, in that case the Corded Ware culture (3200-2300 BC), which bordered on and interspersed with the Pit Grave culture, could be a viable source. Then the direction of the initial borrowing and the sequence of phonetic adaptations would be reversed. Cognates: A.-Sax. wlita/wlite, Goth wlits “face”; Sl. litso (лицо) “face, cheek” with elided w-. Tracing the Sl. form leads to the OIr. lессо, Ir. lеаса, OPruss. lауgnаn, all “cheek”. That points to the period when Celtic and Sl. people occupied the same area in the Central Europe, the period extending to the historical times, and validates the relative preeminence of the Gmc. form. The word “face” came to Eng. as a paradigm, two forms for “face”, the bet transcribed wlit- and the version of yü:z with prosthetic anlaut v-/w-/f- that formed something like vü:z/wü:z/fü:z for “face”, and a ñü:z for “nose”. The A.-Sax. wlita/wlite lost a popularity contest to its synonym face sometime during the Middle Ages, but it rightfully belongs to the faded layer of the substrate category. The origin of the two forms for “face” is clearly non-IE, since “IE” languages have a large collection of different nominals, obviously taken from a variety of non-IE sources, and the deficient “IE etymology” rightfully flops on its face to legitimize them. Whatever the original source for the bet, bit, the close phonetics, exact semantics, and the transfer of the tri-partite paradigm validate the Türkic origin beyond any doubts. See face, nose.

4.2 Dress

English baize (n.) “woolen fabric resembling felt” ~ Türkic bez (n.) “baize (coarse woolen cloth)”, generic for “cloth, fabric”. At first a semi-baize (with cotton) and then the hemp and cotton versions were the most widespread inexpensive type of fabric before and after the industrial revolution. During Middle Ages bez was a Central Asian trademark product. The logical origin of bez is the verb bezä-/beze:- “adorn, ornament”, a verb that also formed the Eng. bezel “edge, frame”, lit. “adorned”, see bezel. A questionable alternative, for cotton version in the context of a Rus. etymology, is suggested to originate fr. the Turkish beyaz “white, bleached”. Cognates: ME bayse, Fr. baies; Sl. byaz (бязь); Gk. bussos (βυσσος); Arab. bazz/bezz, Heb. buss; Mong. bös, bes; Tungus/Manchu bashu/boso/bosu/busu “cloth, fabric”; Ch. 布 pu/bu; Chuv. pir. The Chuv. form with r/s alteration attests to the archaic origin, a borrowing would have retained the CT -s. The Türkic word is recorded at least 500 years before its appearance in the French records. Any “IE” etymological speculations to extract this word from “IE lexicon” are pure fantasies, for 8,000 years the Türkic pastoralists relied on products of animal husbandry, and developed numerous terms connected with felt and its production; there is no need to derive Eng./Fr./Sl./Gk./Arab. term from semantically unrelated phonetic resemblances like a reddish-brown bay color of the Fr. baies that ignore the Arab. and Sl. allophones. The majority of the Türkic forms is böz, the peculiar form bez/biz, closest to the European forms, is recorded specifically for the Türkic Southwestern languages (Turkmen, Ottoman, etc.), consistent with other English Turkisms, and that origin is corroborated by the Arab form bezz (In the New Era, the Arab expansion first encountered Türkic populations during the 100-year war with the Caucasus Huns that started in 642 AD). Etymological interpretation of baize as linen reflects the natural use of available materials by different economies to produce a desired effect in different markets. The Gk. “linen” is linon (λίνον), hence the spread of the European allophones for “linen”, unrelated to the woolen baize neither phonetically nor materially, there is no need to appeal to the Gk. allophone. A manufacture of the baize-type fabric from flax could theoretically have been done by the Scythians, since Herodotus attested that the Scythians had enough hemp to make their weekly baths for each Scythian, a fact probably irrelevant for etymology. Since no names for fabrics were recorded for A.-Sax. or its sister languages, the form bayse probably reflects the nomadic legacy of the Türkic bez.

English belt (n.) “waistband” ~ Türkic bel (n.) “belt, girdle, waist”. The form belt is a deverbal noun from the verb belä-/bele:-/be:le:- “to lace, wrap”, grammatically “belting, lacing”, formed with the suffix -t, like the words part, port, unit, etc.; the notions of “waist”, cradle lacing, “small of the back”, “col (narrowing of a mountain pass)”, “satisfy (somebody's belt with food)”, and “kidney” are semantic extensions. The bel happened to be just one of 12 synonyms for “belt”, that points to a long period of development and acquisition. The oldest belts are depicted on the “Scythian” memorial stone balbals, spread from Pacific to Atlantic; the latest balbals belong to the Kipchaks of the Middle Ages. Belt was a key component of the nomadic kaftan coat, it was a service belt for carrying essentials starting with Neolithic stone axe and grindstone. The traditional and the only Türkic attire, for men and women, was a left-lapelled caftan with a belt, described by all kinds of literati from early writings to the 19th c. and in places beyond that, and graphically immortalized on the carvings of the mengir funeral steles. The form of another Türkic expression for belt, belbaɣ, points to the mechanism of forming derivatives (Tale of Oguz-khan, 13th c.). The same morphological mechanism is used in forming the Sp. bolsa, “something hanging at the waist”. The absence of a final -t- may point to Ogur languages, Herodotus on Sarmats noted distortion, and M.Kashgari on Bulgars noted that they truncate suffixes. Cognates: OHG balz, ONorse balti, Sw. bälte; Lat. balteus “girdle, sword belt”, said by Varro to be an Etruscan word; Sl. (Rus.) pelenat (пеленать) “wrap, swaddle”; Hu. (be)polyaz ditto. The Etruscan-Türkic correspondences is a separate subject, it was analyzed in detail by the former ambassador to Italy Adile Ayda, Etrüskler (Tursakalar) Türk idiler, Ankara, 1992, In Turkish, Les Etrusques étaient des Turcs preuves, Ankara, 1985, In French, and numerous other scholars. Notably, the eminent sitting etymologists assert an implication that the secretive Latins passed the word only to the Gmc. brunch, bypassing their own Romance family, a grand circus trick on the grand European scene. To keep the secret, from generation to generation, in front of their toddlers they as one must have used a codeword for belt, like a cinturon, and disclosed the true word only at maturity for the secret to be passed to their grandkids. The Latins did not limit their secrecy to the word belt, a number of other words of the Table 2 are also shared only by Latins and Germanics, presenting some heavily trotted mystical trail of conspiratorial evidence. See bull (edict).
72

English boot (n.) “tall footwear” ~ Türkic bot, but (n.) “leg, foot, thigh”. Like the English foot, the Türkic bot/but is a very productive stem, it can form anything connected with or resembling legs: butïq/butaq “branch (tree)” (see boutique), “sprout”, “shoot”; but “leg of trousers” (Cf. leggings), butla “kick a leg”, butluɣ “with legs (chair)”, etc. The “IE etymology” is non-existent, the word supposedly is of “unknown origin”, “perhaps from a Gmc. source”. Cognates: ODorsetshire (scilty-)boots “(shield-)boots”; OFr. bote /bot/ “boot”, with corresponding words in Provencal (France) and Spanish, originally for riding boots only. The part scilty-/skilty “shield” is synonymous with the Türkic verb sap- “sheathe, envelop”, thus scilty-boots is synonymous with leggings-boots. This word has a glorious Eurasiatic circulation: Besenyo and Kipchak sapag/sapug “(boot with) upper”, Est. sааbаs, Fin. sаараs, Fr. sаbоt “foresten boot”, Karel shоарроа/sаарраgа, Latv. zabags/zàbaks, Balt. (Lith.) sopagas/zopagas, Manchurian sabu, Mong. sаb, Sl. sapog and chobot, Sp. zapata. The Türkic origin of the words sapog, zapata, boots was a point of perennial contention and ridicule between Turkologists and advocates of the European primacy or exclusivity, for different reasons equally uncomfortable to both sides, and mostly caused by the timing of the term predating the Mongol expansion. See boutique, bodega, bud.

English cap (n.) and cup (n.) ~ Türkic kap (qab/qap) (n.) 1. “container, vessel, box”, 2. “cover”; and all the derivatives of the “sack”, “vessel” and “cover”. The verbal form is homophonous with the noun form, kap- (qab-/qap-) “capture, grab, grasp, seize”, it is likely a denoun derivative of the kap (n.), lit. “contain”, Cf. Eng. idioms “bag it”, “box it up”. The “IE” speculation is “likely via Etruscan and Lat. (Lat. cappa “cape, hooded cloak”, ciphus “goblet”)”, which brings etymology to two other speculative unknowns. The “IE etymology” also claims the unattested*kap- as its own PIE root meaning “to grasp”; that is probably based on a myopic interpretation on the pervasion of the root within the IE-centered studies. The reality attests to the opposite, almost all “IE” languages use instead their own native forms for the most ubiquitous verbal form kap-, translated by G. Clauson with a pharmacopeia of literary terms: “capture, take, seize, catch, grasp, snatch, take hold, steal”. Instead, the form is used by far-flung languages from incompatible linguistic families: Fin. kaapata, Gujarati kabaje, Punjabi kaipacara, Jap. kyapucha. The base lexeme is shared across different linguistic families. Languages that can't make the consonant cluster -pt- contract it to -t-/-d-: It. catturare, Kor. gajda, jabda, jabgi. The most salient are the Celtic forms: Ir., Gaelic ghab-, Welsh gaf-; they attest to the presence of the word kap/kap- in the N. Pontic prior to the Celtic circum-Mediterranean outmigration of the 6th-5th mill BC. Notably, in the European languages two Türkic nominal and a verbal semantic meanings are correspondingly replicated in distinct semantic fields, “vessel”, “sack” and “upper cover”, and a verbal “capture”. A.-Sax. cognates: caeppe “cap, cope, hood” (Lat. cappa), caepse “box”, cop, copp “cup”, cypa, cype, kipe “vessel, basket”; the terms like cab “carriage, compartment” also belong to this throng. The fecundity of Türkic kap produces 39 derivatives listed in a small Turkish dictionary, it is mirrored in the European languages, from cap to cup and far beyond. “IE etymology” credits it with forming all or part of the modern Eng. lexis: accept; anticipate, anticipation, behave, behoove, cable, cacciatore (dish), caitiff (cowardly), capable, capacious, capacity, capias (arrest warrant), capiche (captured it?), capstan, caption, captious, captivate, captive, captor, capture, catch, catchpoll (sheriff), cater, conceive, cop (v.) “sieze, catch”, copper (n.) “policeman”, deceive, emancipate, except, forceps, haft, have, hawk (n.), heave, heavy, heft, incapacity, inception, incipient, intercept, intussusception (pocketing), manciple (quartermaster), municipal, occupy, participation, perceive, precept, purchase, receive, recipe, recover, recuperate, sashay (dodge), susceptible. On top of that, the “IE etymology” piles dubious cognates based on superficial phonetic resemblance. The list amply demonstrates how a pretentious “IE” clone of the real Türkic root blossoms into a European tree with branches underpinning a huge layer of the European vernaculars. Related cognates are the Lat. capere “grasp, catch, capacious, comprehend”, capax “capacious”, capistrum “halter”; Gk. kaptein “gulp”; Rus. kobec “falcon”, lit. “grabber”, Cf. hawk, kabak “pumpkin”, kavun “water melon”, kabak “tavern”, kaban “pile, haystack”, and quite a few more, most are recent Rus. acquisitions fr. the ambient Türkic languages; Latv. kampiu “seize”; Skt. kapati “handfuls”. The verb cap- “capture” lives both in the Eng. capture and numerous “IE” allophones. Gmn. Kapf, and Lat. caput for the “head” belong to the same cluster. Ditto the Eng. cabbage and Türkic qabaq “cabbage”, with the Türkic extension bal qabaq “pumpkin” illustrating the process: “pumpkin” = “honey cabbage” < “honey head”, reportedly of Fr.-Burgundian provenance. Moreover, derivatives like hood/bonnet cap, a trademark of the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Türkic dress across millennia called kapšon (kapshon) in Türkic, retained both its Türkic stem and its Türkic suffix in the loanwords: Eng. capuche, capote, Gmn. Kapuze, Spanish capucha, Fr. capuchon, Lat. kapuce, Russ. kapushon (капюшон), Arm. kapot (կապոտ), It. Church capuccino (Order of St. Francis), and so on. A good dosage of derivatives are direct inheritance of the nomadic days: cab “folding hood”, cabriolet, taxicab, cabinet, cabana, cabin, capsule, cabaret (fr. “shelter”, “tent”), caboose, cabasset (helmet), cable (“encapsulated rope, wire”), and their many allophones and derivatives. The unequivocally identical semantics and eidetic phonetics, the authentic multidimensional cases of paradigmatic transfer unambiguously attest to the genetic connection. Adding all English derivatives would instantaneously balloon the count of Turkisms in English beyond any reasonable objective, without a significant impact on the estimated usage frequency. See cab, cabbage, capture.

(Skip) English chintz “cotton fabric” ~ Türkic čit (chit) “cotton fabric”. The English term was borrowed from Hindi chint, a reflex of the Türkic čit/chit (Cf. Türkic sari in Hindi). Chintz became an international word, due to the British learning in the India colony, “Hindu cotton fabric with bright prints and glaze”, used for sari. The original word likely referred to hemp fabric, and switched to mean a special type of cotton fabric after the advent of Türkic into Hindustan peninsula in the mid of the 1st mill. BC, permeating into Prakrit and Skt (Hindi chint, Skt. chitra-s “clear, bright”). Already in the Prakrit and Skt. time, the Hindu ladies wrapped themselves in a Türkic-derived sari made of chint. The word became international with the British industrial production and commercial spread in the 18th c. See sari.

English coat (n.) “outer garment” ~ Türkic ked-/keδ-/kej-/ket- (v.) “to don, put on (clothing)”, with the dialectal form ki- found in the Middle Asia and in the European lexicon. Cognates: OSax. kot, OHG chozza, Gmn. Kotze, Kittel; OFr. cote, Sp., Port. cota, It. cotta; Sl. kitel (китель) fr. Gmn., all forms for outer, coarse, woolen garment. The English “IE etymology” proclaims the routine “of unknown origin”, but the Gmc. etymology connects Kittel and its Sl. version kitel with with the Türkic form kedüt, kedgü, kedgülük, ketgülük “apparel, clothing” (with deverbal noun suffixes). The Scottish/Celtic kilt, and likely the Japanese kimono belong to the same series. Albeit apparently arriving by different paths, the duplex coat and don presents a case of paradigmatic transfer, attesting to the genetic connection. See don.
73

English corset (n.) “close-fitting undergarment” ~ Türkic qorsa-, qursa- (v.) “to gird, to put sash”, from the stem qur “belt, sash”; the form qur, qursaɣ is synonymous with bel “belt”, see belt. The -sa in qursa- is a rare in the eastern languages denoun verbal suffix, apparently a contraction of the easterly common suffix -saɣ. The suffix -t in corset is another rare in the eastern languages deverbal abstract noun suffix, converting the stem qursa- into noun corset “something akin to belt, sash”. The ascribed “IE etymology” from cors “body” to corps makes no sense neither phonetically nor semantically, nor morphologically, nor in the context of the transitions of the Lat. corpus “body”, which is neither “IE” nor related to corset. The Eng. for corset was bodice (bodik), an allophone of the A.-Sax. bodig/bodeg “body, frame” and of the Türkic bod “body”, Cf. Türkic bodluɣ “bodied, endowed with body”; a second meaning of bod is “size”. The A.-Sax. form comes complete with the rare in the eastern languages Türkic denoun noun suffix -ig/-ik (Cf. -aɣ in qursaɣ) for noun derivatives and diminutives. Notably, morphologically corset and corsage are synonyms, they only differ by the suffixes, denoun vs. deverbal (Cf. bodig and corsage, both with -ig/-ik). A borrowing from the OFr. (13c.) corsett “bodice” is probable, but not necessary, these two forms likely coexisted interchangeably, likely with some semantic, dialectal, or ethnic difference. The sibling corsage, besides being functionally nearly identical with the siblings corset and bodice, also carries a notion “size”. The trio is not a neologism, archeological remains extend beyond the 2nd c. BC, suggesting that their names were already around. The paradigmatic transfer of four synonyms complete with their morphological markers, recorded in a confined territory of the W. Europe, and indelibly linked with the Türkic milieu, inescapably attests to the common genetic origin. See belt, body.

English cowl (n.) “hood, bonnet hat” ~ Türkic ko:l (n.) “hill”, kalpac (n.) “hood, bonnet hat”. Türkic has at least 16 words expressing a notion “hill”, the abundance makes it clear that it is a collection from numerous languages, with a rich trove of cognates in the European part of the Eurasia: Eng. hill, Sl./Gmc. holm, Gk. kolonos, Lat. collis, and many more; the Lat. coll- is identical with the Türkic qol “hill”. Other meanings of the stem kol are “arm, upper arm, forearm, hand, arm-pit, wrist, wing (army), hill, hillock, ridge, notching, valley branch, direction, thigh (meat)” plus a mass of metaphoric derivatives, quite a fecund stem. Its sibling cal is no less productive, with substantially complementary semantics like qalnu- “grow up”, qalva “arrow shaft”, etc. Ultimately a derivative from the stem kol (n.) “cone” ending in -pak, a metaphorical extension of “hill, hillock, ridge” in reference to the shape of a cone, lit. “hill (hat)”. Cognates: A.-Sax. cule, cug(e)le, cufel, cüfel, cufle, cuffle, cyfl, cuhle, scyfel, scyfele, Norse cowlen; Sl. kalpak (kalpak), klobuk (klobuk); Lat. cucullus, cuculla, Rum. gluga; Welsh cwfl, gwfl; Hu. csuklya (chushiya), kalpag; Yid. kovl; Jap. カウル kauru, Kor. 고깔 gokkal “cone”; Tatar kalfak, a form resembling the Gmc. forms; all “hood, cowl, bonnet hat”. The suffix -pak or any of its allophones is not used to modify the root in any of the Gmc. forms. The Tr. -pak and Sl. -buk are thought to be allophones of the Türkic diminutive suffix -q/-k/-ïq/-ïk/-uq/-ük.Kalpak is a traditional hat of the Scythians, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Cossacks, etc., including a uniform winter hat of the 19th c. Turkish army, Red Army bashlyks, and Soviet generals; it was adopted or duplicated as a distinct military trait by many armies. At different times, it was also used as a status symbol (European religions), a symbol of wisdom and supernatural powers (Cf. Merlin), and as a derogatory allegory in societal connotations and in religious persecutions. Statutorily, it is an equivalent of the British tall hat. The “IE etymology” is a habitual dead end “of uncertain origin”. The recorded spectrum of the A.-Sax. forms illustrates that in the 5th-11th cc. all dialectal forms co-existed and were mutually understandable. The inlaut consonant -g-/-f-/-c- (-k-)/-h- appear to be a reflection of a native articulation, Cf. Lat. cuculla and Kor. gokkal. Such precise semantics and eidetic phonetics is a bad candidate for a random coincidence. Distribution across Eurasia and linguistic families attests to the high mobility of the carriers of the word along the Eurasian steppe belt. Sl. has preserved a secondary semantics of “cover”, attesting to a paradigmatic transfer and genetic connection between the entire spectrum of the Eurasian variety of the forms.

English (n.) diadem “headdress of sovereignty” ~ Türkic didim (n.) “diadem, wreath of bride”. Ultimately fr. tit (töš/tö:š) “tit, teat”, it alludes to generic female, and has survived as titir “female camel”, tiši kiši (tishi kishi) “a female”, lit. “teats' person”, and use of tiši as a determinant for female animals, Cf. she-goat, see tit, teat. In respect to the marriage rituals, the old records have preserved the words didim “diadem”, initially a name for a bridal wreath, and di:dek/didäk “(bridal) veil” (Kor. deop 덮, Gujarati dado (/dido/) ડદો, Turkish duvak), which reflect a distinct cultural tradition. Cognates: OFr. diademe, Lat. diadema; Gk. diadema (διαδημα); Sogd. didm (δyδm), Mong. udim, Khal. titem “crown”. From Korea and Khalkha to Greece: who else could seed this word across the Eurasia? The Hunnic diadems, like their caldrons, were archeologically traced across Eurasia, from Manchuria to Europe. Etymological conflation of an artifact and its name does not make any sense: although the artifact was known at least from 2nd mill. BC, the Egyptian, Mycenae, etc. diadems likely had their native names not connected etymologically with the Türkic, Greek, Mongolian, Khalka, and English words. The horse road from the Far East to Greece was an order of magnitude shorter than the infantry road from the Greece to the Far East. Prima facie, the Gk. etymology appears credible and viable, a compound of prefix dia- “across” and dein “bind”, but only if the myopic etymology zeroes on the “IE” objective. A wider review demonstrates its historical insolvency even within the “IE” frame, since the “IE” languages use a wide spectrum of individual terms, and the Gk. spread does not reach far and wide enough. The diadem belongs to the mass of the Türkic cultural words connected with royalty that distinguish the Gmc. and E. European vernaculars from the rest of the Europe, see baron, earl, king, queen, throne, tit, teat.

English robe (n.) “loose garment” ~ Türkic erpe:- (v.) “cut, cut off”. Türkic languages tend to pronounce the initial r- with preceding e-, like the Germanic languages' addition of the initial consonant (h- was the most popular, among others). That general observation ignores the tendency of the Oguric Türkic languages to add a preceding consonant to the words with initial vowel. The deverbal formation fr. erpe:- is consistent with akin deverbal formations in Eng., e.g.. bathers, jumper, shorts, wraparound: robe is a sleeveless mantle, cloak, gown. Not attested historically, the Türkic rob “robe, female gown without sleeves” was probably reborrowed fr. the modern European languages after it settled in Europe, fr. Gmc. via OFr. The Gmc. forms are A.-Sax. rift, rifte, rifty, reaf, reafe “cloak, veil, curtain”, homophonous with the forms for “booty”, which allowed some etymologists to conflate the two; OHG rouba “vestments”, Sl. (Rus.) rubashka (рубашка) “shirt”, a diminutive of rub-, and roba (роба) generic for “drape, working clothes”; OFr. (12c.) robe “long, loose outer garment”. It is fairly obvious that the A.-Sax., OHG, and Sl. forms came from a common Central European Sprachbund, and the late OFr. came via a different path, probably from the Burgund/Alan vernaculars; due to the shortness of the root, the word gained associations with resemblances rob “steal”, “booty”, rab “slave”, rabota “work”. The notion of “booty” that included the most valuable commodity of the combat armor, in a reverse etymological process was confused with its generic appellatives of “garment”, “vestment”: a concrete noun for combat armor can't grow into some incompatible generic appellation for a loose flowing gown. In the end, the references to a Germanic source lead nowhere close to the ultimate source. The spotty distribution, limited to the speck of the NW Europe, points to a compact group of migrants little connected to the local vernaculars on their track through the Central Europe. Notably, A.-Sax. had numerous Gmc. synonyms for the robe, attesting to a melting pot conglomeration from diverse sources. Instead of a state-of-the-art suit of armor, the Türkic origin suggests a simple cut of fabric or remains of a vestment with extraneous parts removed, a concept suitable for both sexes. See belt, chintz, cowl, don, sari, sash.

(Skip) English sari (n.) “Hindu female garment of a length of light material draped around body” ~ Türkic passive form sarïl (v.) “coiled, wrapped”, saraɣuč (n.) “female covering”, a derivative of the verbal root sar-, saru- “wrap, enwrap, encircle”. A.-Sax. has a nest spelled sarw-, searw-, serew-, serw-, sierw- with a number of disconnected meanings, some of them appear to be reflexes of the notion “wind, encircle”: “trick, snare, ambuscade, plot, treachery, cunning, device, armor, war-gear, trappings”, while the other come from some other, apparently European but not “IE” homonyms: “art, skill, cleverness, work of art, device, engine (of war)”. A paucity of examples does not allow to assert their origin. Cognates: Prakrit sadi “garment, petticoat”, Skt. sati ditto; Akkadian a-saru/e-seru “to surround, besiege”, the earliest record from 28-24 cc. BC. Due to the British learning in the India colony, sari became an international word. The word in English is recent, ultimately derived from the Türkic verb saru- (v.) “coil, wrap”; already in the Prakrit and Skt. time, the Hindu ladies wrapped themselves in a Türkic-derived sari. See chintz.

English sash (n.) “waistcloth, cincture” ~ Türkic saču: (n.) “fringe, hem” (of a garment, towel and the like). The word saču: is a deverbal noun derivative fr. a fairly universal verb sač- “scatter, sprinkle, drip, drop, throw away, sow” that among others also produced the word shower “sprinkle”. English usage: “waistcloth”, “strip of cloth worn over the shoulder”, “frame (window, door)”. The trade term for a frame attests to the existence of the word in the substrate language, the term could not be derived from the Ar. shash “cloth”, nor fr. the northern European countries that have their own lexicon for sashes using a derivative of the Türkic sak “sack”, Cf. OFr. escarpe “neck sack” and its numerous allophones, the Gmn. Schärpe (Gewichtsschnur), Dan. skærf, Du. sjerp, Sw. skärp (fönsterbagen, fönsterbage), Rus. sharf (шарф), MLat. scirpa; Rus. is using another Türkic derivative of the sak “sack”, kushak “sash”, borrowed directly fr. Türkic during the Late Middle Ages. Origin fr. the OFr. (13c.) chassiz “frame” is phonetically incredible, a semantic jump from “frame” to “waistcloth” is equally implausible. Even less credible is ascending the chassiz to Lat. capsa “box, case”, which is an allophone of the Türkic kap (qab/qap) “container, vessel, box”. That is a long shot from the form sash. Chances of reverse borrowing from English to the Old Türkic languages are also less than none. See cap, cup, sack, shower.

English shield (n.) “armor carried on the arm” ~ Türkic čyt (chyt) (n.) “fence, wall, guard”, with numerous semantic extensions of the notion “guard, hinder”: “hedge, stockade, boundary, edge, seam, enclosure, hut”, etc. The meaning “wattle fence” is most likely a prototype word for the early wattle shields attested at the ancient nomadic armies. Türkic has at least other six names for the “shield”, the word čyt belongs to that collection. Another term from that collection is tura:, a cognate of the Eng. tower, see tower. Cognates: A.-Sax. scield, scild, related to sciell (shell), ONorse skjöldr, OSax. skild, MDu. scilt, Du. schild, Gmn. Schild, Goth. skildus; Sl. shchit (щит) “shield”, zashchita (защита) “defense, guard”. The Slavic form nearly exactly duplicates the original Türkic form, it bridges the Gmc. and Türkic forms, and excludes the reckless “IE” etymologies from the unattested “IE” stems for “cut” or “shell”. The inlaut -l- may be a dialectal euphony, or be a denoun verbal marker of a passive case. In the latter case a metathesis would be needed to explain a transposition -tl to -lt. The abundance of the anlaut sc- (sh-) in the A.-Sax. is akin to the Türkic ts-ing dialect, where the first consonants ch-/j-/y-/dj- were pronounced ts-, like in scène vs. scene (stsène vs. seene). In the literate English, the ts- consonant phoneme is replaced with phonemes s- (seene) or sk- (spelled sc-, scatter), sometimes with sh- (sciara ~ sharuu). In Roman times, the ts- consonant was active and interchangeable with k- (Caesar ~ Tsezar vs. Caesar ~ Kesar). Admitting a ts- dialect for Anglo-Saxons would make many of their words closer to the Türkic forms: shield ~ scield. The couple shield and tower constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer, incontestably attesting to a common genetic origin. See shell. scene, tower.

English sock (n.) “ short stocking” ~ Türkic sok-, suk- (v.) “insert, thrust, fill up, stuff, hide”; the sok- and suk- have overlapping topologies and semantics (the other semantic is unrelated “beat, crush”), and “it is simply a matter of judgment which verb is involved”. The notion of the “sock” ultimately ascends to the stem suk- (sok-) that stands for index finger (n.), thrust (with an index finger) (v.), and in a passive form “thrusted, indented” (n., adj.). Unlike the fuzzy distribution, the meaning of the sok-, suk- “insert, stick in” (and in Eng. also “slip in” to form “slippers”) is very definitive, related to the notion of “socket, receptacle”, see socket. Cognates: A.-Sax. socc, socn “sock, light shoe, dipper”, OHG soc, Gmn. Socke, MDu. socke, Du. sok, all “sock”; Lat. soccus “slipper, loafer”; Sl. nosok (носок) “sock”; Gk. sykchos “shoe type”. The Sl. version, together with the name for “stocking” chulok (чулок) fr. Tr. uyuq, uğuk, comes as a paradigm, irrefutably attesting to the Türkic origin of both words, and thus directly attesting to the origin of the Gmc., Lat., and Gk. source. The Lat. word, if not via Gk. or Etruscan, and if it is not a late borrowing fr. Burgund, may be of Sarmatian origin, borrowed together with military tactics and paraphernalia. The form stoking with prosthetic -t- is probably a local innovation from the came root. The “IE etymology” does not exist, it meekly suggests “perhaps from Phrygian or another Asiatic language”, i.e. patently non-IE source. With its sibling socket, a derivative from the same stem with the Tr. suffix -ut, and the sock “beat”, an allophone of the same stem, the converging compounded evidence of massive paradigmatic transfer makes the Türkic origin of the whole cluster inescapable. The idea that Gmc. has borrowed the word fr. Lat. is grotesquely laughable, in the nomadic horse-riding world, from Mesopotamia to Mongolia, socks were around long before the Latins came to the forefront. See sock (beat), socket.

English suave (adj.) “smooth” ~ Türkic suvlaŋ (suvlañ) (adj.) “smooth” (i.e. as water, suv). A version of suave is suede “suede leather with napped surface”, a type of soft leather, made an international word by the modern commerce. Cognates: Middle Fr. suave, Lat. suavis. The name “from Sweden” appears to be a folk etymology grown out of phonetic homophony (French Suede “Sweden”), but a “suede jacket” in Sweden is “suede jacket”, not a “Svenska jacket”. Also badly problematic is to connect suave/suede with the Lat. persuasionem, persuasio, persuadere fr. per- “strongly” + suadere “to urge”, which produced OFr. and English persuasion. These funny “IE” etymological ideas lead to nowhere, stopping far short of the smooth nature and smooth leather.
74

English tag (n.) “badge” ~ Türkic taɣ, tag, ta:ğ, da:ğ (n.) “mark, brand, badge”. A Türkic homophone taɣ, tag “herd, flock” points to the association of the notion “branding” with the notion “herding”, either one could be a primary notion. Tagging must have been one of the most ancient words, contemporary with the first spread of the domesticated fowl and goats. The tag is uniquely English word, apparently with no known European cognates. The erroneously suggested as cognates the Gmc. close homophones Norse, Sw. tagg “point, prong, prickle, thorn”, MLG tagge “spike” denoting a nail-type sharp object are instead allophones of the Eng. tack “nail” and of the Türkic noun form of the verb tak-, taq- (v.) “tack, pin, fix”, and its sibling verbal form tik- (v.) “sting, pin”. A derivative toɣu, toqu, toğa:, toku: “buckle, clasp” illustrates the semantics of “badge”, belts were a part of Türkic traditional triad attire caftan-belt-boots for men and women, and buckles had numerous utilities beyond keeping kaftan fastened, one of them was a badge to indicate official position, thus the toqu “belt buckle” is equivalent to the tag “badge”. The word belongs to the numerous English orphans “of uncertain origin” with no “IE” connection, but with phonetic and semantic cognates in Türkic, toka/toğa loanword in Persian, and other languages, and probably with cognates in Afganistan, Pakistan, Indian, European Türkic and Eastern Siberian Türkic languages. The duplex of tag, tack constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer, indelibly attesting to the common genetic connection. See tack.

English undies (n.) “underwear, lingerie” ~ Türkic antarï, anteri, antery (n.) “short dress worn under caftan” (Dahl V. Encyclopedic dictionary of live Great Russian language [Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка], Мoscow, GIIINS, 1955), v. 1, 78, in E.N. Shipova Turkisms in Russian [Cлoвapь Тюpкизмoв в Pуccкoм языкe], Alma-Ata, “Science”, 1976, 33). Cognates: Gmn. Unterrock; Rus. andarak/andrak/antar “underwear skirt”, from Türkic; Pol. inderak ditto. This type of disgraceful words is usually not included in the old dictionaries. A consonance with the Eng., A.-Sax. under, OFris. under, ONorse undir, OHG untar, Goth. undar, Du. onder, Gmn. unter “under” appears to positively connect the Gmc. and Türkic origins, while clashing with the more remote Skt. adhah, Av. athara-, and separately with the Lat. infernus, infra. A suitable progenitor for the “IE” European and Eurasian forms for “under” is aŋıttır- “bow, bend”, a peculiar formation fr. the verb eŋ- “bend” with two stacked causative suffixes, lit. “force to coerce to bend”, translated as “subordinate, subjugate”. It is a functional equivalent of “under, go under”. The documented articulation aŋıttır- is a peculiar version of the causative eŋittir- “force to coerce to ...”, a causative of eŋit- “coerce to ...”, a derivative of the eŋ- “bend”. With the nasal -ŋ- assimilated to -n- (Tr. antarï, Gmc. under, Lat. infra) or elided (Av. athara-), and modified locally (Skt. adhah), the semantics “go under (something)” and its phonetics are suitable for the both words “under” and “undies” without a need to invent an unattested and unexplainable (i.e. what is the function of the -er, and what the root ndh- stands for?) “PIE” *ndher- “under”. See under.

English wig (n.) “false hair, hairpiece” ~ Türkic yü:g (yug), yün/yuŋ (yun_g) (n.) “feather, wool”. Cognates: A.-Sax. perwyke “feather wig”, OFr. perruque “natural head of hair”, It. perrucca “head of hair, wig”. The “IE etymology” for this compound is “of uncertain origin”, but maybe fr. Lat. pilus “hair”, pluma “feather” with “considerable phonetic difficulties”; the “IE etymology” for the part wig of the compound is more than funny, suggesting a contraction of periwig to a noun and verb wig, with the verbal semantics “hysterical”, “fight or rumble”, “scold”, and finally “wigging” (scolding) and “wigged” (wearing a wig). Semantically connected with assimilated OHG fedara “feather”, which would bridge the OFr. perruque as an allophone of fedara + yü:g “feather wig”, etymologically a tautological compound of “feather” + “feather”, a standard assimilation of alien terminology. The word per- for “feather” is a part of the standing European-type lexicon: OHG fern “fern”, Balto-Sl. (Latv.) sparns, (Lith.) sраrnаs, (Sl.) pero (перо), also parit (парить) “to fly”; Skt. parnam, Av. раrǝnа-, all “feather, wing”, or both. The second “feather” is clearly visible in the OFr. perruque with -uque representing -yü:g. The Middle Age appearance of the alien customs of feathers and wigs in C.Europe is probably connected with introduction of nomadic customs of the Burgund Kingdom (Savoy and Provence), accompanied by introduction of relevant lexicon. The semantic connection and perfect phonetics attest to the equivalence of the wig and yü:g.

4.3 Social

English ace (n., v.) “dazzlingly skilful in some activity” ~ Türkic us, usïč, üz (n., adj.) “ace, skilful, experienced”. This Türkic word can't be a random coincidence, because of precision of its meaning and perfect phonetics. It could not be a late reverse borrowing from the European languages because of universal spread and universally developed derivatives. The phonetic dispersion also points to deep roots. Among notable prototypes are us- “think”, as- “to transcend, overcome”, and esi “older male sibling, elder brother”, they point to the notions of completing a task and looking up to, the first of them still active, like in a “flower fully opened”. Among very numerous derivatives of as are asig, asil, ash, and ashil, “benefit”, “substance”, “increase”, and “growth” respectively, all with connotations toward superlative. A confusion and semantic conflation with the numeral 1 on a dice apparently is based on purely phonetic homophony. That is the best that the “IE etymology” is able to suggest. It is obvious that the dice terminology trails that needed in daily life, like the notion of a skill, and if there is a metaphoric connection, its direction is outright the opposite, from the skill to an ability to control the dice. The same applies to the card game, the name for the card is an extension of a theretofore existent terminology. The suggested transition fr. the widespread in the European languages Lat. “unit, unity, one” and Gk. enas (ενας) “one” to the notion of a superior artistry appears incredulous in concept and unsustainable in detail. Apparently, the word was lurking around as a trade term in the Northern European languages till popularized by the Fr. sporting publications for especially skilful sportsmen, and later pilots.

English aid (n., v.) “help” ~ Türkic yüv- (v.) “furnish, secure, provide”, yӧlä-, yülä- (v.) “prop, support, aid”. Albeit yüv- and yӧlä- describe separate notions, they overlap on the notion “aid”. Ultimately, they ascend to the verb u:-/ü- “able, capable”. The transformation of the word yüv- to aid is a song in its own right, by far outclassing etymological darings of the fearless etymological captains. The connection between the two drastically distinct forms of aid and yüv- rests in the Lat. verb iuvare “to help, give strength, support, sustain”, a semantic and phonetic clone of the Türkic verb yüv-. Although the chances of any two languages to have a root resembling üv are near or even above certainty, as in a case of more than a single homophone, the chances of encountering identical semantics are microscopic, fostering a high degree of confidence. With the locative prefix ad- “to, toward”, an allophone of the Türkic locative suffix -ta/-da, the compound became adiuvare "to give help to”, a metamorphosed form of the Türkic agglutinated yüvtä. A Lat. derivative deverbal noun is adiuta, which had nothing to do with the Lat. root iunior, iuvenis “younger, youngster” suggested by the brave “IE etymology”. In turn, iunior is an allophone of the Türkic yangi: (adj.) “new”, see young. The Lat. noun, truncated down to its prefix, assimilated into a cluster of the local Romance languages, producing the OFr. aiuda and then aide, which through a circuitous route became the Eng. aid, the Catalan, Portuguese ajuda, Fr. aide, Galician axuda, It. aiuto, Rum. ajutor, Sp. ayuda. In the Far East, the Türkic yüv- had reached China: Ch. ju 助 “aid”. The Fr.-Eng. form aid supplanted the old A.-Sax. fylst, fulaest, fultum “aid”, an allophone of the Türkic yӧlä- formed with a prosthetic f-. The major difference between the A.-Sax. and Lat. forms attests to the source vernaculars with a choice between the synonymic yüv- and yӧlä-. Notably, the A.-Sax. used nine roots to form synonymous “help”, of which at least two (bot-, ful-), and likely three or four, ascend to the Türkic languages. Of the nine synonyms, Eng. has retained three (bother, full, help), and additionally acquired one (aid), of them three (bother, full, aid) ascend to the Türkic languages. The predominance of the Türkic cognates attests to the deep penetration and wide spread of the Türkic languages across the Europe. The presence of the three “aid” synonyms in English points to three source paths, the Turkic-Romance aid, the Turkic-A.-Sax. fylst, and the Old Europe or a local European help. See full, bother, young.

(Skip) English Alban (people) (n.) ~ Türkic alban, alpan (n., adj.) “tribute, duty, dependent, tributary”. Ultimately a derivative of a polysemantic al (v., n. adj.) with few meanings conductive to form a notion of subjugation: “bottom, lower part”, “status, position”, “collect, take, receive”, “get, acquire”, “barter”, “catch”, “confiscate”, “conquer”, and more. The Romance female name probably referred to blonds, but elsewhere was likely a term for a trophy concubine or a wife. Two peoples are known under the name Alban, one in the S. Caucasus at the turn of the eras, and the other in the Balkans from the Middle Ages. In the case of the Balkans, it is positively known as an exonym, since no ethnic group there called themselves “Albanians”. The same applies to the Caucasus Albania, in the sources the term is used exclusively as a politonym. The ruling tribe in the Caucasus Albania was a Türkic tribe Kayi, the present Kaitags (Mountain Kayi) who may have called the indigenous tributaries “аlbans”, hence the Armenian and Gk. reflex “Albania”. Both places at some time were dependent members and tributaries of the Türkic states. The presence of the Mong. form alba(n) “tributary” points to a Hunnic source of the Syanbi times, when in 93 AD a 100,000 Hunnic families numbering 500,000+ people submitted to the ruling minority of Syanbi (pin. Xianbei 鮮卑) Mongols, essentially making the Hunnic language a language of the Syanbi.

English alimony (n.) “payment” ~ Türkic alım “debt, payment, tax”, alım is a noun describing a single action fr. the verb al- “take, receive, capture”. No “IE” connections, the etymology is described as an oddball among “IE” languages fr. the Lat. alimonia “food, support, nourishment, sustenance” fr. alere “nourish” + -monia “action suffix”. Chances of a Lat. oddball invention spreading across Eurasia to beyond China like a wildfire are precisely nil. Chances that it is oddball and not an internalized Türkic word are also suspiciously close to nil: in the context of a levy, the “payment, tax” and “taxes in kind”, i.e. produce levy, are one and the same. Meanwhile, A.-Sax. had in its active vocabulary a nest of derivatives fr. the verb al- “take, receive, capture”, all clearly unrelated to the “IE” milieu: alaeccan “take, catch”, alaedan “lead away, carry off”, alaenan “to lend, grant, lease”, which clearly demonstrate that not only the A.-Sax. used the Türkic verbal root al-, but also that it had inherited agglutinative suffixes to produce derivatives and even a reverse action (take vs. give, lend). Cognates: A.-Sax. al- q.v., with derivatives; OIr. alim “I sustenate (by taxes, nourishment, etc.)”, Cf. OT alayım “I will take”, aldım “I have taken/received)” with the same OT suffix -ım “I, me”, alımın (“debt”) aldı: (“took”) “he took (collected) debt (levy)”. The Lat. semantics of “food, sustenance” is a concrete derivative for the receipts in kind, widely used prior to a switch to a monetary tax. It reflects a system of dependents and allotments that was inherited by the Roman and other societies (Cf. Sl. “allot to a table” (поставить на стол) meaning to give a right to collect taxes in kind, a princely prerogative). The Lat. version may be attributed to the Celtic origin within the Italo-Celtic contact model, separate from the A.-Sax. path, but ultimately ascending to the common Türkic source as a derivative of the verb al-. The word has survived from the A.-Sax. into English, and may have re-conflated with its Lat. sibling. Under a hypothesis of the Saxons being another form for the Saka Scythians, their lexical forms may be reflexes of the original Scythian speech. See alimentation.

English Arthur “legendary king of Britons” ~ Türkic artur (v.) “donate, present, gift”, “increase, grow, expand, excessive (i.e. exceed))” (v.). Etymology of the King Arthur's name has a long and wide trail with numerous offers that did not bother to suggest a Türkic etymology. The stubborn historical canvas also did not need to figure in. The Türkic has two forms that ascend to the stem art- (v.) “increase, add, amplify” with semantics “to grow”, derivatives artur “confer, present, gift, donate; entice, seduce” (v.) and arttur causative of art- “increase, add, amplify”. Semantically, both forms can be used for a title-name; in Türkic tradition the old baby name is abandoned at some point in life, and a new name is given or taken, a custom still retained in the Chinese ethnology. Outside of China, that custom disappeared with the switch to the novel religions, where the name had to be “Christian”, “Islamic”, “Buddhist”, and the like, given for life to display conversion. The traces of name change still linger in eastern Christian Orthodoxy, where baptized people have 2 birthdays with 2 names, one a home name, and the other the appropriate Saint's name, whose day is celebrated as a birthday (imeniny (именины) in Rus., i.e. “name-day”, from imya (имя) “name”). In Türkic uncluttered by allusions and surmises, the name King Arthur is а direct rendition of Kengu Artur “King Conferred (by Almighty)”, “King Bestowed (by Almighty)”, etc. In undisturbed Türkic, the title should be at the end: Artur-Kengu, but English successfully parted with most of the Türkic syntax, and Kengu Artur is a viable form for the 6th c. A couple of ethnological traits corroborate the Türkic etymology: a Türkic King was a position elected for life to preside over a counsel of nobles, and King Arthur is depicted as a presiding King of the Round Table. King Arthur is held as buried under a kurgan (e.g. Bossiney mound, Wormelow Tump burial kurgan of King Arthur's son Amr, and more); his son Amr carries a Türkic name amra- “love” (v.), Amran, Amraq Amïraq “loved” (adj.) (Cf. Amor “Cupid, god of love”, see Amor); his stallion Sigral is allophonic with Sïpqa “2-year old stud”. The “IE” and Lat.-centered etymology ascending to Lat. Artorius/Arturius, “of obscure and contested etymology”, in a way may be right, since it also ascends to the Türkic artur “gift”. The o and u in Türkic are interchangeable, both versions are fully consistent with the Türkic artur. In English, amor for love has a flavor of borrowing from the Romance languages, and probably it was resuscitated via Romance. But it is very unlikely that Sakha/Yakut amra has anything to do with the Romance languages. One day we could learn the Amr's Y-DNA, and correlate the male line with possible origins. The exactitude of the phonetic rendition with the Türkic lexeme tends to indicate a Hunnic origin rather than a Celtic Briton's, and the Y-DNA may supply a helpful clue. See king, Amor, Boris.

English As (tribe) (n.) ~ Türkic Yazï (tribe) fr. yazï (n.) “steppe, plain, flatland”. The names of the oldest Türkic tribes are nearly universally toponymic, alluding to mountains, steppe, rivers, etc., that tradition is as monotonous as the kurgan funeral tradition. The As people are known, in particular, from the Scandinavian sagas as conquerors and a ruling elite of the Scandinavians, the dynasts of the Scandinavian people. The legendary tradition is well-ingrained and richly embellished; Ases are extracts from somewhere in Asia, supposedly named after them. Besides the 1st mill. AD Scandinavian sagas, Ases are known from the 3rd mill. BC Assyrian texts as Askuza (also read as Ishkusa), from the 1st mill. BC Hebrew Bible as Ashkenaz (pl. Ashkenazim), from the Classical writers as conquerors of Bactria in 140 BC, as the 3rd c. BC Yuezhi of the Chinese annals, and from many other sources, events, and geographical locations. The part -kusa or -guza means “people”, but no source gives an etymology of the name As, and scholarly suggestions, in addition to the yazï, offer other phonetically justified and semantically possible etymologies: as, aš- (ash-) “cross over, pass, climb over”, “increase, grow”, az- “go astray, err, get lost”, “not numerous, small, few”, “greedy”. In addition, from general considerations, the as is suggested and held as standing for generic “tribe”. Because the names As and Alan were used interchangeably, and because the words yazï and alan are synonyms, with the alan also meaning “plain, flatland”, and because the form Yazï is recorded in many toponyms and chronicles, the As standing for “steppe people, plain people” is most convincing. Plenty of nomadic Türkic people lived in the steppes, besides the generic appellation Ases each separate group also had to have their individual appellation, thus the Huns, Bulgars, Uigurs, but not the mountaineer Tokhars or Saka, etc., belonged to the generic appellation Ases. The idea that the Ossetians were Ases or Alans does not hold the water, the historical sources identified Ases (Yases) with the Türkic Bulgars (that's natural, because Bulgars were steppe people). The very same Ossetians, and also their Abkhaz neighbors, identify Ases with their neighbors Balkars and Karachais, traditional nomadic horse husbandry tribes like the historical Ases, while the Ossetians are traditional sedentary farmers. The studies of the Y-DNA attest to the same, Ossetes are predominantly of a Y-DNA farming haplogroup G2 and J2 of Near Eastern variety, while the Ases should carry the steppe-type Y-DNA nomadic haplogroup R1a and R1b. The name Ossete, however, could be connected with the ethnonym As, just like the name of the Gaulic France was derived from the Gmc. Frank, and the name of the Slavic Russia was derived from the Gmc. Rus Vikings.

English assess(ment) (n.) “appraisal of worth” ~ Türkic asïɣ (n.) “interest, percent, benefit, profit”. The Türkic verbal stem as-, of which the noun asïɣ is a derivative, has a meaning “desire, greed”. In the “IE” languages the prime meaning is also verbal, with noun derivatives. The “IE” etymologies wind out to Lat. compound ad- + sedere (lit. “at sitting”), an exceedingly long and thoroughly dubious shot both semantically and phonetically, while the Türkic etymology is direct and pinpointed. The “IE” etymologies also stop at Roman time and geography, with no attempts to recover a fictitious PIE stem. The need for the word goes much deeper than the rise of the Rome, since trade, taxation, debts, and tributes are attested in the first written records, three millennia before the Roman times, and by the time the Romans organized their state, the word must have long been in circulation among most of the Europeans' and Asians' daily life. The “IE” derivatives assign, assignation also point to the underlying Türkic form asiɣ, the disjointed Lat. etymologies notwithstanding. Apparently, English has received this Turkism via French. See assign.
75, 76

English baby (n.) “infant, child before walking or talking” ~ Türkic bebe, beba, bäbä (n.) “baby, child”, bäbek, papak, pebek (Chuv.) “kids, children”. Ultimately fr. the verb ba-/be- “bind” (see band) and its verbal form bele- (v.) “wrap, bind, lace” (see bale) lit. meaning “bale, to bale, swathe, to swaddle”. Accordingly, this word is a cognate with the vast multitude of all Eng. derivatives of the verb ba-/be- “bind” in the classical definition of the word cognate “coming from the same ancestral language”. The verb bale is an undistorted pristine form of the original root ba- with the verbal suffix -le. Odiously, the EDT and OTD are silent on the word “baby”, in a stark contrast with the EDTL (Sevortyan pp. 95-97) which used three pages to address, with dozens of references, the Türkic “baby”. In Eng., this word is one of the quadruplet, with four unrelated parallel clusters, all of the Türkic provenance, the baby, child, puppy, and the obsolete bairn, a derivative of the verb bear (v.) “carry”, see bear (v.). The word has a potential of belonging to the oldest lexical layer, connected with the oldest textile (35,000 BC) and first swaddling of the newborns. Under the “IE” microscope, a cognate list is really short: OE (13c.) baban, notably with a Türkic diminutive suffix -an. With an unbridled perspective, a cognate list is macroscopic, extending from Atlantic to Pacific, and with an endless listing of the Türkic and related allophones: bebi, bäbi, bäbiš, bibi (Cf. loanword in modern Heb. Bibi ditto), böbü, bönö, böbüce, these Türkic forms can be used as concrete nouns, as plurals, as abstracts, metaphorically, and for baby animals and flora. Derivative forms and cognates: bäbek, babäk, bebek, babik ببك, dibik ديبك, dabak دبك, dibak ديباك (Cf. loanword in modern Hindi, Deepak ditto), dasak دسك, diaaltha دياالثا, bebäy, bäbäy, etc. In Türkic these forms have more of a connotation of plural and abstract. Other cognates: Ir. babaí, Welsh babi, baban “baby”, It. bambino, Sp. bebe; ditto, Hu. baba, babat “baby”; Hindi dibak ديباك ; Evenk, Even bebe “baby, cradle, rock (cradle), lullaby, nap, suckle”; Mong. buubaj, büübei, bübei “cradle, doll”; Ch. baobao 宝宝 “baby”; Jap. bebī ベビー ditto. Variously in various languages, the word covers much more than an “infant”: “suckling”, “doll”, “chick”, “lambkin, kid (goat), gosling, duckling” and such, “little brother”, “pupil (eye)”, “embryo”, “bud”, “offshoot”, “pinky”, “adult male” (in contrast with Eng. babe), “Бабек” (proper name, Cf. Bibi and Deepak). Puppy is a palatalized allophonic form of baby, it also found uncounted allophones across languages and across Eurasia, applied for babies, dolls, and baby animals, most of them much older than the 13th c. OE. The bulk of the meanings is metaphorical, not connected directly with the notions of “swaddle” and “infant”. With the pinpointed semantics of “infant” and perfect phonetic match, a long-distance borrowing from the OE into Türkic languages must be positively excluded. The apparent semantic development indicates that the notion “infant” is tertiary, after the secondary notion “swathe, to swaddle, cradle, to cradle”, and the original notion of “bind”. The term baby is essentially a bundle from a cradle. That allows to visualize conceptually a time and direction of the spread. Since the nomadic Zhou Scythians or their ilk reached the Far Eastern peoples before and during the Xia period (21st – 17th cc. BC), it can be reasonably suggested that the Mong. and Tungus (Evenk, Even) forms may far predate the Hunnic times, 2nd c . BC. The retention of the Celtic forms attests that their forms were already around at the time of the Celtic departure from the Eastern Europe to Iberia ca. 5th-4th mill. BC. Notably, the Ir. form babaí is an exact match of the babaí of the modern Bashkir, Nogai, and Tatar languages just north of the Caspian-Aral basin. The Indian form with the second consonant -s-/-š- appear to be the Türkic form bešik for “cradle”, conflated with the related notion of “infant”. The Sl. form kolybel (колыбель) “cradle” appears to be a calque of the Türkic form for “cradle” meaning “to rock (a cradle)”. Kolybel does not have any “IE” cognates, including the Sl., pointing to a loanword or a Sl./alien compound that incorporates the element be- for “rocking”. The quintet baby, puppy, child, bairn, and doll presents a salient case of paradigmatic transfer, attesting to the common origin from the Türkic linguistic milieu. The contrasting etymological suggestion within the “IE” paradigm, linking baby and babble may have a grain of truth in it, but has nothing to do with the etymology of the word baby. See bale, band, bear, child, doll, puppy.

English baron (n.) “nobleman title, peer of the lowest rank” ~ Türkic baryn دارين (n.)“high title”. Ultimately a derivative fr. the polysemantic verb bar- “is, existing, present” (see was), but in this case denoting “be rich, be wealthy, be affluent”, with the reflexive suffix -ïn/-ïm. The meaning“ rich” was not found in the OT records, leading to a speculation that it is a later development, which may be true in respect to the verb bar-, bit is unsustainable in view of the earliest historical attestations of the name and title baryn. Baryn's semantics is also а “chief executive” lit. “(possessor of) all, entire”, i.e. “supreme”. Cognates: A.-Sax., Fr. baron title, Rus. barin (барин) “owner of estate and its bondsmen”, also a nobleman title in various European countries. Baryn was a most prominent tribe of Suvars (aka Suei, the Swede ethnonym, the part Su/Sue/Sw stands for “water”, like in the ethnonym Suvar, see habitat), with no record on female or male dynastic side. Other than Suvars, in some Türkic courts Baryn was a title of a member of the state counsel with a right to sit on a bag of wool in the khan's presence or even next to the khan; that implied that Baryn was a title for the head of the maternal dynastic clan and a statutory Prime Minister and Superior Judge. Baryn was one of the Danube Bulgaria's boyar clans. The words peace, port, and their derivatives are later acquired derivative versions of the verb bar- from the raster of its particular meanings. The duo baron and was constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to the Türkic origin of the substrate language. See habitat, peace, port, was.

(Skip) English bastard (n.) “illegitimate child” ~ Türkic bas (n.) + tard (v.); bas “head” + tard = “turn your head away”; In English reportedly via Fr., OFr. bastard, Modern Fr. batard. Reference to OFr. likely points to the Burgund source via Provence path. The Türkic etymology closely follows the Türkic social tradition of gender equality: unmarried people, especially young, are not demonized about sexual encounters prior to marriage, but after marriage fidelity is absolute and no deviations are accepted. Marriages were monogamous. In spite of the millenniums of religious condemnations, in the northern Europe this liberal social tradition has largely survived to the present. In a tribal society, within the framework of the tradition, out of wedlock flings and children are events extraordinaire, with severe social consequences, hence the euphemistic term for not recognizing the offence. The Türkic elite practiced polygamy, and all offsprings of such marriages were equal, except that only the children of the First Wife (Queen, Hatun) were eligible for succession to the throne, and no one was held as a bastard. The fanciful “IE” etymologies formalistically concentrate on details of the encounter, like bast as fill of a straw mattress or barn with the same connotations, without appreciation of the social environment and social context. The suggested etymology is as much a guesswork as the “IE” etymology, it relies equally on phonetic consonance, but in addition it also relies on real ethnological aspect, making it relatively more credible, or notably less fanciful.

bastard (n., adj.) “ruin completely, break into pieces, apart”~ Türkic bastur- (v., n., adv.) “crushed, subdued, suppressed”. A myopic “IE etymology” utterly failed its etymological function with 600+ words-long dissertation devoted mostly to divinations and imaginative re-interpretations. Ultimately a causative form of a verbal stem bas-/ba:s- “press, suppress, overcome, seize (rape)” with a causative form bastur-, Rus. emphatic bastruk (< Tr.), see push. The panoptic verb bas-/ba:s- numbers some 30+ meanings related to applying downward pressure. With a suffix tur- a general connotation of bas- is a definitive (factitive) “final, end” of action, “suppress (finish off)”. An “undecipherable” substance of the “bust” is clearly explained in A.-Sax. 1. a notion “penis” does not exist, its proxy is “horn, horu” ~ “horn”, Cf. “horny bastard, man” ; 2. hor “adultery”, hore, horowene “whore, prostitute, adulteress”, ciefes, cifes “concubine, harlot” (Gmn. kebsc) ~ “sex”; 3. (ge)horgian “defile, desecrate, maculate, violate”, horeht, horwiht “defiled, filthy” ~ “abuse, sex, rape, raped”; 4. honruungsunu “bastard” ~ “son from adultery”, cifesboren (adj.) “bastard, concubine's born”, docincel, doc “bastard son”. Thus a bastard (m.) is an illegitimate son from an adulteress, prostitute, or a rape, the last expressed etymologically from a Lat. rapere “seize, carry off by force, abduct” and a Türkic bast < bas- + deverbal noun abstract suffix -t or an elided bastur- > bust. A bastard's accession to a throne was possible only by a palace coup, Cf. William the Conqueror referred to in state documents as “William the Bastard”, or a Rus' Vladimir the Baptist. Cognates: A.-Sax. bestingan, beðryn, beðryccan “push, press”, basnian “ambush”, Dan. børste “beat up”, Sw. basa “beat (with rod, flog)”, bösta “thump”, ONorse beysta “beat”; Fr. bastonnade “beat (with stick)”, It., Sp., Port., basta “end, finish” (but not Lat.); Gk. bastazo (βαστάζω); Sl. (Rus.) baystryuk (байстрюк) “bastard, boy, lad” (-ruq Türkic emph. suffix), bastryk “subjugation”, busturgan, bastyrɣan “bogey”, baskak “tax collector”, basma “stamp seal”, (Rus., Pol.) basta “end”, (Pol.) basalyk “lead-ended whip”, (Bolg., Serb.) basamak, basamaci “ledge, steppingstone”, (Bolg., Serb., Ukr.) basma “heeltap”; Arab. bas “push”, basma “printed fabric”, “stamp, brand, imprint”, baskak “tax collector”; Mong. basu- “press down, pin, throw, quit”, “offend, scold, humiliate”; Kor. matta, mağa “break, crush”; Tungus, Manchu basala-, basalla- “kick”. Distribution: The root bas- “press” in various articulations is ubiquitous across Eurasia, from Atlantic to Pacific, across linguistic barriers. A peculiar areal distribution in Europe.

The form basting “strike violently” semantically and phonetically closely parallels the Türkic bastïq “to be defeated, broken, suppressed”. Possible cognates may be Bastarnae, a tribe at the end of the domain, neighbor (Ptolemy), bastion “tip, at the end” with its derivatives, via Fr. No “IE” cognates; the suggested derivative distortion of burst (barsten, bærst, bersta, berstan, borsten, brestan, bersten) “erupt, rupture” is too far fetched, does not fit neither phonetically nor semantically. The suggested derivative of beat is not any better. The word known in England in 1530s popped up in 1750s in the US, and became a popular economic and action term. See ambush, bat, pat, push.
“” “” “” “” “”
43

English boy (n.) “youthful male”, “subordinate, subservient” ~ Türkic bod, bo:y (n.) “body”. The form boy/bo:y, as opposed to bod, is due to the articulary peculiarity in a certain group of languages that tend to to use -y- for -d-. It is one form from the allophonic lineup of bod/bud/boy/bo:yi:/bot/badan/pot/pos/poy, see body. One of the secondary meanings of the word bod/boy is “a body, someone”, for example “servant, commoner, knave, boy” with and without derisive connotations. The form bo:y is most significant for the NW European etymology as a noun signifying a faceless human mass (sailors, servants, etc.) or a concrete noun signifying an extract of that mass. Applied generically, the word boy is a derisive term, widely used long before the colonization of America with its slavery and the emergence of the derisive boy for male slaves of any age. It stands in opposition to cniht/knave/knape/cnafa/cnapa also meaning “male youth”, which produced an elevated knight. Besides the principal modern meaning “young male”, the word retained its original notion of “chattel”, used for a wide variety of “others”, Cf. bell-boy, cabin-boy, cow-boy, errand-boy, ball-boy, and a slew of other disrespectful monikers. The legacy of three forms, body, bod, and boy constitute a tangible case of paradigmatic transfer from different parts of a single phylum, an irrefutable evidence of a genetic connection. The form bod , which underlies the Eng. bod and body, predominates in the northeastern Türkic languages. The form boy predominates in the west: Oguz, Ottoman, Horezmian, and Chagatai. That attests that the form and the early known Eng. senses are connected with the Aral basin, like other words with similarly peculiar, geographically-identifiable forms. The Aral area was a homebase of the Ases (As-Tokhar confederation), the Yuezhi of the Chinese chronicles. Ases are prominent in the Scandinavian sagas as the noble ancestors. The literally sources corroborate linguistic indicators. Cognates: ME boi “churl, servant”, EFris. boi “young gentleman”, MDu. boeve, Du. boef “boy”, MLG buobe; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) puika, (Lit.) vaikinas; Hu. fiu, Fin. poika. These cognates are tied to the form and notion “boy” and its EFris. and MDu. predecessors; to the list must be added cognates associated with the word “body”: A.-Sax. bodig, OHG botah, Turkish beden, Arab. bädän “body”, Kor. badi 바디, and probably quite a few more in the areas close to the Eurasian steppe belt. Türkic languages have preserved a notion of a person's belonging to the category of a “mass of bodies”; the NW European languages have retained that as concrete nouns “servant, commoner, dependent”, and innovated to a “minor (person)” and then to “boy”, while retaining all past meanings and mostly negative overtones. A transition from a more generic to a more concrete meaning is typical for host languages, Cf. Türkic agač (agach) (tree) and Gk. acacia (ακακiα). An identical retention-innovation process had occurred with the form bod, used for a human body, informal for a person, and for a faceless mass of people. In the form budun (with allophones) that word is known from the Herodotus times and from the Orkhon inscriptions. Words for “boy” double with local calques as a notion “servant, attendant” across the Indo-European map, and a patchwork of the Türkic allophones from bod/boy to pos/poy extends that notion from one end to another across the entire Eurasia. For “boy”, the “IE etymology” came up with one lunatic suggestion, ascending to “shackle, fetter”, apparently because of the presumed slavery component, and consonance-based alternate conjectures of “babe”, “evil spirit”, and “brother”. For its allophone “body”, the “IE etymology” has advanced a more sober but equally incompetent “of unknown origin”. In all “IE” conjectures the phonetic consonance, however senseless, was a leading guide for philological speculations. See body.

English brother (n.) “son of the same mother” ~ Türkic birader (n.) “son of the same mother”, ultimately fr. bir (bi:r) “one, a man”; the notion “man” is inferred, akin to “this one (man)”, Cf. someone “a man”. The Türkic word literally formulates “son of the same mother”: bir “one”, as an article a, an “one” in English + ad/at “name, appellative, family unit” + er = male, man (n.) > “male of the same name”. Alternatively, birader consists of bir “sole”, like in “sole heir” + a euphonic filler + -der plural collective suffix used as a sign of respect, i.e. pl. of “one”, lit. “ones, solenesses, onenesses”, the word is modeled consistently with “father” and “mother” (Golden P., 2014, 19), see father, first, mother. Nothing even close to this etymology can be found in the “IE” etymology, which mechanically lists cognates to demonstrate that many “IE” languages share this word. Cognates: A.-Sax. brothor, ONorse broðir, Dan. broder, OFris. brother, Du. broeder, Gmn. Bruder, Goth. brothar; Lat. frater, It. fratello, Gk. phrater; Balt. (Lith.) broterelis, OPruss. brati, OCS bratru, Cz. bratr; Skt. bhratar-, OPers. brata; the OIr. brathir, and Welsh brawd came with the Kurgan migrants; all “brother”. The archaic plural suffix -der is associated with Bulgars (Cf. Onogundur Bulgars), attesting to its Sarmatian provenance, it is present in the OIr. form, providing an oldest datable attestation in the 5th mill. BC N. Pontic, 3 mill. before the departure of the Indo-Aryans from the same general area. The myopic horizon of the IE-school linguists does not dip deeper than the migrations of the 2nd mill. BC. The loanword nature of the “IE” versions is attested by the preserved original synonyms, Gk. adelphos, Lat. germanus, Sp. hermano, and their counterparts in other European languages. Notably, Eng. and other Gmc. languages have not preserved the spectrum of the Türkic basic terms for “brother”: abï, ačïq(ïm), aɣa/aqa, birader, eči, emikdaš, ini, ögdaš, qadaš/qaδaš/qaŋdaš, qarïndaš/qarundaš, with more regular phonetic variations; Eng. does not have a single synonym. That attests to the amalgamation process, where in the end survives only a most basic word. The idea that birader is a Kurdish/Persian loanword does not withstand a sanity check: the “IE” languages do not have a single common “proto-word”; distribution of the cognates aligns with the periphery of the Steppe Belt, its neighborhood, and the known migration paths; birader can't be etymologized from the “IE” “proto-language”, whether a spoken or theoretical model; the antiquity of the word allows plenty of time to spread it with numerous Kurgan waves and amalgamations. There are other indicators, like paradigmatic transfer cases, Cf. Lat. suppletive ordinal primus, a form of bir “one”, and frater, a form of birader, a derivative of bir, with the numerical duality not having an acceptable explanation. Semantic expansion from “son of the same mother” to generic “son of the same parent(s)” apparently developed within polygamous societies, is not connected with the offsprings of the second marriages, and every language was finding its own way to define half-brothers and half-sisters. See father, first, mother.

English Boris (n.) ~ Türkic böri (n.) “wolf”, barıs (n.) “leopard” (also stands for “lion”). Depending on the ethnic source, either meaning was the original one. Böri for wolf, bars/leopard, and bear (in different Türkic languages) was a popular name across Eurasia, before being replaced in the east by more orthodoxy-sounding Mohammeds and Abdullahs. Before that, Türkic names and titles based on animal names were a commonplace. In the West, the name kept its popularity, retaining an aura of upper aristocracy during the Middle Ages. A synonymous word for “bear/wolf” is böri:, and for “wolf” is kurt. In some Türkic languages the allophonic form barıs, a version of bars, designates leopard and extends to lion and tiger. The areal distribution of the terms böri: and kurt, and of the names Boris and Kurt (Curt, Curtis, ets.) points to the direction and timing of migrations. See Amor, Arthur, brute, king, wolf.

English bull (n.) “sealed document” ~ Türkic bel (n.) “belt, band”, bele:-/be:le:-, belä- (v.) “to bale, swaddle, wrap”, bal-/ba:l- “fastened”. Technically, bull is a wrap, a swaddle, which is how it is literally called in Türkic. In Türkic bel is a belt (lace) used to lace something, like a baby in a cradle or to make a bundle package, bale. Ultimately fr. the verb ba:- “bind, fasten”. English has two words related to “cord”, bull (bullae) and the A.-Sax. bul, bula, the first a document sealed with cord and signet, the second is a cord worn around a neck as a decoration. Both ascend to the Türkic bel “belt, band, swaddle, wrap”. The “IE etymology” suggests semantically most unsuitable fantasies connecting the word with the signet seal: “cheek”, “swelling”, “buttocks”, “bag”, “knob”, united by loosely construed phonetic consonance and an unattested reverse engineered “PIE stem”. An interpretation also connects OFr. bulle, It. bulla “sealed document” with a Lat. bulla “round swelling, knob”, which is obviously an allophone of the bubble “gaseous fluid sack” that according to the very same “IE etymology” has exclusively Gmc. origin: MDu. bobbel ditto, MLG bubbeln “to bubble”; LLat. bulla “bubble”. The “IE” etymology's attribution of the Lat. bulla “swelling” to a Gaulish origin also conflicts with its own assertion on the Gmc. origin of the “bubble”. It lends itself that the A.-Sax. bul, bula “decoration” precedes by far the time of the papal Middle Age bulls. The Türkic etymology of a wrapped document as opposed to a document with a bubble seal offers a straightforward explanation without resorting to the circular PIE reconstructions. See belt.

English cadre (n.) “core group (of people)” ~ Türkic kadaš, qadaš (n.) “family and kinsmen”. Ultimately, kadaš lit. “family member” is a derivative fr. ka- “family, tribe” with a noun-forming associative suffix -daš, applied to non-blood related relatives of the speaker; the truncation of the final suffix is typical for the Sarmat languages (Cf. end truncation in French). The extended meanings of kadaš include a wide range of rather non-blood related pals: friends, companions, associates, brother, fraternal brother, etc. Cognates: A.-Sax. (notion “individual”) hada, had “person, individuality”, hada, gehada “brother (monk)”, hadelice (adv.) “personal, individual”, hadswaepa “bridesman”, hadswape “bridesmaid”, hadesmann “member of a particular order, class”; (notion “fellowship”) hadgrið “privilege (of or within fellowship)”. To the last notion belong the Fr. and Eng. cadre “core people” and Fr. cadre “a single member (single movie frame, single entry on a personal roaster, etc.” that in a spiral semantical development derive a “member” from a “group” (Cf. archeologist fr. archeology, cleric “clergyman ” fr. clergy, etc.). A third A.-Sax. notion is “office”, an innovation connected with the encroachment of Christianity as a societal thought police: haddbot “fine for insult or injury of a priest”, hadbreca, had-bryce “violator of clerical order”, hadlan, gehadlan, hadung “ordain, consecrate”, hadnotu “clerical office”, hadungdaeg “ordination day”, etc. The Ch. chia “family” has been asserted to belong to the cognates of the ka- “family, tribe”, its origin may ascend to the Zhou nomads of the 16th c. BC. The “IE etymology” lists as cognates Fr. cadre “frame of a picture”, Lat. and It. quadrum, quadro “square”, and stops at that quite satisfied, ultimately implying that a word for a “human community” is a derivative of the number “four”. That is obviously a folk-type etymology based purely on consonance. The clue to the etymology comes fr the A.-Sax. hada, had “person, individuality”, which grew into a constellation of derivatives, branching to a notion “fellowship” and fellowship-related terms. Notably, the A.-Sax. composites with “man” and “day” completely correspond to the Türkic expressions; the A.-Sax. morphological modifications (-lice, -lan, -ung) are allophones of the Türkic forms. As a stand-alone morpheme, the suffix -da/ta is a locative marker, i.e. “familiar, of family”, the associative suffix -š (lit. “somebody related to family, tribe”) is “rare” in the eastern records, pointing to its western or archaic origin. The spectrum of the European derivatives far exceeds the myopic “IE” etymological pursuit: cadaster, cadaver, caddie, caddish, caddy, cadet, cadge, cadger may be traced to the notion of “person” and “pal” with different shades, and ultimately to the notion of “family, tribe”; the cadet and its derivatives is unequivocal “younger son or brother”, with an appropriate synonym “plebe”. The last explains the derisive content of other derivatives, like the cadge, cadger, caddish, and likely cadaver. The “IE” etymologies for these entries read like Baron Münchhausen preposterous tales, with different story for each venture.

English cavalry (n.) ~ Türkic keväl, kevel “galloper, well-bred fast horse”, a deverbal adjectival derivative fr. kev-/gev- “chew, chaw, cud, quid” formed with adjectival nominal suffix -l that usually forms intransitive or passive derivatives (Cf. tığıl-/tagil- “blunted (tip)”): tickle, tackle, see tick, tuck, cloud), lit. “a ruminant, chewer”. The semantic transition fr. “ruminant” to “horse” and “galloper” is peculiar, it parallels other unexpected semantic extensions endemic for the word-forming process in Türkic languages. The connection between the meanings “galloper, fast horse” and “cavalry” is obvious, and likewise obvious is that the Lat. caball is an allophone of the Türkic forms keväl, kevel, kewäl, kevil. The verbal stem kev-/gev- has a sibling kav-/gav- with complementary semantics: qavčï- (v.) “rush, assault, attack, catch”, kavid-, kavdın- “protect”, kavza:- “surround”, all complementary to the theme of the cavalry warfare, pointing to a common origin of these root forms, separate and distinct from the homophonic kav- “gather, collect, assemble”. A second sibling is the verbal stem kop-/kob- “rise” (Cf. A.-Sax. cop, copp “top, summit”) applied to the mounted riding (risen, mounted, climbed, etc.), a precursor of the Türkic kobyla lit. passive “climed” > Lat. caballus “cavalry horse”, used to also designate adult female horse in different aspects (sex, riding horse, draft horse, etc.), the form kob- with -b- is attested by derivatives kobar-, kobor-, kobsa- “lifted, elevated”. The origin of the term for “mare” is obvious, the opposition of “rise” and “risen (upon)” reflects a visual aspect of the mating horses, that term likely ascends to the earliest encounters of the hunters with their horse prey. During millenniums of their lifetime, the kev- and its siblings kav- and kob- were probably numerously conflated. Notably, the Türkic morphological formant elements -čï, -id, -dın, and -za are rated as “rare”, pointing to their status of “guests” within the eastern Türkic languages and thus the “guests” from the western Türkic languages. Semantic extensions of the word keväl, kevel are the Sl. utilitarian notion kobyla “mare, draft horse, docile horse” and Hu. gebe “mare”, “nag (female horse)”, “old skinny workhorse”. This semantic transformation carries a societal load: while the nomadic economy saw keväl as a battle horse, the peasantry saw it as a workhorse, probably a battle horse dumped into second life after retirement. The cavalry < cavalleria became international word that during Late Antique times supplanted the Lat. equites, with a parallel borrowing of the Türkic kobyla > Lat. caballus, in Türkic a name for 4+ years mares that were a preferred staple for the cavalry horses, and a generic allophone in Lat., it in turn may resonate as a reflex of the verb qavčï/kabčï (kabchy) (v.) > kabï + -lа/-lä > kabïlа “assaulter, rusher, attacker”. The accepted alternate etymology for Lat. generic for “horse”, based on the Gk. translations of the Scythian words, where the Türkic kobyla and Lat. caballus, the forms of the Türkic yabu and the Scythian ippa “horse”, which possibly was also applied specifically to mare, as attested by the Scythian derivative ippaka (hippaka) “cheese of mare's milk”. In the alternate yabu, the Ogur form must have had a prosthetic consonant reflected in the Lat. caballus. The non-IE origin of the word is beyond any doubts, the form keväl, with its robust sources, positively attests to its origin. It is also observable that the whole horse-related diverse and fractured lexicon of the “IE” languages ascends to the Türkic vocabulary. See cloud, cob, mare, tick, tuck.

English carny, carnival “festival” ~ Türkic kerme, kirme, kemre “carnival, festivities, fair”, fr. qïrï “merriment, amusement”. There is a conspicuously homophonic verb qïqïr- “shout, cry, scream” that in A.-Sax. sounded cirm(e)/cirman; the qïrï may be a deverbal derivative of qïqïr-, or at least a result of conflated semantics, associating merriment with loudness (see cry). There is a parallel formation bazar fr. baz- “shout, cry, scream”, see bazaar. Cognates: Du. kermis, Dan., kermisattracties, Flemish kermis “fair”, Icl., Sw., Norse, Gmn. karneval; Fr. carnaval, It. carnevale. Other claimed cognates: OPisan carnelevare “raising meat” interpreted as “remove meat”, and MLat. carne vale interpreted as “flesh, farewell!”; these “cognates” obviously do not make any etymological sense. The Türkic kerme fair is traditionally adjunct to a bazar market (see bazaar), but they are not the same, even if there is plenty of market activity at each kerme, like at any fair, carnival, or mass festivities. An annual autumn fair was a backbone of the state, it was an occasion to conduct state business with a head of the state or principality, there were collected annual taxes, held court, and it culminated in folk festivities on the account of the visiting ruler. Attractions traditionally included “competitions of wrestlers and poets, with jugglers and jesters, with horseraces and masquerade”. In the form carnivall, known from the late Middle Age, kerme became a European international term, and in the 20th c. it became an international term across the globe. The folk etymology promulgated by the professional “IE” linguists cites an origin from Lat. carne “meat, flesh” + levare “raise”, with a wretchedly wrenched semantics “'flesh, farewell!”. The claimed connection with the Lent is also unsustainable, since kerme and kermis in the Northern European predate Christianity, they were traditionally conducted annually a few times each year, plus a grand autumn fair. The part -val is apparently a variation of transparent modifications like -terrain, -grounds, -attracties, -jörn, -valen, valer, later -borough and -ville, etc. To the present, in its original Türkic form, the term apparently survived only in the Northern European Dutch, Danish, and Flemish. The Eng. form carny, denoting a fair and not a person, probably survived independently of the later form carnival, which eventually supplanted it. Besides the retention of the olden days celebratory traditions, many drawn through a prism of the specifically European Christian adaptations, the ritualistic couple kerme/kermis and Yule constitutes an indelible case of paradigmatic transfer, attesting to a common linguistic and cultural origin. See bazaar, cry, Yule.

(Skip) English Charlemagne (king) ~ Türkic Charla-mag “call for glory”, from čağrı (ğ is silent) “call”, -la adj., adv. suffix + maɣ “glory, fame”; čağrı+la + maɣ “(one) calling (for) glory” > Charla-mag (Charlemagne). In Sl. languages the proper name Charla turned into eponymic korol, krol (король, кроль) “king”.

English clan “people related by blood or marriage” and ulan “young man, usually with military connotations” ~ Türkic oglan, uhlan, ulan, oğla:n (ğ = silent g) “offspring, son, boy”. The root ög- (ö:g) is “mother”, og (ok) is “clan, inheritance” lit. “arrow” and metaphorically “family, tribe, familial branch, stock” with semantic extensions, la:n is an ancient Türkic suffix forming names of living creatures, Cf. arslan “lion”, bakla:n “lamb”, bula:n “elk”, čoğla:n “title”, jila:n “snake”, kaplan “tiger”, kula:n “kulan, onager”, yala:n “liar”, yamla:n “hamster”, etc. The oglan “of mother” is irrespective of sex, in Türkic it came to mean “boy” and such, while the Celtic retained a genderless meaning “offspring”. The form ulan is an obvious recent (Middle Age) borrowing from the Türkic military lingo probably ascending to the Hunnic times on. The form clan with elided or omitted o- (standard Etruscan spellings with vowel harmony implying dropped vowels except one) fr. the same word hails from the Early Classical Time, but speculated “likely via Etruscan”. The reference to the Etruscan, from before the concept of the Kurgan waves was recognized, is based on the 20th c. reading of the Etruscan inscriptions, where clan means “son”. The last 3,000 years had developed a slew of forms and meanings for oglan/ulan: “son” and its derivatives “offspring, youth, young man, hero, strongman, warrior, noble, rider, cavalryman, militiaman, descendant, clan of descendants, clan, family, stock”, and possibly hundreds more semantic derivatives across numerous different linguistic families. Cognates: OIr. cland “offspring, tribe”, Gaelic clann “family, stock, offspring”; Etruscan clan “son”, clan(l)ar “sons” with elided or unarticulated -l-. Notably, one of the Türkic pl. forms, oğlanım, carries carries a Heb. pl. suffix -im. That form may hail from the 3rd mill. BC Near Eastern Semitic influence. The Celtic form may be the oldest on the record, coming from the time of the Celtic departure from the Eastern Europe to Iberia ca. 5th-4th mill. BC. Notably, Celtic had preserved the original basic notion “of mother”. Immensely important, Celtic had also carried a synonymic tuath “clan”, a derivative of the Türkic verb töle:-/döle:- “parturition, birthing, farrow”, lit. “of motherhood”. The paradigmatic transfer of the two Türkic synonyms conclusively attests to the common origin of the Celtic and Türkic. As one of the most intimate terms of kinship, the underlying word “son” is most stable within its original milieu, it is not borrowed by the host languages to replace the native word for “son”, but is extensively borrowed as a concrete noun with non-intimate semantics: “boy, youngster, brave, warrior (usually light duty), servant, helper, prince, commander”, etc., with an emphasis on a military and princely status. Due to specific dialectal forms and distribution patterns, the word is uniquely positioned for historical and geographical tracing. The suggested “IE etymology” fr. Lat. planta “offshoot, sprout”, fr. unattested plantare “to plant”, a cognate of “place, drive in”, with a substitution of k- for p-, does not hold the water. Against the attested evidence no covetous speculation is needed, the attested Celtic and Etruscan evidence is way older than the Lat. language, the suggested lexical metamorphoses are implausible, the suggested “PIE proto-word” “to spread, flat” is delusory in fact and in application. The universal absence of the word oglan/clan in the Germanic languages attests to the demographic predominance of the natives versus the Türkic demographic minority. This single word is uniquely illuminating for the individual lexemes and for classes of lexemes an established pattern of the historical layers.

English courage (n.), courageous (adj.) “bravery, brave” ~ Türkic kür/gür (adj.) “courageous, brave, daring, stout-hearted”. The Türkic notion “bravery” is connected with the notion of “heart”, that linkage was transmitted as a paradigmatic transfer into the European languages, e.g. A.-Sax. heorte, Lat. cor; Gk. kardia (καρδια) “heart”, vs. Chuv. chäre (chere), OT yürek; Mong. kirüge “heart” (see the Eurasian forms for heart). Cognates: A.-Sax. craeft (cræft, cräft) “strength, might, courage”, heorte “heart, courage”; OFr corage (12c.) “innermost feelings; temper, wrath, pride, confidence, lustiness, or any sort of inclination”, a vague mush quite remote from bravery, but in reality just simple “courage”, Lat. cor “heart”, It. coraggio, Sp. coraje. The suggested OE cognate ignores the A.-Sax. cräft “courage” and instead suggests semantically incongruent A.-Sax. ellen “zeal, strength”, another Türkic word ellen- “rule”, see Hellen. From the “IE” listing of English synonyms, one would think that none of the English ethnic ancestors had any courage: they managed to live without a native word for it, a delusory proposition. Extracting the English (and others') bravery from the Lat. cor “heart” is dubious, the term has its own independent etymology ascending to the attested Türkic word for heart, rightfully expressed in the English idiom “to have heart to do something”. The Türkic kür shows up both in A.-Sax. cräft and Fr. corage. The close phonetic and precise semantic match attests to the common genetic origin, the proximity of the forms kür/gür “courage” and her/kor/kir “heart” make the primacy fuzzy and support direct and metaphorical origin. That is illustrated by the A.-Sax. heorte, both “heart” and “courage”. The distribution points to the Türkic languages bridging Lat., Gk., and Gmc. on one end and Mong. on the other end; the Mong. forms are positively identified as Türkic loanwords adopted during the Second Period. On the Eurasian scene, the kür/gür as a title Kur “brave” occupied a salient place for over 3 millennia. The title Kur is first attested in Mesopotamia in ca 2400 BC Akkadian cuneiform inscriptions as a title or name of the horse nomadic Gutian king’s Kurum, with the Akkadian ending -(i)um, long before the arrival of the “IE” vernaculars to the Near East. Later, in few allophonic forms (Kir, Chur, Chor, Gur), it figures as a popular name (Persian, Cf. Cyrus), it was ubiquitous in the Türkic names and titles (Cf. Kurbat, Gurkhan), it was recorded in the Germanic milieu as “courage”, and adopted in the Romance vernaculars meaning “brave”. See heart, Hellen.

English cousin “relative, nephew, cousin”, originally “mother's sister's son” ~ Türkic qazïn (OTD also offers forms qadïn, qaδïn, qajïn) “relatives by marriage on female side” from the Türkic stem qïz- “girl” (see girl), with possessive suffix of 3rd pers. -ïn “female's (relative)”; also applies to qaδïn male relatives by marriage. Cognates: It. cugino; Dan., Norse kusine; Sw. kusin, Alb. kushëri, Pol. kuzyn; all directly from the same Türkic qazïn. Naturally, Türkic has a counterpart word for the relatives on the male side bösük, bisük, expressed as Buzuk (likely, Büzük) in the Oguz tribal structure. The notion that French could educate English on the word cousin is laughable, the word was around much earlier than the French were; the French could pick it up from the Sarmatian Burgunds, Burgundian Cathars, or the Franks. The IE's deriving cousin from the Lat. calque consobrinus “cousin”, originally “mother's sister's son” (not daughter) is a phonetically and semantically unsustainable shot in the dark. Unlike the Türkic family, the “IE” family has no common word for “cousin”, attesting for a need to invent numerous native words, and a need to have this word in the native lexicons. That points to individual histories far beyond the Italo-Celtic origin somewhere between the 3rd and well into the 1st mill. BC. The loss of semantic specificity (male vs. female) is normal in adoption of the word into alien native languages. In English, -i- is not articulated, the same as -ï- in Türkic. G. Clauson specifically cites Kashgari I 403 in respect to the form kazın: in Kipchak with -z-, i.e. kazın - Yağma:, Tuxsi:, Kıpchak, Yaba:ku:, Tatar, Ka:y, Čumul, Oğuz. Given the accurate phonetic and semantic match between Türkic and English cognates, and the mass of the other common terms of kinship, the common genetic connection is inescapable. See baby, brother, dad, father, kin, mama, mother, papa, son, youth.
78

(Skip) English crime (n.) “evil act” ~ Türkic krmšuhn (krmshuhn) (v.) “mercy, ask for mercy”. This is a most interesting case: OTürkic does not have a word for “crime”, instead it has names for specific transgressions: kill, steal, lie, betray, etc. The “IE” does not have a sensible etymology, Lat. crimen “charge, indictment, accusation; crime, fault, offense” from cernere “to decide, to sift” is clearly not defensible; an unattested “IE” *cri-men for “cry of distress” is no better. In English, the word “crime” showed up only in 13th c. as “sinfulness”, which semantically harkens back to “forgiveness”, thus matching the Türkic word both phonetically and semantically. The Lat. crimen “fault, offense” also belongs to the semantic cluster “sinfulness, forgiveness, mercy, ask for mercy”. In Türkic, from the stem krm- can be produced practically any derivative connected with requirement for clemency. The loss of the part - šuhn (shuhn) or any suffixes is reasonable, considering the distance between Eastern Europe and Western Europe, and probably way more than that with a millennium of propagation. The semantic expansions are consistent with other lexical transformations from the Türkic.

English culture (n.) “art, manners, knowledge, and values favored by a society” ~ Türkic kültür-, költür- (v.) “bind, fetter” (EDT 717, OTD 326 “to harness”). Ultimately fr. the verb köl-/göl- “harness, rein in, subdue, tame”. An opposing notion is expressed with the noun/adjective kal/qal “wild”, Cf. derivative keyik/geyik “wild animal” formed with concrete noun suffix -k, and concrete name for wild animal, qоlan/kulan/qulan “wild ass”. Typical for Türkic languages, contrasting notions are formed from phonetically near-identical lexemes, and the opposition of the front and back vowels serve as a prime phonetic mechanism. The pair köl-/göl- and kal/qal provides a strong support in favor of the Türkic etymology. Today, culture is a universal international word with unlimited semantic field that depicts phenomena from a strain of microbes to art and human behavior. Astonishingly, this most significant cultural word does not have a credible PIE or “IE” etymology. The “IE” philology is ascending the origin of the word culture to colony (n.) “settled land, farm, landed estate; husbandman, tenant farmer, settler in new land; to inhabit, cultivate, frequent, practice, tend, guard, respect” ~ pp. of colere “to till” > cult (n.) “worship, particular form of worship; care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence; tended, cultivated” > culture (n.) “tilling of land; cultivating, agriculture; care, an honoring”, with no attested “IE” or PIE cognates outside of the European area. That line of argumentation is clearly a reverse projection based on phonetic resemblance of unrelated notions. The “IE etymology” discipline must be given a full credit for an extensive record of concocting most incredible linguistic scenarios. The Türkic verb kültür-, in contrast, directly alludes to a shaped “art, manners, knowledge, and values” that as concrete objects may apply to the land cultivation, bound piece of land, and the prized social aspects of life like “art, manners, knowledge, and values”. To suggest that cultural refinement waited from deep antiquity to the 1500 AD to be named is abomination: in Türkic societies youngsters were traditionally turned over to the mother's father to be properly shaped (e.g. constrained, bridled) in the art of life. The difference between kültür- and költür- is strictly dialectal (or even preferential, like tomāto and tomato), the -ö- and -ü- are readily interchangeable (kösä-, küsä-, “to wish”, kösät-, küzat-, “to guard”, etc.), transcription largely depends on the origin and availability of the sources, and notably, the runiform alphabet did not distinguish between -ö- and -ü-, denoting them with the same letter. The Türkic köl- “harness” positively can be applied to cultivated field, like the Lat colere, with no bearing on arts and manners.

English dad, daddy (n.) “father” (Sw N/A, F223, 0.09%) ~ Türkic dede:, dedä (n.) “father”. Like other Türkic terms of relationship, dede: is a notional term, with a general notion “ancestor, elder”, and in different contexts may mean and stick as father, grandfather, uncle, grandmother, and, like its European counterparts, the word may denote terms of relationship or respect (like papa of Christian clergy) or affection (toward an elder); lit. and formal translations are not always accurate: Dede Korkut (EDT Korkud) means “Elder, Ancient, Ancestor, Progenitor Korkut”, not a “Father or Grandfather Korkut”. The “IE etymology” easily came up with an idea “probably derived from baby talk”, and the like little educated pearls, implying that it is so obvious for the babies to identify their fathers with daddies that babies of widely diverse human trunks spontaneously invented the same word. Türkic has seven roots to refer to ancestral relatives: aba (Lat. ava), ace (allophones ece, eče:, ečü, ede (Norse edda, Sp. edad “age”), eke:), ata, baba, dedä, kök, tüp; of these, ata (allophones father, eðel), dedä (allophone dad), baba (allophone papa) endured into the modern Eng., some (dad, papa) are rated as colloquial, apparently in reference to the other Gmc. languages presumed as standard. Daddy appears as a paradigmatic transfer, with synonymous eðel and father, both are allophones of atta “father”, and papa allophone of baba, babai “father”, originally each one with its semantical nuance. To miss this screaming paradigm would take either a ton of ignorance or a strenuous effort by a partisan aficionado. The allophones of dedä are sown across Eurasia, mostly as concrete nouns. Cognates, west to east: Ir. daid, Welsh tad, thaid, Lat., Gk., Cz. tata, Lith. tete, Sl. ded (with allophones) “granddad, old man”; Bosn. deda “granddad”, Bulg dyado (дядо) “uncle”; Skt. tatah, Hindi dada (दाद); Ch. yeyey (爷爷) “father”. The anlaut transitions d-/ð- (th-)/y- are regular within Türkic languages, but could also be carryovers into the daughter languages. These few examples cover the extent of the Eurasia, following the Türkic general notion “ancestor, elder” applied to the male line of ancestors and nearest elder male relatives, and transcend linguistic families. At the same time, while extending across Eurasia, the term has a sporadic presence in the “IE” family, attesting to its non-IE origin. The other widespread term for “father” is aba and its allophones, it covers part of the Romance and Semitic groups, the most oft cited are Lat. avus and Heb. abba; also Goth. aba “man, husband”, OIcl. afe, Catalan avi “grandfather”, etc. In addition to the local designation, aba in the sense of “ancestor” was a Türkic alternate name for a “bear”. This other series of examples also cover the extent of the Eurasia, also follow the Türkic general notion “male ancestor, elder”, and transcend linguistic families; in the conventional definition of the linguistic families, they are guests, attesting to their alien origin. The third popular term for “father” is ata, it could be an early phonetic version of apa. Examples are Goth. atta “father, forefather”, OHG. atto, Ir. seanathair “grandfather”, Lat. atta, Gr. atta (αττα), Sl. otets (отец) “father”. Popular derivatives of ata are eðel and Attila, the last engraved on the Scythian coin as Atails (Gk. Ateus (Ατεας, Atheas), turn of 4th-5th cc. BC), a compound of ata “father” and il “land, possession”, an obvious throne name identical semantically and functionally to Attila and Atatürk, among many others; in the Gmc. milieu, the eðel became synonymous with nobility and a popular throne name for Attila's successors. The fourth term for “father” is baba, with allophones standing for the Catholic and other Popes, generic for the Eastern Orthodox priests, and among others the Arm. papik (պապիկ) “grandfather”, Eng. papa, pop, pappy, etc., Fr. papa “father”, Sl. baba “grandma, old woman”. In some instances all the above terms revert to their prime notion of the “ancestor, elder”, and apply to females as a concrete noun (Cf. Sl. baba). The point of the examples is the unfettered Eurasian distribution of the Türkic terms for “father”, unfettered variations of allophones, time depth ascending to the first historical compilations, and paradigmatic transfer of different subsets of the basic complex of seven designations into different languages and linguistic families. Such uniquely developed and multi-faceted paradigmaticity constitutes unfalsifiable evidence attesting to its Türkic roots (Eng. dad, father, and papa; Goth. aba and atta, Sl. ded and otets, Lat. avus and atta). It attests to demographic amalgamations effecting paradigmatic transfers of linguistic complexes from the donor ethnicities to the recipient ethnicities. A close study of the geographic and ethnic prevalence of the various terms may help to discern tendencies and connect the dots in demographic flows. See age, ethel, father, papa, uncle.

English doll (n.) “toy replica of a person” ~ Türkic döl/tö:l “newborn, baby, fetus, (and offspring, progeny, descendants, children, lambing, calf, moment of parturition)”. Cognates: Dan., Norse, Icl. dukk-, Sw. docka; Geor. t’ojina (თოჯინა), all “doll”; Ir. seoil, Gk. toketou (τοκετού); Hu. szülés; Az. doğuš, Mong. törölt (төрөлт), Somali dhal(mada), all “childbirth”; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) telu, (Sl.) tel(ya), tel(enok) (телиться, теля, теленок), Mong. tugal (тугал), Ch. tui 腿, all “calf”. The pattern indicates the prime source as the expression for a baby, taken into a range of languages as a baby animal, and into another group of languages as a childbirth deliver act, and still into another group of languages as a toy baby. Notable is the form common for Ir. and Hu., apparently a Celtic relict in Pannonia, and also a visitor from the Türkic languages into Afro-Asiatic Somali language, either an Ottoman relict, or possibly a trace of the Celtic circum-Mediterranean voyage. The perfect phonetical and semantic match indicate a direct insertion of the term into the local lingua franca, likely via commerce. The speculated “IE etymology” is parochil in light of the Eurasian-wide cognates. In modern Türkic languages, and a number of once neighboring languages, doll is called with allophones of the baby, including palatalized allophonic forms for puppy, another Türkic term for a baby. See baby, puppy.

English earl (n.) “British peer” ~ Türkic yarlïqa-, yarlïɣɣa-, yarlïɣqa- (v.) “to rule”. Ultimately fr. yarğu: “splitter, tribunal”, a deverbal noun derivative fr. yar- “split, cleave”. Cognates: A.-Sax. eorl “leader, chief”, Dan., ONorse jarl “under-king”, viceroys under the Dan. dynasty in England; Gutian Yarğan “Judge, Tribune” (in Akkadian cuneiform records on Gutian rulers, ca. 22nd c. BC); Russ. yarlyk (ярлык) “written certificate”. The title is richly attested in Türkic, G. Clauson (Clauson EDT 963) cites the name-titles Inanču Apa Yarğan Tarxan (8th c. AD) and Boyla Kutluğ Yarğan Suci (9th c. AD) in Türkü and Uigur records, and the Greek records have a regent Organa for Bu-Yurgan (7th c. AD). That position and title were perpetuated in the Bible's Book of Judges, in the Roman Republic, and in the legend of the Round Table of the King Arthur with its Earl tribunes. When the title Yarğa:n came to the attention of the Akkadian scribes it already was not new, then it lasted during the Gutian rule of the Akkkad and Sumer, and it outlived the Akkkadian Empire by more than 3000 years. The title Yarğan names the post of “judge, tribune” rather than “commander”, that is attested by the component Yarğan Suci meaning “Judge - Army Commander”, and the title Earl (a form of Yarğan) at the Round Table. The etymology of the position Yarğan ascends to the word yarğu: “splitter, tribunal, lawsuit, legal decision” denoting a legal tribunal at the head of the tribal administration, “i.e. an instrument for splitting facts and discovering the truth” from the verb yar- “to split, cleave”. The deverbal derivative yarlığ fr. yarlïqa- is a “command (from superior to inferior), edict”, it has civil and military applications, and yarğu:n is a “destroyer, ruiner”, a derivative of the same verb yar- meaning “destroy, ruin” with clear war-time application. (Clauson EDT, ibid) The Türkic verb yarlïqa- (yarlïɣga-) is a derivative of the same verb yar- meaning “to order, to command” (Balkan K., 2000, Relations between the Language of the Gutians and Old Turkish//Journal of Erdemir, c. VI). In the Gmc. languages the title is not a generic “ruler”, but a specific title “ruler”, still carrying the notion of the “Judge, Tribune”, member of the tribunal. The suffix -l- is an adjectival suffix. The Türkic adjectival derivative yarlïg is known from the Mongol times as an inscribed order, given on paper, copper, bronze, silver, or gold, hence the Russ. yarlyk, a written certificate; yarlyks were given to the Rus' Dukes for a right to reign. The “IE etymology” declares affiliation “of uncertain origin”. The Türkic preserved this word as a title, and its usage in Türkic is connected with ruling prerogatives (tаgri yarlïqaduqïn üčün... qagan olurtum “as Heaven behested, I sat a Kagan” (Tonyukuk inscription). The phonetic and semantic consistency demonstrates a peculiar linguistic longevity across a period of four millennia, and the immense geographical spread from China to the British Isles. The title is used in Anglo-Saxon poetry, and in ONorse sagas with allusion to the As rulers. Title's distribution is peculiar and diagnostic, since only a certain part of the Türkic peoples in Europe used that title; neither Alans, nor Burgunds have spread that title in the southwestern Europe. Carryover of the Türkic titles King, Earl, Baron is not only an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to a common genetic connection in demographic and linguistic aspects, but also attests to the ethnic traditions of the ruling elite. Of the above three titles, France only used the late borrowing of Baron. See As, Baron, king.

English elite (n., adj.) “of superior status, the best selected” ~ Türkic elit- (v.) “lead, take away”, a derivative of Türkic verb elga- “distinguish and separate out, sift”. Today, elite, synonymous with lead (n., Cf. “lead engineer”, “leader of a country”, “lead culprit”, “loss leader”) as a status title is an international word, repeated around the globe with minor allophonic variations. Ditto with lead, leader, which addresses the action aspect, i.e. leading the followers, guiding a group. Status aspect cognates: Gmc. elite with various allophones; Welsh elitaidd; OFr. eslite (n., 12c.), elire, elisre (v.) “pick out, choose”, Fr. élite “selection, choice”, Lat. eligere “choose”; Hu. elgarda, all related to status. The Hu. preserved the form of the original root elga- “to separate”, probably a loanword directly from one of its Türkic components. Action aspect cognates: A.-Sax. lædan “cause to go or act; lead a group, guide, show the way, carry on, sprout forth, bring forth”, NFris. lud, luad, WFris. lead, Du. lood, Sw. lod, Gmn. Lot; Ir. luaidhe, Welsh elitaidd, all “lead”. An aspect of physical movement is a metaphorical extension related to going, travel, and such, semantically unrelated to the elite status or action leadership; some trade terms also use the metaphoric term “lead” in fishing, for plumb line, sounding line, etc, exclusively within Gmc. languages including some English. Notably, for “lead, leader” and metaphoric extensions Romance languages use incompatible vocabulary, but they extensively use allophones of the Türkic elga- “separate” for the notions of selection and separation. The presence of the Celtic Ir and Welsh forms points to the presence of the verb elga- in the N. Pontic prior to the Celtic circum-Mediterranean outmigration of the 6th-5th mill BC. The literal carryover of the original semantic aspects of “lead” and “chosen” present an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer attesting to a common genetic connection in demographic and linguistic aspects. The “IE etymology” is confused and confusing, it piles up primary, secondary, and metaphoric meanings and invents unattested tertiary constructs like the PG *laidjan, and PIE *leit- “go”, all the way down to an incredible plumbum (“lead”), as related quasi-real primary sources. See eligible lead, leader.
79

English Erik (n.) “popular name” ~ Türkic erk (n.) “strength, will, might, power”. Cognates: ONorse Eirikr, Gmn. Erich. Erik used to be a very popular name among the Germanic people and in their neighborhoods; in Türkic languages the term refers to power, authority, and independence: erklig “ruler, possessing power, authority, independence”, erklen- (v.) “powerful, authoritative”, etc.; in reference to Almighty it is “mighty, omnipotent”, it is used as a title-name. In self-imposed impotence, the “IE etymology” borders on lunacy, with the initial e- standing for “PG” *aiza- “honor”: aizarex “honorable king”. An etymological irony is that the Lat. rex in that unreal “Germanic” compound is an allophone of the Türkic arïɣ “clean, untainted”, a popular element in title-names of the rulers, paralleling that of the “saint”. See Arthur.

English equal (adj.) “equivalent” ~ Türkic eŋil, egil, (adj.) “common, ordinary, commoner”, also “poor”. Ultimately a deverbal noun/adj. derivative of the verb eŋil-, egil- “bent, bowed, bend, stoop, crawl”, a derivative of the verb eŋ-, eg- “bend, bow, fold, twist”. Forms with anlaut eŋ- are thought to be older, they are found in less than 10% of the Türkic languages: Turkmen, Turkish, Uzbek, and Saha (Yakut); that identification helps to asses timing and the area of the origin. The notion of physical equality must have existed as far back as exchanges and trade, it is immeasurably older than the 14th c. astrological notion of equality expressed by the European “equal”, with each language having its own means to express it. For example, along with other native expressions, A.-Sax. used a geminated Türkic suffix -lig “like” as a compound (ge)liclic for comparative equality. Cognates: the European philology classed the word as “of unknown origin”, there's no surprise there; A.-Sax. gel(lef)-, gel(if)- (in ungellef-, ungelif- “(extra, non-)ordinary”); Welsh gyf-; OFr. egal, Lat. aequalis “uniform, identical, equal”, aequus “even”; Mong. egel (егел), engiyn (энгийн) “ordinary”.. The Celtic forms do not belong to the cognate list, the Welsh full form gyfartal ascends to the number 1 (one), Cf. Sl. odinakovyi (одинаковый) “uniform” fr. odin (один) “1”, like the Ir. coimheid and Gaelic co-ionnan; all three Celtic examples are post-migration innovations. A.-Sax. used gellef-, gelif for “common, ordinary, commoner”, and the pan-Gmc. “even” for “equal” (A.-Sax. efen, Goth. ibna, OHG. eban), implying that gellef-, gelif specifically referred to a lower class, poor folks. That is consistent with the Türkic word being adopted as a diminishing moniker before it grew to a slogan for justice, “liberty, equality, fraternity”. The French Revolution made this word international, its reflexes are at least known throughout the world. Morphologically and phonetically, aequalis, egal, and egel came to Lat., Fr., and Mong. via separate paths, the Fr. probably directly from the Burgund Sarmats, with the Türkic semantics related to the status of people; the A.-Sax. had its own gel- “ordinary” independently fr. Lat. and Fr.; Mong. directly from Hunnic or Türkic. The Mongolian word is likely a Hunnic heritage from the days in 93 AD when 100,000 Hunnic families numbering 500,000+ people submitted to the ruling minority of the Syanbi (pin. Xianbei 鮮卑) Mongols, essentially making the Hunnic language a language of the Syanbi. The four independent reflexes with identical and overlapping semantic attest to a common source that endowed four major languages with the allophones of the Türkic egil carrying the notion of ordinariness, equality, evenness, and commonality. The grammatical functions, phonetics and semantics are congruent and near perfect. The Fr. and A.-Sax. forms are intermediary between the Türkic egil and the modern Eng. equal, the forms egal and equal were used in parallel for four centuries. On new soil and in new times, the original social equality added aspects of mathematical equality, chemical equivalence, financial equity, and many other facets as time required. In this case the “IE etymology” came out good by not trying to concoct something like ex + cue with loony PIE roots and tortured semantics.

English evil (adj., n.) “harmful” ~ Türkic uvul-, opul-, öpel-, öpül-, uyul- (v.) “collapse, squeeze, subside, suck in, swallow”, where the ul-/el-/ül- is a passive marker “sucked in, etc”. The verbal stem uv- “crush, grind, rub, wring” has a very physical origin, probably associated with food and material processing, but its derivatives also carry metaphorical notions, the form uvul- conveys an abstract notion of “demise, demised”, perpetuated to posterity by Tr. and Gmc. languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. yfel “bad, evil, wicked, wretched, worse”, OSax. ubil, OFris., MDu. evel, Du. euvel, Goth. ubils, OHG. ubil “evil”, Gmn. übel; Hitt. huwapp- “evil”. The minor phonetic dispersion attests to fairly late migratory scattering, probably by the 2nd c. BC Sarmat refugees escaping assault of invaders from the Central Asian interfluvial (Yablonsky L. et al, 2010) that created the European Sarmatia and Germania; the uniform distribution among the diverse Gmc. languages makes the late origin from the Western Hunnic phylum unlikely. The Hitt. form attests to much earlier presence of the word, predating 2000 BC, adding doubts to the “IE” classification of the Hittite language based on its other distinctions consistent with the traits of the Türkic linguistic family (agglutination, absence of grammatical gender, etc.). The word has no distribution across the “IE” family, the faux “PIE reconstruction” preposterously expands a distribution confined to the Gmc. and Tr. languages to the entire “IE” family (Cf. “IE” Lat. mal “evil”, and its widespread derivatives). The Türkic origin is attested by functional and semantic continuity, and perfect phonetic correspondence. The words evil and bad entered Eng. as a paradigm, shared by Tr. and Gmc. groups, with a similar peculiar distribution, the paradigmatic transfer renders the Türkic origin incontestable. See bad, voe, worse.

Start 8/30/2018 Stop

English father (n.) “male parent” (Sw43, F240, 0.07%) ~ Türkic ata “father”. It can be reasonably conjectured that the forms aba, ace, ata, baba, dedä, plus a stray aga, are archaic allophones of a single root expressing a notion “old, senior”. Türkic root ata is predominately “father” with an underlying notion “ancestor”, at times “paternal uncle”, and metaphorically “prince”, “tutor”, (Moslem) clergy, and such. Notable is the idiom ata adam “ancestral man”, “primogenitor”, with dependent ata “father, ancestor” preceding the head adam “man, Adam”. That idiom was a natural precursor for the Biblical name Adam (see Adam), predating the age of the spoken Bible. Türkic has seven roots to refer to ancestral relatives: aba (Lat. ava), ace (allophones ece, eče:, ečü, eke: “age”, ata, baba, dedä, kök, tüp, ede with Norse edda, Sp. edad “age”; of these, ata (allophones father, eðel), dedä (allophone dad), baba (allophone papa) endured into the modern Eng., some (dad, papa) are rated as colloquial, apparently in reference to the other Gmc. languages rated as standard or to some literary language. In some instances all the above terms revert to their prime notion of the “ancestor, elder”, and apply to females as a concrete noun (Gmc. languages exclusively to males and paternal line). Like other Türkic terms of relationship, ata is a notional term, with a general notion “ancestor, elder”, and in different contexts may mean, and be so fossilized, as father, grandfather, uncle, grandmother, and, like its European counterparts, the word may denote terms of relationship or respect (like “Father Christmas” for Santa Claus, “father” for Christian clergy) or affection (toward an elder). Gmc. practice is a calque of the Türkic practice, “father” with concrete (Cf. A.-Sax. feder, Gmn. vetter “paternal uncle”) and metaphorical (“ancestor, founder, predecessor”) extensions. Gmc. group has a pronounced prosthetic anlaut v- (f-), typical for words starting with vowel (vetter, feder), Mediterranean and Asian branches have the p- version of v- (pater, patria, etc); the t-/d-/th- alteration runs across linguistic branches (Cf. pater/padre, Goth. atta “father, forefather”, Gmc. ethel, etcel); the suffix -er/-ar is an agent suffix, its presence in numerous European and Asian languages emanating from the 3rd-2nd mill. BC E. Europe attest that the meaning of ata there and at that time was “ancestor”, and atar/ater was a denoun agent derivative. The Türkic plural collective suffix -dVr (-der/-ter/-ther, -dar/-tar/-thar, etc.) was once very productive and may ascend as far back as the Neolithic times, contemporaneous with other cognates from the most archaic lexicon. It is used as a sign of respect, i.e. pl. you vs. sing. thou, a form habitually used by self-aggrandizing personalities and in the E. Europe as a traditional pl. appellation for mother and father not infected by Russ. sing. appellation, Cf. čavındır, čavuldur, čavundur, čavdır “(You) famed” (čav “fame”), Bayındır/Bayındur – ruling dynasty of Ak Koyunlu confederation, Onogundur (Bulgars), etc. The Gmc. transition from pl. to sing. semantics attests that the appellation was picked up by languages that adopted form and substance but missed the semantic nuance. For the verbal stems, the suffix forms an energetic notion (causative, energetic mood), still active in Türkic languages. The connection with the E. Europe is established and dated genetically as a source of the southeastern migrations of the originally European folks. Cognates: A.-Sax. fæder “father, male ancestor”, OSax. fadar, OFris. feder, Du. vader, ONorse faðir, OHG fater, Gmn. vater; OIr. athir “father”; Sl. otets (отец); Skt. pitar-; OPers pita; Basque aita “father”. The OIr. form with agent suffix, and its Basque counterpart may attest that the agent suffix -er/-ar ascends to the 2800 BC Celtic coming to Europe via Africa, and earlier to the Celtic departure from the N. Pontic area in the previous millennia, i.e. to the period around 5,000 BC., before the appearance of the prosthetic v-/f-/p with the European refugees later in the 4th mill. BC. The Sl. form is a direct adaptation of ata, in parallel and independent of the prosthetised forms, in the E. Europe ata and otets interspersed and co-existed. The OPers pita vs. Skt. pitar- attest that at the point of departure in the 3rd mill. BC both forms co-existed. The “IE etymology” intimates that father ascends to the “PIE” *átta, and *ph₂tḗr, which are obvious reflexes of the Türkic root ata, with some ingenious phonetical exercises and complete immunity to reality. In fact, the “IE etymology” unwittingly asserts that the “PIE” origin equates to the Türkic origin, a fatal anathema in the “IE” linguistics. An alternative would be to expand the non-existent definition of the PIE concept to include Türkic family as a daughter branch of the PIE trunk. That would give the PIE theory some breathing room, but with terrible consequences. In Eng., father appears as a paradigmatic transfer case, with synonymous dad, eðel and papa; father and eðel are allophones of ata “father”, and dad is an allophone of dedä “father”, originally each one conveying its semantic nuance. To miss this screaming paradigm would take either a ton of ignorance or a strenuous effort by a partisan aficionado. The examples demonstrate unfettered Eurasian distribution of the Türkic terms for “father”, unfettered variations of allophones, time depth ascending way beyond the first historical compilations, and paradigmatic transfer of different subsets of the basic complex of seven designations into different languages and linguistic families. Such uniquely developed and multi-faceted paradigmaticity constitutes unfalsifiable evidence attesting to its Türkic roots (Eng. dad, father, and papa; Goth. aba and atta, Sl. ded and otets, Lat. avus and atta, Swahili/Bantu baba, Kor. abeoji, Mong aav). It attests to demographic amalgamations effecting paradigmatic transfers of linguistic complexes from the donor ethnicities to the recipient ethnicities. A close study of the geographic and ethnic prevalence of the various terms may help to discern tendencies and connect the dots in demographic flows. See age, ethel, dad, papa, uncle.

English folk (n.) “people” ~ Türkic bölük, bölök (n., adj.) “subdivision, group, part, fraction”. Ultimately a derivative fr. the verb bӧl- “divide, separate” with a deverbal adjectival suffix -ük, -ök “separated, detached”, bölük covers an immense semantic spectrum: “section, part, share, separate, different, district, group, band, flock, villages, province, distinguish”. It is mostly reflected in its most visible administrative-military-political aspects, as for an autonomous province, district, for a unit of army, division, regiment, squadron, for province, district; the other meanings and shades belong to a casual speech, like a flock of animals. As a title-name in the Western Hunnic annalistic context, it is mentioned as Βαλαχ, Βαλας lit. “separated, autonomous”, i.e. an autonomous Hunnic ruler, for phonetical resemblance the European-driven onomastic studies suggested its etymology as a calf or buffalo. The Eng. and Gmc. usage is consistent with the Türkic semantics and collective appellation, save for the flock of animals and the like. The ubiquity of the word in the A.-Sax. lexicon is demonstrated by more than 70 forms and derivatives, a number of them are compounds of two Türkic words. Cognates: A.-Sax. folc “folk, people, nation, tribe, collection or class of persons, troop, army”, folcagende “ruling”, folcstede “battlefield, dwelling-place”, OSax. folc, OFris. folk, ONorse folk “army, detachment, people”, OHG folc, MDu. volc, Du. volk, Gmn. Volk “people”; Balto-Sl (Lith.) pulkas “crowd”, (OCS) pluku “regiment, division of an army”, Rus. polk “regiment”. Of the phonetically more remote suggested cognates are the Gk. plethos “people, crowd”, Lat. plebes “populace, commoners”. The transformation b- to p-/f-/v- is a regular affair in the Türkic - Gmc./Balto-Sl./Sl./Gk./Lat. phonetic adaptations, Cf. bürek/bürök “pirogi, pirog (пирог)”, Badjanaq/Beçenek “Patsinak, Pecheneg (Печенег)”, etc. The degree of internalization in the A.-Sax., and in other Gmc. languages points to a period millennia before the coming of the Huns to the Western Europe; the Hunnic form of word, if the pronunciation was significantly different from the Gmc., could only overlay on the existing lexicon. The Lat. and Gk. forms point to separate paths, possibly connected with the return of the European farmers from the Eastern European refuge back to the Western Europe ca. 2nd mill. BC. That dating roughly coincides with the southeastern Aryan outmigration from the Eastern European refuge, apparently without a bölük/folk in their daily vocabulary. That is consistent with the observation that only a small portion of the European vocabulary reached the South-Central Asia. The absence of cognates in the Celtic languages attests that the word formed after the Celtic circum-Mediterranean departure from the Eastern Europe of the 6th-5th mill. BC. Spectacularly, the Celtic (Ir.) cognates balis, balisau, palis, palisau, phalis, phalisau “divide, separate” of the root bӧl- “divide, separate” have survived for 8-6 millennia, attesting to the existence of that root among the Y-DNA R1b ancestors in the pastoral and hunter-gatherer Mesolithic Eastern Europe.

English gadding (n.) “kinsman, fellow, companion”, gad (v.) “rove about” ~ Türkic qad/qat “near, about, at, with others”, qadaš, kadaš (ka:daš, cadash) “kin, relative, relatives, brother, confederate” formed with denominal suffix of association -daš. Ultimately a derivative of qa, ka “family”, homophonous with qa, ka “vessel” (Cf. Eng. cap, cup) and obviously genetically connected with it. Socially, in the daily life, the semantics “friend, confederate” is most popular, it survived into modern English in general, and in sailing lingo as a noun gadabout “friend, confederate” and verb gad “rove about”. Cognates: A.-Sax. gada, cuða “comrade, companion, relative”, gædeling, ME gadeling “kinsman, fellow, companion in arms”, Gmn. gatte “spouse” (synonymous with Gemahl “to do together”), “mate”, “partner” synonymous with Sozius “with union”, “husband” (synonymous with Gemahl “to do together”); Ir. ceath-, Welsh cyd-; Hu. kat-, Fin. kav-. Notably, the word is shared by Celtic, A.-Sax. and Türkic, but is nearly absent in Gmc. and absent in “IE” languages, accentuating the ancient origin of the word ascending to the 6th-5th mill. BC in case of Celtic, and to the end of 1st mill. BC in case of A.-Sax. , and a different paths of A.-Sax. and Gmc. Türkic strata. The “IE etymology” is non-existent, not even “of unknown origin”. The significance of the cited synonym Sozius is in its Türkic origin from the root uz “union, partnership”, known fr. Sl. Souz (like in CCCP/USSR) and Kazakh and Usun Juzes (Unions), in this case we have three Gmn. synonyms derived from three Türkic synonyms (qad/uz/mak- vs. gatte/-zius/mahl), a salient case of paradigmatic transfer and genetic connection.

English gaffe (n.) “awkward act” ~ Türkic ɣaflät, ɣafillïq (n.) “inattention, carelessness”. Cognates: Eng. goof “awkward, stupid”; Fr. gaffe “clumsy remark”, linked to OProvenčal gaf, which in turn leads to the Burgundians, a Sarmatian horse nomadic tribe of Vandals, “Wanderers”, in the Classical sources (Theophylact Simocatta ) identified with the Türkic Bulgars; Pers. ɣavɣa “turmoil, tumult”; Arabic ɣaflät, ɣafillïq “inattention, carelessness, indifference”. The “IE etymology” piles up numerous unrelated homophones, semantically all wacky. All three surviving Türkic forms (ɣafillïq, ɣaflät, ɣaflet) have Türkic suffixes, attesting that the Arabic ɣafillïq with the Türkic (and English) suffix -lïq is a loanword from the Türkic.

English George (n.) “patron of England, royal name” ~ Türkic urï (n.) “son”. Cognates: LLat. Georgius; Gk. Georgos; Sl. Georgy, Üry (Георгий, Юрий). The Sl. form Üry clearly points to the original etymology, the anlaut g- in the western forms reflects the Ogur version of the name with a prosthetic consonant. The suggested Gk. etymology “husbandman, farmer”, fr. ge “earth” + ergon “work” is more than dubious, and would not come about without unwitting use of the Gk. allophones of the Türkic generic yer “earth, land” (Cf. the Scythian Gerra “land of our ancestors” with prosthetic anlaut g-) and ergü “strength, power, force”. Ironically, St. George, a Türkic “son”, after half a millennium of trepidations experienced by the western European lands at the hands of the Asiatic nomadic conquistadors starting with Alans still in the pre-Christian world and continuing with the dismemberment of the Roman empire by the Huns and their successors, turned into a supernatural protector from the very same Türkic nomads, who allegorically and single-handedly smote the snake of the nomadic menace.

English gift (n.) “present” ~ Türkic kıv- (v.) “give”, kıv (n.) “gift”. The A.-Sax. deverbal noun is giefu, giefe “gift”, to giefe, giefes “grace, favor”, it carried the sacral underpinning of the verb qïv-, kïv- “give, bestow (grace, blessing, supreme favor)” documented in the sources (formulaic kïv kut “bestow grace, fortune”); it is a noun component of a tri-verbal paradigmatic transfer (qïv- “bless, confer”, bağıš- “bestow, grant”, ber- “give, bring, bear”, see give). Cognates: A.-Sax. giefu/giefe/giefeo/giefi/giefy (to giefe, giefes) “gift”, ONorse gift, giþt “gift; good luck”, OSax. gift, OFris. jefte (yefte), MDu. ghifte “gift”, Gmn. Mitgift “dowry”. The ONorse has preserved the original notion of “good luck”: “heaven-given fortune”, a lit. content of the formulaic idiom kïv kut (see God). The “IE etymology” blunder blind, inventing an incredible “PIE” cognate *ghabh- “give or receive” from habit “behavioral pattern”, and citing in support the unrelated Sw. homophone gift “poison” as a cognate. Conversely, the forms qiv, kiv are attested, supported by converging phonetic and semantic molds, and even carry the archaic primary notion of being blessed with heavenly grace. The etymology is clear and obvious, without a need for unbelievable ingenuity. See bear, bestow, give, God.

English girl (n.) “maiden” ~ Türkic kyr (qyr, kyz, qyz, khyz, spelled kïr, kïz, qïr, qïz, χïz) (n.) “girl”. The complimentary forms kïr and kïz reflect the Ogur and Oguz pronunciation respectively. Cognates: OE (14th c.) gyrle “child” (of either sex), predictably “of unknown origin”; Low Gmn. gære “boy, girl”, Norw. dial. gorre, Sw. dial. gurre “small child”; the attestation of use for male child is obscure and quite unlikely, historically the difference between male and female children was paramount; Sum. gal, gašan (gashan) “girl” is attested fr. the 3rd mill. BC. The form qyr with auslaut -r is recorded in the derivatives qïrnaq “slave-girl, young slave-girl, concubine”, qïrqïn “slave-girl, concubine”; the form with auslaut -d is recorded in derivatives quduz, quδuz “previously married woman”, quδurčüq “doll”; the form with auslaut -z is recorded in kïz, qïz “girl”, and in Ch. 妻子 qïzi “wife”; the form with anlaut χ- is recorded in χïz “girl, daughter”; the form with auslaut -z is common in languages of Oguz-Kipchak branch. In English, -i- is not articulated, the same as -ï- in Türkic; the auslaut -l in girl is a Türkic adj. suffix. On the status of the girls in Viking society we have testimony of Ibn Fadlan, the local girls were maids and concubines of travelling princely traders; that status grossly contrasts with the status of native girls in the pre-Islamic Türkic society, where females enjoyed full equality, girls had sexual freedom, and in the property matters females had a status higher than that of the males. The stories on Amazons, Scythians and the native mythology provide a glance into female warriors. The Viking girls of Ibn Fadlan are likely of local Fennic extraction held as slave-maidens. In English and Gmc. languages, the term girl comes with a constellation of other Türkic terms for relatives, in English: cousin, father, kin, papa, son, youth; notable of that line-up, the term for “mother”, the Türkic ana/ani, is profoundly missing. That points that Türkic males supplanted the local males, but mothers were local, and local terms of Türkic extraction were used for “mother”, i.e. “mama” and its derivative “mother”, see mama, mother. Such nearly complete displacement of local males has been detected by archeological studies, discriminating, for example, between the Early and Late Sarmatians. At the same time around 150 BC as the Early Sarmatian Uraloid males disappeared from the Urals area, new Sarmatian tribes of Vandal “Wanderers” popped up in the Baltics and Poland river valleys, and pressed on the Scythians in Ukraine and Rumania, changing again the demographic and cultural picture in the Central Europe. The Sum. form attests to the temporal path Sum. > Türkic > English. The Chinese form attests to the cultural influence of the Zhou “Scythians” in forming the Chinese nation and language, the qïzi “wife” still has connotations separate from a regular wife, furen “wife, mrs., madam”. See cousin, father, kin, mama, mother, papa, son.

English groom (n., v.) “stable hand” ~ Türkic görüm(čï) “groom, stable hand”. The compound ascends to the base root gör-/ kör- “look, look after” + abstract noun suffix –üm + instrumental suffix –čï, lit. “looker, watcher”. Türkic languages have used dozens of native appellations for the notion “groom”. Probably, that was a result of two factors: grooms were not needed within the nomadic society, where every family tended to their own horses, and the appearance of stables and stud farms outside of the nomadic societies that employed nomadic expertise to breed their own horses. Thus, the appellation görümčï, like its numerous synonyms, were of insular, not universal nature, and appeared fairly late, toward the end of the Antique period. Cognates: “No known cognates in other Gmc. languages”; no known “IE” cognates either. The Türkic source is beyond doubts, c.f. Bulg.-Sl. calque (kone)glyadach (конегледач) “looker after (horses)”, Rum. grajdar “groom”, calque mire “look (after)”.

English guard (n.) “defender, protector, guardian” ~ Türkic, körüg, görüg, qaraɣü (n.) “lookout, guard”, garavul-, karaul- (v.) “watch, guard, sentry”, fr. kör- (v.) “see”. Semantically, guard is a surrounding protection, akin a to defensive wall, that is echoed in the nearly homophonic qur (n.) “sash, belt”, qur- (v.) “arrange, build, line up, gather, stretch”, Cf. Goth. gards, garths “enclosure”, Russ. karaul (караул) “guard”, see gird. Either one could have produced a derivative “guard”, phonetics supports both alternatives, but the Baraba karaul- “distant look” and “gun sight” weighs on the side of the kör- (v.) “see”. See gaze, gird, grave.

English guest (n.) “visitor”, host “owner, receiver” ~ Türkic göster, köster, közter- (n., v., adj., adv.), stem of göster(mek) “to show, guide”. Derived fr. körtgür-/görtgür- “show”, ultimately a causative form of kör- “see, look, obey, experience” with inserted euphonic -t-. “There is obviously a very old etymological connection with kör-” (Clauson EDT 756), i.e. what started as kör- (v.) had developed into köz/köz “gaze, eye, sight, spring, aperture” and shifted to gös- (v.) and gös- (n.), Cf. gaze. The labyrinth of changes is mind-boggling, but clearly traceable. With agglutinated suffixes, the Türkic stem produces both active and passive verbs, which in turn produce derivative nouns: göstermek “to show”, gösterdi “to be shown”, hence the bifurcated semantics of the noun guest and host retained in the Gmc. and Sl. languages, in Lat., and in Greek. The Türkic word is endowed with a remarkable variety of forms, some languages have two or three, varying mostly in the selection of synonymous morphological modifiers. That attests to a wide range of receptor languages and deep timeframe. The notion host may have arisen from a pastoral tradition of a local leader showing to newcomers the local sacred sites, places to settle, and the allotted pastures. Cognates: A.-Sax. gæst, giest (Ang. gest) “guest, enemy, stranger”, OFris. jest, Du., Gmn. gast, Goth. gasts “guest”; OCS gosti (гости) “guest, trader, friend”, hozyain (хозяин) “host” (with aspirated anlaut ɣ- following the Türkic articulation, thus forms with оспод- and Cz. hospodín with h-); Lat. hospes “host”, hostis “enemy”; Gk. xenos “guest, host, stranger”; Skt. jaspatiṣ “head of family”. Slavonic extended semantics to traders and billeting (postoi, постой), hence the gospodi (господи) “lord, master”, with connotation of strangers, and hozayin (хозяин), gospodin (господин) “host, ruler”. The euphonic inlaut -p- (hospes) appears in Lat., Sl., and Skt. forms, replacing the Türkic euphonic -t- (göster). The Sprachbund status of the term can be dated by before the 2000 BC Indo-Arian migration. That may also be an indicator on when an incidental trading turned into a trading profession along the Eurasian steppes. The “IE etymology” manages to come up with separate surmises for guest and host, inventing non-etymologized unattested PG and PIE “proto-words” of the type *gastiz, *ghos-ti- is “guest”, in a circular fashion leading from a supposedly unknown to a nowhere.English guest (n.) “visitor”, host “owner, receiver” ~ Türkic göster, köster, közter- (n., v., adj., adv.), stem of göster(mek) “to show, guide”. Derived fr. körtgür-/görtgür- “show”, ultimately a causative form of kör- “see, look, obey, experience” with inserted euphonic -t-. “There is obviously a very old etymological connection with kör-” (Clauson EDT 756), i.e. what started as kör- (v.) had developed into köz/köz “gaze, eye, sight, spring, aperture” and shifted to gös- (v.) and gös- (n.), Cf. gaze. The labyrinth of changes is mind-boggling, but clearly traceable. With agglutinated suffixes, the Türkic stem produces both active and passive verbs, which in turn produce derivative nouns: göstermek “to show”, gösterdi “to be shown”, hence the bifurcated semantics of the noun guest and host retained in the Gmc. and Sl. languages, in Lat., and in Greek. The Türkic word is endowed with a remarkable variety of forms, some languages have two or three, varying mostly in the selection of synonymous morphological modifiers. That attests to a wide range of receptor languages and deep timeframe. The notion host may have arisen from a pastoral tradition of a local leader showing to newcomers the local sacred sites, places to settle, and the allotted pastures. Cognates: A.-Sax. gæst, giest (Ang. gest) “guest, enemy, stranger”, OFris. jest, Du., Gmn. gast, Goth. gasts “guest”; OCS gosti (гости) “guest, trader, friend”, hozyain (хозяин) “host” (with aspirated anlaut ɣ- following the Türkic articulation, thus forms with оспод- and Cz. hospodín with h-); Lat. hospes “host”, hostis “enemy”; Gk. xenos “guest, host, stranger”; Skt. jaspatiṣ “head of family”. Slavonic extended semantics to traders and billeting (postoi, постой), hence the gospodi (господи) “lord, master”, with connotation of strangers, and hozayin (хозяин), gospodin (господин) “host, ruler”. The euphonic inlaut -p- (hospes) appears in Lat., Sl., and Skt. forms, replacing the Türkic euphonic -t- (göster). The Sprachbund status of the term can be dated by before the 2000 BC Indo-Arian migration. That may also be an indicator on when an incidental trading turned into a trading profession along the Eurasian steppes. The “IE etymology” manages to come up with separate surmises for guest and host, inventing non-etymologized unattested PG and PIE “proto-words” of the type *gastiz, *ghos-ti- is “guest”, in a circular fashion leading from a supposedly unknown to a nowhere.
80

English hag (n.) “ugly evil-looking old woman” ~ Türkic ğug, kharga, qarga, qarɣa etc., from Tr. ɣug, ğug, karga “raven”, with allusive meaning “old”, “old woman” (Shipova, Radloff, Zelenin, Berneker, Vasmer). The notion “old” comes from a pun qarï, kargan, karygan “old”. The Eng. hag is an ugly evil-looking old woman; the Türkic ɣug is the same (still living in the Rus. Staraya karga “Old karga”, i.e. old parched-looking woman). Eng. has preserved a synonymous calque of the original idiom, the “old crow”, aka the “sea hag”. Under “IE” paradigm, the Eng. Hag was surmised to come from a PG. *hagatusjon-, where -tusjon” ~ -tesse was a (fem.) suffix. In reality, the Eng. and Gmc. versions are descendants of the same root and concept. No “IE” connection, Gmc. group only, not in the Romance group, etymology is predictably “of unknown origin”. The perfect parallelism is obvious, this is a genuine case of paradigmatic transfer with perfect phonetics, semantics, untransferable idiomatic pun and its perfectly translated calque, incontestably attesting to a common genetic origin.

English hooligan (n.) “troublemaker” ~ Türkic čolvu (cholvu) (n.) “slander, condemn, defame, disparage, scold, vilify, repudiate; vilify, bear malice, slander”. Türkic has an assembly of allophones and synonyms: čantur-, časur-, časut, čïndutur-, čolvu, čulbu, čulvu, jer-, of which čolvu/čulbu/čulvu (n.) with apparent auxiliary particle -vu/-bu appear to be closest phonetical sibling; slander was a most powerful tool in the ancient Türkic political milieu, and the abundance of the word forms demonstrate its spread and importance. In English, the literary reference comes from Irish name Houlihan with connotations “troublemaker”, and from the English court records. The synonymous hoodlum appears to be a further contortion of the same old-age derisive hol-. Cognates: A.-Sax. hol “slander, calumny”, OE holian ditto, Goth. holon “deceive, injure”, OHG huolian “deceit, vilify”, Sl. hula “slander, malice, vilify”. Both Gmc. and Sl. etymologies lead to absolutely nowhere, with Gmc. etymology reduced to reciting latest anecdotes, and the Sl. etymology aimlessly wondering across the whole Sl. phonetic field. In dialects, the phonetic č/q > h/ɣ transition is observed as systemic. The Irish brought to us a derivative houlihan complete with the Türkic suffix of instrumental noun outcome -ɣan/-gän/-qan/-kän, a diagnostic suffix peculiar to Türkic. Not a whiff of the “IE” etymology, the primal A.-Sax. form is thoroughly omitted in favor of much later Ir. clone to imply an Ir. origin in Eng. The synonym jer- “slander, ridicule” has also survived in English, with about the same semantics. The pair hol/hooligan and jeer constitute a case of paradigmatic transfer between Türkic and Eng., indelibly attesting to the common genetic origin. See jeer.

English ilk (n., adj.) “kind of person” ~ Türkic ilk (n.. adj.) “antecedent, outset”, also “beginning” (n.). The Türkic semantics is turned toward the root, Cf. ilki “first, initial”, ilkin “from the beginning”, ilkisiz “without beginning, very old”. The English semantics is turned toward the branches. Both refer to some specific kind of origin, be it descent, race, or attitudes. Cognates: A.-Sax. had a form ilca with the same connotation “same” (n., pron., adj.). The change in spelling ilca > ilk is somewhat puzzling, since Eng. generally trod to the Roman alphabet substituting -c- for -k-. The suggested as a Gmn. cognate eilen “sole of the foot, callosity, corn” is perfectly inapplicable. The “IE etymology” cites that Gmn. “cognate” and builds some impossible pedigree using creative unattested *reconstructions and perverted history from “family” to “kind”, while the word from the outset was “kind, antecedent, from the beginning”. The Türkic etymology uses the same word for the same purpose (OTD 208). Distribution of the word is consistent with that of all other Turkisms, the Türkic belt across Eurasia, and the NW Europe. No “IE” connection, no cognates outside of the Türkic milieu. The duo ilk and kin constitutes an authentic case of paradigmatic transfer, incontestably attesting to a common genetic origin. See kin.
81

English judge (n.) “judicial person, arbitrator” ~ Türkic ayɣu- (v.) “advice, direct, prescribe” preserved in the Oguz designation ayɣučï “advisor, judge”, fr. ay- “speak, say, declare, prescribe” (Cf. unattested and probably arbitrary “PIE root” *au- “perceive”, Lat. audire “hear”, Eng. audio “sound”, Türkic aydï (3rd pers.) “said”, ayur (imp., “say”)), ayğ “word, speech, command”, the aygu “advice, directive, prescription” with nomen instrumentes suffix -gu, ayɣučï with nomen agentes suffix -čı:/-či:, lit. “commander, one who speaks (orders), or issues commands” (e.g. Tonyukuk, 7th c.). Cognates: OFr jugier /yuger/ “to judge, pronounce judgment; pass an opinion on”, Lat. iudex “judge, leader vested with temporary power”; Alb. gjyqtar “judge”; Sl. zakon (закон) “law”, with derivatives. The Eng., Alb., and Sl. forms point to the Ogur origin with prosthetic anlaut consonant (i.e. yayɣučï), the Lat. form is an allophone of the Oguz form without a prosthetic anlaut consonant. The “IE etymology” offers a compound of Lat. ius “right, law” + dicere “to say”, a circuitous, convoluted, and unnecessary concoction without cognates in other European and Asian “IE” languages. The Lat. ius is apparently a derivative of an allophonic form corresponding to the Türkic ay- in the attested ayɣučï and iudex “judge”. The Türkic form is semantically exact and phonetically agnatic. The difference between the Lat. and Fr. phonetics points to two independent paths, with the Fr. form likely ascending to the Sarmatian Alans (Amorican Alans) or Burgunds (Provence). The ethic origin of the Lat. form apparently can't be pinpointed, the likely timing coincides with the westward reverse relocations from the Eastern Europe of the “Old Europe” tribes at the end of the 2nd mill. BC. The titles Ayɣučï and Gutian Yarğan (“Judge, Tribune” in Akkadian cuneiform records on the Gutian rulers, ca. 22nd c. BC), i.e. the Eng. Earl, have an uncanny similarity in semantics and morphology. Both mean “judge”, and both are formed by exchangeable suffixes, a professional category suffix -čı: versus a denominal and deverbal category suffix -ğa:n/-ge:n (position, animals, etc.). The root part is also at least consonant. The title Yarğan is traced across 4 millenniums in the western Eurasia, see earl, the title Ayɣučï became prominent in the eastern Eurasia in the records of the 7th c. AD. Based on archeological evidence (socketed bronze axes, writing, bronze casting technology) and written evidence (militant nomadic pastoralists), “Zhou Scythians” carried cultural traits from Mesopotamia to the Altai and on to China, bringing them to the Shang China ca.1750 BC. That was the occasion when the title Yarğan could evolve or cue the birth of the title Ayɣučï that on the western Eurasian fringes became a word “judge”. See earl.

English Kent (n.) “county, kingdom” ~ Türkic keŋit-, keŋüt-, kiŋit- (v.) “expand, propagate, broaden, widen, enlarge, extend”, a causative form of the denoun verb ke:ŋü:- “broaden, widen, enlarge, extend”, fr. noun ke:ŋ “broad, wide”. The word ke:ŋ, in turn, is likely an allophonic form of the notion of the very productive word ge:nč, ke:nč (n., adj.) “young (fauna), new, child, baby”, a derivative of the adverb gen, ken “behind, after”, at times declinable as a noun, see gene. Cognates: A.-Sax. cennan “bring forth, create, produce”, cent-land “Kent”, OE Kent, Lat. Calnticum, Cantia, Gk. (51 BC) Kantion (Καντιον) (51 BC). The connection with the Celtic “coastal district” is left as an unexplained puzzle, likely an echo of folk etymology. The stray assertion of a form of “corner” is a false backformation, since the Gk. “angle or corner” is ογλος, modern γωνία, and the Lat. word was a loanword fr. the Gk. According to historical records, Anglo-Saxons inherited the name from the Roman times as the first land captured by the Romans; alternatively it is a Celtic name explained as “coastal district”. Either way, the meaning is clear, semantically it is a “New Acquisition” identical with the Ch. Xinjiang (Sinkiang) “New Territory”, the name for the captured Uiguristan and the unfortunate East Turkestan, or Rus. new acquisition Novorossia (Новороссия) “New Russia”. The Gk. reference positively points to the Scythian-Sarmatian origin. See gene.

English kin (n.) “blood-related” ~ Türkic kin, kün/kun (n., adj.) “kin”. The form kin/kün/kun, with its h- allophones hin/hün/hun, is but one of the seven (7) clearly demarcated semantic extensions of the root gen-/ken-. The stems kün/kin and gen-/ken- “young (fauna), new, child, baby” appear to be allophones, semantically the kün/kin carries a deep flavor of a common origin, echoing the notions of the gen-/ken- with phonologically unpredictable alternation, see gene. The stems kün/kin and qan “blood” also appear to be allophones, semantically the kün/kin carries a deep flavor of a blood relation, echoing the meaning of the qan with phonologically unpredictable alternation. The term of relationship kün is also linked with the female beginning, it is related to the base word kin for females meaning “female genitalia, pudenda, vagina, Eng. quim”, see quim. These ties are too vague to credibly pinpoint an ultimate origin for the word. For etymological understanding, the presumed unattested “proto-word” noun *ke “behind, after” (G. Clauson, ETD, 1972, 724) is irrelevant, the attested adverb gen, ken “behind, after” is sufficient to trace the linguistic development in morphological, semantic, and phonetic aspects. Cognates: Eng. akin, Hun, kin, kindred, kinship, A.-Sax. cyn “family, race, kind, nature”, OFris. kenn, OSax. kunni, ONorse kyn “kin”, kundr “son”, OHG chunni “kin”, Goth. kuni “family, race”, Balt. (Lith.) gentis “kinsmen”, janah “race”; Rus. kunak “relative, friend, acquaintance”; Urdu huuni in idiom “huuni rishtey daar, with Dari counterpart tariin rishtey daar “next of kin”. In the Romance group, common roots for the Gmc. “kin” are the incompatible famil- and parent- from obvious original notions of family and parentage; in the Sl. group a common equivalent root for the Gmc. “kin” is an incompatible rod- from obvious original notion of procreation, Cf. rodit (родить) (v.) “parturition, birthing”. Notably, the Scots Gaelic cairdeas “kin” is an obvious allophone of the synonymous with the kin Türkic qadash “kin, relative, friend”, attesting that both kin and cairdeas originated within the Türkic phylum. The notion kün “relative”, with a line of semantic applications, first of all denotes related tribes; that generic word became an ethnic name Hun that at one time (3rd c. BC - 6th c. AD) was a common appellation for a large group of nomadic tribes (Cf. Türks, Kirkuns, Agach-eri, On-ok, Tabgach, Comans, Yomuts, Tuhses, Kuyan, Sybuk, Lan, Kut, Goklan, Orpan, Ushin and other ancient Türkic tribes carried the name “Huns”; in each separate case the term “Hun” was equivalent to endonym of a tribe, and at the same time it was a wider concept, reflecting a certain commonality of the ethnic origin [Zuev Yu. A., 1960, 12]. The raster of the Gmc. forms attests that the word had a wide distribution long before the Hunnic expansion of the 4th c. AD, which overlaid the previous generations of the Kurgan pastoralists with their own spectrum of pronunciation. The cohesion of the Gmc. forms attests that the word was ubiquitous across a wide territorial span, pointing to either a Sarmatian massive migration of the 2nd c. BC, a massive Scythian/Cimmerian demographic movement of the 4th c. BC, or even to a much older Corded Ware populace. The peculiarity of the Gaelic form attests of the existence of the word in the N. Pontic steppes prior to the circum-Mediterranean Celtic outmigration of the 6th-5th mill. BC, indirectly corroborating the early timing of the Corded Ware possibility. The “IE etymology” connects Gmc. forms with an unattested “PIE root *gene- “engender, beget”, unwittingly revering to the Türkic origin from the stem gen-/ken- q.v. See gene, quim.

English king “monarch” (n.) ~ Türkic kengu (n.) “king”. Ultimately, the Türkic root is kün “sun”, not the homophonous Türkic kun/kün, the English kin “blood-related”, as was suggested by “IE” philologists. The kün with the Türkic suffix -gü makes küngü “of sun, solar, sun-like”, or the phonetic variation kengu. Cognates: A.-Sax. cyning, Du. koning, OHG, N. konungr, Dan. konge, Gmn. könig; Balto-Slavic (Lith.) kunigas “clergyman”, (OCS) kunegu “prince”, (Rus.) knyaz, (Boh.) knez; Fin. kuningas; Ch. kung 宫 (pin. gong, Giles 6,580) “palace”. Note that the OCS, Gmn., and Du. forms have perfectly Türkic form kengu/küngü ~ kunegu, könig, and koning, and since the Gmc. and Hunnic tribes largely divorced at about 453, this shared Türkic/Gmc./Balto-Slavic word must have been shared quite before that. Apparently the people who made the appellation “illustrious” knew the later lost meaning of the kengu king, and that also shows that the kin/kun/kün “relative” is a false etymology. Notably, the form küngü echoes the form Shanüy/Chanüy/Chanyu, Ch. 單于 “immense appearance”, the “supreme ruler” of the Chinese annals, and a consonant form keŋ/ke:ŋ “broad, all-inclusive, vast” also carries a semantics suitable for a superior title, Cf. ke:ŋü:- (ke:n_gü:) “enlarge, extend”. The Ch. cognate points to the Zhou time internalization, the terms ordu “center” and küngü/kung “palace” are functionally synonymous, both referring to the supreme leader, his headquarters, and his troops. A thought that the resident of the Buckingham palace carries an originally Chinese title is more unfeasible than the historically attested Türkic title. A parallel title is Herceg (like in Hercegovina), formed eidetically, with parallel Türkic/Gmn. meaning Er + eg, Herr +ceg “man + of” = “(Head, Leader) of men”. The Balto-Slavic vernaculars borrowed both titles, King and Herceg, and the Gmc. does not have herceg because it came as a later Bajanak (Besenyo) title. Historically, the appearance of the form kengu/küngü coincides with the fragmentation of the Eastern Hunnic Empire that started in 56 BC, leading to a prolonged hiatus, the rise of numerous independent polities, and dispersion of the Hunnic population to all directions of the Eurasia. The form Kengu shows up on the Late Antique Central Asian coins in a version of the Türkic runiform script, like on the Athrikh (Afrosiab, 305-? AD) coin:
kηü trgi äthrx “King of state (Turan) Athrikh” (Mukhamadiev A., 1995, 51 text; Vainberg B.I., 1977, Table XIX, G I coin) , and
kηü trgi bugra “King of state (Turan) Bugra” (Mukhamadiev A., 1995, 54 text; Vainberg B.I., 1977, Table XIX, G III coin), in Biruni's list Bugra is listed right after Athrikh), and
kηü trgi zkssk “King of state (Turan) Zakassak” (Mukhamadiev A., 1995, 55 text; Vainberg B.I., 1977, Table XIX, G II coin), and
kηü trgi humkr “King of state (Turan) Humkar” (Mukhamadiev A., 1995, 56 text; Vainberg B.I., 1977, XIX, G12 coin).
In the legends, the root tr stands for “territory, terrain, lowland, land”, lit. “pasture”, see terrain; it may be interpreted as “state”, “land”, “domain”; the adjectival denoun suffix -gi (qï, ki, ɣï) forms “of place, time”, it corresponds to the Eng. diminutive suffix -k, Cf. hillock, buttock; the buğra “camel bull” was used around the Central Asia as a title of a position.
The word kengu is later traced to the European Huns, to the Attila's son Digizikh who in 453 succeed hum as a Hunnic ruler:
  kⁱŋk^eg dⁱkkⁱz... i.e. Kinkeg Dikkiz... “(of) King Dikkiz”. The first grapheme (right-to-left) is a tribe, clan or state tamga (Mukhamadiev A., 1995, 74 text; Smirnov Ya.I., 1909, dish 53; Orbeli I.A., Trever K.V., 1935, dish 53). Priscus of Panium, who met Dikkiz, reported his name as Deggizix (Δεγγιζίχ).
A chain of toreutic inscriptions written in consistent Central Asian Türkic alphabet, read in Türkic languages, supported by the historical sources, marked by identified and identifying tamgas, and traceable over centuries, leave no doubts of the Türkic origin of the word. See earl, As.

English leader (n.) “chieftain” ~ Türkic elit-, elet-, elät- (v.) “lead, lead away”, with the agent suffix -ar/-er/-ir/-ur-/-är/-ïr/-ür , e.g. elit- + -er > lider. An alternate form yola- (v.) “travel, depart” of elit- ascends to the noun yol “road, travel”, with obvious etymology. The allophonic pair yola-/elit- points to the Ogur/Oguz stratification, the first with an Ogur prosthetic anlaut semi-consonant y-. A denoun verbal form jolda- demonstrates metamorphose of the common verbal suffix -la into a form -da with -d-. The European forms uniformly elide the unaccented anlaut vowel, such uniform process must have originated still in the Türkic milieu. Tracing the form jolda- would pinpoint the origin of the elided form ld-/lt-/læd- and their clones. Türkic has one more stem with close phonetics and semantically compatible with the notion “lead”. With the paucity of intermediate examples, the second option may be argued to be possible but unlikely. The second prospect is uludur (adj.) fr. ulu (uluɣ) “great” with a loss of the unaccented anlaut vowel and with active voice suffix -dur/-tur. Cognates: A.-Sax. lædere “leader”, lædan (v.) “lead, guide, conduct, carry”, OSax. lithan “travel”, ONorse liða “travel”, Norse, Dan. leder “leader”, Goth ga-leiþan “travel”, OHG ga-lidan “travel”, leitari “leader”, Du. leider “leader”, Icl. leiðtogi “leader”. The European forms alternate -d-/-t-/-ð-/-þ-/-th-. Distribution of the cognates is limited exclusively to the Gmc. group, making any claims to a pan-IE spread unsustainable. The “IE” etymological theory about an unattested “PIE *leit-” of the verb “go” (i.e. “travel”) unwittingly reverts back to the original attested Türkic word yol and applicable cases of its derivatives. Since Türkic does not start words with liquids, in a transition to the alien morphologies, a loss of the anlaut vowel in front of the liquid, and the t/d-series transitions are regular adaptations. The fairly good phonetic concordance and the semantic match, with no systemic “IE” cognates, and the cognates limited to the Gmc. group, constitute a positive attestation of the ultimate Türkic origin. See elite.

English lullaby “quiet song to lull child to sleep” ~ Türkic layla, lyuba “quiet song to lull child to sleep”. Ultimately from the notion “babble” of the stem lay- attested in the Azeri derivative layla- (v.) “prattle”, and CT derivative laylaq (n.) “blather, fluster, meaningless speech”. The word lay- echoes the word ulï- “cry, howl”, with its derivative appellation ulïčïm “my baby”, pointing to an ultimate origin from the sound of wind yel- “howl”, see howl. Within linguistic families and between families, the notion of lullaby is notable for an extraordinary spectrum of its forms and origins, attesting to a diverse ethnic origin of the motherly traditions. On the background of the extreme variety, the uniformity of the NW European grouping stands conspicuous. Cognates: ME lollai, lullay, Fris. lulk, Sw. lulla “hum a lullaby”, MDu. lollen “mutter child to sleep”, Gmn. lullen “sway (a crib)”; Lith. liūlia; Sl. lepet (лепет) “babble”, lulka (люлька) “sway (a crib)”; Skt. lolati “sway (a crib); Est. unelaulu “lullaby”; Az. layla- (v.), Kaz. lyuba (люба) “lullaby”. Of the listed ethnicities, only Kazakhs have a fairly clear composition of the Dulats, the former Usuns, ascending to the 2nd c. BC. The “IE etymology” suggests a primitive “probably imitative” without specifying what is imitated and who is imitating. Тhat suggestion starkly contrasts with the extraordinary variety of the forms obviously of the innumerably diverse origins. The distribution attests to the opposite, it is confined to the NW corner of Europe and crosses linguistic families. The uniformity of the form and semantics, and the spread to disparate languages and language families indicates a common origin and dispersion into numerous colloquial forms, carried over by mamas and fossilized over ages within familial lines. The Eng. verb lull and its derivativs are derivations of the primary lullaby and its allophones layla/lyuba. See howl.

English mama (mammy, mom, mommy, mother) “informal for mother” (Swadesh 42, F218, 0.16%) ~ Türkic mama, ma:ma, mamü “mother”, mamlä “motherly, friendly, peacefully”, mamläkät “motherland”. Ultimately an allophonic derivative fr. a suggested baby babble's onomatopoetic meme (me:me, mə:mə) “female breast, nipple, teat”, a reduplication of the same syllable. That closely parallels with the words baba, ba:ba, papa for “father” (see father, dad) and bebe for “baby” (see baby), corroborating a related onomatopoetic origin. Both cases reduplicate the base syllable, ma- and ba-. The related pair mama-meme “mama-breast/milk” has produced two overlapping semantic derivative clusters, Cf. milk, meal, etc., see mammal, milk, meal. The word mama comes in two flavors, mama and mother/mater, the second with the suffix -tur/-tür/-dur/-dür to form an energetic notion (causative, energetic mood), still active in Türkic languages. Etymological analysis must address individual daughter lines as a closely interconnected and overlapping single complex, without losing a trace of the intricate phonetic and semantic linkages. There also is a historical component, since mobile economy caused various migrations, amalgamations, and divergences, which all affected lexicons, Cf. a large tribe Alat that ended in Persia as Khaladj (Khalaj, Haladj, Halaj, Halač), with the Pers. added semantic extension of mama (ماما) to “midwife”. Not exactly the same, but obviously linked semantically. The phonetic spread of mama is extensive but readily recognizable. In Türkic languages, the word may also stand for “maternal grandmother”, “paternal grand-grandmother”, “old woman”, “aunt on father's side”, “mother-in-law”, “a woman”, “midwife”, “old mare”, “female name” (Mamik), “mother's, female breast”, “food, nutrition” (meal), “wet nurse”, “milking” (A.-Sax. mealc, Eng. milk), “woman accompanying bride on her first wedding night”, and some more exotic applications. It also serves as a designation of gender, motherly function, and native country. Ma:ma is synonymous with Türkic miši (mishi) “female creature”, a derivative of the same base root me- with an agent noun suffix -či/-ši, eve “engender, birth-giving (woman, mammal, etc.)”, and ani “mother”. Cognates: A.-Sax. moddor, moder, modor “mother”, medren, modorlic “maternal”, the Gmc. formal variety is composed of mama with an energetic suffix: OSax. modar, OFris. moder, mem, ONorse moðir, Dan. moder, Du. moeder, OHG muoter, Gmn. Mutter, Icl. móðir, etc.; of the Celtic Kurgan migrants OIr. mathir, Gael. mathair, Welsh mam,; N. European Balt. (Latv.) mamma, (Lith.) mote; OCS mati; Fin. emo, Est ema; Mediterranean Lat. mater, Port. mae; Gk. metera (μητερα); Basque ama; Geor. deda; Pers,. Taj. modar; Hindustan Skt. matar-, Hindi maan (मां), Punjabi mam (ਮਾਂ); Gujarati mata (માતા); Nepali ana; Ch. mu 母. At the dawn of the “IE” paradigm (1813), the mama became one of the few key words of the Indoeuropeism, a criteria that automatically drew into the “IE” family any stray language that had as a signal a proper allophone of the mama, even without a regard for its typology and grammar. It still is, in spite of the testimony to the contrary stated a century ago. The A.-Sax., along with form meder and its siblings, also used five other appellations: acennicge, lit. “parent (fem.)”, bearncennicge, lit. “bearing mother”, byrðere, lit. “bearer”, cennestre lit. “parent (fem.)”, sunucennicge lit. “descendant's ancestress”, and probably other undocumented “folk-type” appellations. The A.-Sax. cen- (ken-) at the root of acennicge etc. forms words with notions of “production, conception, procreation, birth, genitals, parent”, see gene. The Tr./A.-Sax. suffix -ge is a denoun directional suffix, a la “from birth, from procreation”, etc. In Kaz., Kara-Kalpak, Turkmen, Uz., and Uig. languages, the CT miši (mishi) has a form mädi (with interdental ð, mäthi) “female creature”, which corresponds to the “IE” moth(er), mat(er), they are morphologically modified allophones of the primeval form ma:, me:, ba:, be:, bi (with m-/b- alterations) that expresses femininity, see mare. The colloquial form mädi, and the form miši (with allophones) are used as a determinative in noun phrases (Cf. Türkic Saha mïsï bïsasar “female moose” (bïsasar “moose”), Pers. mädä-säɣ “female dog”, mädä-gav “female cow”. For the “IE” languages, the dispersion of the form mädi can be dated by the demographic dispersion of the farmer communities in the 2nd mill. BC. In the Türkic languages the form mädi is an innate variation on the primeval form ma: “of female gender”. Both Eng. and Türkic languages use mother/mama as an address for an elderly woman. In English, it is also used metaphorically for key element (e.g. “mother lode”, “mother superior”, “mother-of-pearl”, “mother of all wars”, etc.), Cf. Türkic mama for a leading ox in the center of working oxen. The traces of traditional Türkic formal appellation to the parents still linger in Eng., Gmc., and south Sl. languages; in the Ukrainian society parents are called with a formal “you” in plural, in contrast with the neighboring Slavic and Slavicized traditions of familiar singular. The semantic difference between the familiar mama and formal mother still exists in most European languages: a mother in the society is mama (mammy) at home, or mother in the 3rd person is mama (mammy) in the 2nd person. Now mama is an international word, with a predominant form mammy in the English-speaking world. Türkic has numerous words and word forms for “mother”, aba, ana, ani, ара, hana, ög, uma, and the mamü is just one specific form that belongs to the same semantic field. It was likely spread to Europe with the Kurgan waves, starting in the 4th mill. BC. The “IE etymology” starts at about 2000-1000 BC, when the Eastern European farmers, with already internalized Türkic form, have fanned out toward Mediterranean, India and the Middle East. That process should have retained various native appellations for mother, some of which may be the true “IE” “proto-words”. See brother, father, dad, gene, mammal, mare, meal, milk.

English mantra (n.) “commonly repeated word or phrase, slogan” ~ Türkic maŋra- (v.) “bay, bleat, holler, yell”. Cognates: suggested semantically unsuitable and historically unfeasible Skt. mantra-s “sacred message or text, charm, spell, counsel”, none of which is either commonly repeated nor a slogan, nor convey a notion of annoyance. The Türkic form maŋrat is semantically more suitable (“cause to bleat”), carries the notions of repetition and annoyance, and is suitable for an origin of the Skt. form. The suggested PIE etymology, derived from a “thinks” of an unattested root, in turn derived from an unattested form for mind (n.) is no better, considering the Türkic substrate origin of the term mind. The universal popularity of the word mantra (eg. Finnish, Indonesian, Serbo-Croatian, etc.) with negative connotations is inconsistent with the suggested origin from the pre-Buddhist, pre-Hinduism sacral practices in India, and suggests etymological conflation of little-related meanings based purely on phonetical homophony. See mind.
82

English master (n.) “man in control or authority”, mister “unaccented variant of master”, mistress “female teacher, governess” ~ Türkic bögü:/bögö:/bok (n.) “magic, sage, wizard, sorcery, witchcraft, occult”, see magic, might. The form with an anlaut m- comes from systemic m/b alteration: bok ~ mok ~ mag. The Türkic word connotes both wisdom and mysterious spiritual power, that trifurcated semantic was carried on in many borrowings across Eurasia. The oldest evidence of a semantic extension from magic and might to nomen agentes “magician, one mighty” is recorded in the Greco-Roman world, Cf. Lat. magister. There, like in father and mother, the part -ster/-ther is a Türkic suffix of respectful appellation expressing notion of respect, under “IE” morphology usually relayed with substitute plural markers. Cognates: late A.-Sax. maegester/maegister/maegeter “one having control or authority”; Eng. master “man in control or authority”, mister “unaccented variant of master”, mistress “female teacher, governess”, Du. meester, Gmn. Meister, form influenced in MEng. by OFr. cognate maistre; OFr. maistre, Fr. maître, Sp., It. maestro, Port. mestre; Lat. magister (n.) “chief, head, director, teacher”, magis (adv.) “more”. The list of the direct equivalents should be appended by all cognates expressing the notions of might and magic, including the Türkic title boyar, and the Gk. magos (μαɣοσ) “great”. The vanishing of the consonant -k-/-g- probably started still in the Türkic milieu, and probably started as a transition from the hard -k-/-g- to the muted or silent -ğ-, as is attested by the ubiquitous form boyar (boğar). The English mister and mistress are derivatives, mistress corresponds to the OFr. maistresse “mistress (lover); housekeeper; governess, female teacher”, fem. of maistre “master”. The invented PIE *mag-yos- is a theoretical backward projection of the documented realities, a conjecture upon a conjecture. A striking implication of assertion about the Eng, master being an allophone of the Lat. magister rules out a direct path fr. the tentative Türkic bašer (basher)/mašer (masher) to the Gmc. meester/Meister from an m- form maš of baš (bash) “head” and a respectful form of address suffix -ter/-der or nomen agentes suffix -ar/-er (Türkic er “man”) masher, master, meester, Meister, lit. “head man”. That path is equally viable both semantically and phonetically, and via the attested OFr. maistre it cuts directly from a Burgund or Alanic source. One more path comes from the attested A.-Sax. maest “most, superior”, a superlative form of A.-Sax. micel “great, intense, much”, formed with the above suffixes -ter/-der or -ar-er. That path is also viable both semantically and phonetically. The compound form “master” exactly follows such Türkic compounds as Az-eri “Azeri, As Man”, Mih-ar “Mishar, Forest Man”, or Og-ur “Ogur, Tribes Men”, etc. That path leads much deeper in time compared both with the Lat. and the Burgund or Alanic sources. See magic, might.

English message (n.) “communication” (Swadesh N/A, F834, 0.02%) ~ Türkic emit- (v.) “send, sent”. Apparently it is ultimately connected with a primeval causative or active conjugation (depending on being perceived as a transitive or intransitive type) of the sexy verb em-/eb- either “suck” or “make love” (fr. the noun em/eb “vulva”. Its other meaning “lean, tilt, incline” tends to point in the same direction. The Türkic semantics was rather peaceful and casual, the sources that reached our days provide only comely semantic references without sexual or military shades. The initial unaccented e- was elided, the second -i- variously alternated with -e-, the regular -t-/-s- alternation is well established, Cf. emission and emitter, emissio and emittere, transmit and transmission. The progeny of the emit- is enormous, from emitter to missile to mission and message and to transmission. Cognates: OFr. message (14th c.), MLat. missaticum, Lat. missus. “IE” etymology: message fr. MLat. missaticum fr. Lat. missus “sending, throwing, hurling” pp. of mittere “to send”. So, the Lat. had initially internalized the Türkic word, and then during Middle Age reinvigorated it in OFr., possibly under new input of the Burgund influence. A late Lat. borrowing from the Ottomans should probably be positively ruled out. The phonetic and semantic concordance does not leave room to question the Türkic origin.

English means “considerable capital in wealth or income” ~ Türkic mün (min) “means, monetary wealth, capital”. Ultimately, possibly fr. m- form of bu: “this”, compare equative bunča:/munča “many, bunch” and bun “basis, foundation”, see bunch, much. Cognates: A.-Sax. mannes “movable possessions, means of subsistence”. The “IE” etymology, solely on phonetic consonancy, is confusing means with unrelated polysemantic adjective mean “statistical norm, malice, superlativity, poverty, stinginess, miserable” via OFr. noun meien “middle, statistical mean, intermediary”, a dubious proposition which candidly conflicts with the presence of the A.-Sax. mannes “wealth” long before the arrival of the OFr. meien “middle”, an allophone of Lat. medianus “in the middle”. Equally ridiculous is the claim that the related Türkic manat “money” is an allophone of the Rus. moneta, given that the Rus. monetary system and the bulk of its terminology originated and formed in the Türkic milieu, including the very term dengi (деньги) “money”. Ditto with the claimed credit that the Türkic term manat came from the cognomen of the Roman deity Juno, via non-existent Roman influence in the Central Asia. The stem mün has produced derivatives manat, money, moneta, mint, all connected with monetary exchange. See mint, money, penny, shilling.

English might (n.) “power, strength”, magic (n.) “supernatural feat” (Sw N/A, F240, 0.06%) ~ Türkic bögü:/bögö:/bok (n.) “magic, sage, wizard, sorcery, witchcraft, occult”, see magus. The form with an anlaut m- comes from systemic m/b alteration: bok ~ mok ~ mag. The Türkic word connotes both wisdom and mysterious spiritual power, that trifurcated semantic was carried on in many borrowings across Eurasia. Cognates: A.-Sax. maeg “might (strength)”, gigantmaeg “giant might (aeon)”, helicmaegen lit. “force(s) of hell”, hordmaegen lit. “mighty hoard”, innoðmaegen lit. “inner might”, maegsterdom “masterdom”, fifmaegen lit. “five magic (powers)”, gaestmaegen “travelling magicians”, etc., Eng. bogus “not real, artificial, fake”, Fris., MDu., Gmn. macht “might, ability”, Sw., Norse makt “might”, Icl. máttur “might”, Goth. mahts “might, force”, OHG maht ditto, OFr. magique, Lat. magnus “mighty”, magus “magician, learned magician”; Gk. megas (μέγας) “grand ”, megalos (μεγάλος) “great”, magos (μάγος) “magician”; Alb. math, madhi “great”; Balto-Sl. (Latv) burvis, (Lith.) burtininkas “magician”, (Rus.) mogu (могу), moch (мочь), moguschestvo (могущество), mosch (мощь) “might”; Skt. mаhánt- “great”; OPers. magush “magician”; Arm. mag (մագ); Az. məcu(si), Tr. büyü(cü) “magician”; Est. maagi, Fin. maagikko, Hu. buves (buvesz) “magician”; Mong. bö’e “magician”; Jap. mahōtsukai 魔法使い “magician”; Kor. masul 마술, masulsaga 마술사가 “magician”; Ch. moshu shī 魔術師 “magician”. The word bogus for wizardry and magic lurked in the Eng. folk speech before showing up in the far away America. The A.-Sax. word carried the bifurcated semantics of the power and occult noted by G. Clauson for the Türkic original (G. Clauson, ETD, 1972, 324). A link to the Türkic bögü: for the Sl./Rus. mogu had already been established (Vasmer M., 1986, v. 2, 636) as an argument against a Gmc. origin of the Rus. form. The transition of the allophonic m- form mögü: to the Sl. mogu illustrates clearly the origin of the Gmc. forms for “might” that likely evolved in parallel, likely recursive, numerous, and asynchronous paths. That assertion overlaps numerous inconsistent speculations on the origin of various derivatives of the Türkic original bögü:, predominantly advanced within the cloistered “IE” and “PIE” paradigms. The Türkic title boyar for the members of the State Council, of the Bulgarian/Hunnic origin, may also be a derivative of the word bögü with the suffix -ar “man”, boyars were powerful high dignitaries endowed with prophetic powers of the wizards, Cf. the legendary Merlin depicted with Scythian conical hat. The fairly localized distribution of the notion “might” with its numerous extensions relatively to the notion “magic, occult” points to a much later spread, probably dated by the 2nd mill. BC in both the westerly and southeasterly directions. Notably, other than the unattested asterisked “PIE” conjunctures *móg^htis, *meg^h-, the reverse phonetic surrogacies naively mimicking some colloquial forms, there is no credibly attested cognate other than the bögü:/mögü: to serve as a prototype for the wide variety of the Eurasian forms and their semantic extensions. The complex evidence of the carryover of bifurcated semantics of the power and occult, and the systemic m/b alternation are components of a paradigmatic transfer case definitively attesting to their origin from the Türkic milieu. Cf. bogus, boss, OK.

English mint (v., n.) “coin production” ~ Türkic mün “monetary wealth, capital”, manat “money”. Cognates: A.-Sax. minte, mynetslege, mynetsmiððe “mint”, mynet (8th c.) “coin, coinage, money”, OSax. munita, OFris. menote, MDu. munte, OHG munizza, Gmn. münze, “coin, coinage, money”; Lat. moneta “mint”, numisma “coin”, OFr. monoie “coin, money”; Balto-Sl. (Latv., Lith.) moneta, (Slvk., Cz.) mince, (Pol., Rus. moneta) “coin”; Finn. myntti, minttu, Est. münt “coin”, Hu. menta “mint”; (Ru.) monetnyi (dvor) (монетный двор) “mint yard”. While the common Türkic term for coin is widely used in the area of the NW Europe across linguistic divides, the native terms for “mint” derived from roots other than the root for “coin” proliferate, with no clear common PIE “proto-word”, and few clear Türkic loanwords (Lat., Finn., Est., Hu., Ru.). The late Lat. word for “mint” apparently supplanted the native phrase term similar to the Rus. compound. Ultimately, the cognates of mint and money ascend to the Türkic base mün or some of its archaic allophones. The amalgamation and adoption paths were obviously different for different languages, and in some cases the paths were different within a single language (sf. A.-Sax. forms, see money). The semantic and phonetic match ascends to the Türkic primary base mün, that does not leave any chances for random coincidences, especially so considering the Anglo-Türkic triad of money - penny - shilling ~ manat - peneg -sheleg. See means, money, penny, shilling.

Englihsh mother “formal for mama” ~ Türkic ma:ma, mamü “grandmother; mother”, “midwife”, “woman accompanying bride on her first wedding night”, ultimately from Türkic meme “breast”, a word related to “milk” and “mammal” (nourished with breast milk), A.-Sax. mamme “teat, breast”, see milk. The word mother is a variation of mama (see mama) with the suffix -tur/-tür/-dur/-dür. The Türkic plural collective suffix -dVr (-der/-ter/-ther, -dar/-tar/-thar, etc.) was once very productive and may ascend as far back as the Neolithic times, contemporaneous with other cognates from the most archaic lexicon. It is used as a sign of respect, i.e. pl. you vs. sing. thou, a form habitually used by self-aggrandizing personalities and in the E. Europe as a traditional pl. appellation for mother and father not infected by Russ. sing. appellation, Cf. čavındır, čavuldur, čavundur, čavdır “(You) famed” (čav “fame”), Bayındır/Bayındur – ruling dynasty of Ak Koyunlu confederation, Onogundur (Bulgars), etc. The Gmc. transition from pl. to sing. semantics attests that the appellation was picked up by differing languages that adopted form and substance but missed the semantic nuance. For the verbal stems, the suffix forms an energetic notion (causative, energetic mood), still active in Türkic languages. Both languages use mother/mama as an address for an elderly woman. In English, it is also used metaphorically for key element (e.g. “mother lode”, “mother superior”, “mother-of-pearl”, “mother of all wars”, etc.). Both languages also lit. or metaphorically use mama for a team leader, in Türkic it is recorded for the lead ox in the center of working oxen. The traces of traditional Türkic formal appellation to the parents still linger in Eng., Gmc., and south Sl. languages; in the Ukrainian society parents are called with a formal “you” in plural, in contrast with the other Slavic and Slavicized traditions of familiar singular. The semantic difference between the familiar mama and formal mother still exists in most European languages: a mother in the society is mama (mammy) at home, or mother in the 3rd person is mama (mammy) in the 2nd person. Now mama is an international word, with a predominant form mammy in the English-speaking world. Türkic has numerous words and word forms for “mother”, aba, ana, ani, ара, hana, ög, uma, and the mamü is just one specific form that belongs to the same semantic field. It was likely spread in Europe with the Kurgan waves, starting in the 4th mill. BC. The “IE etymology” starts at about 2000-1000 BC, when the “IE” farmers, with already internalized Türkic form, have fanned out toward Mediterranean, India and Middle East. That process should have retained the native appellations for mother, some of which may be the “IE” “proto-words”. The A.-Sax., along with form meder and its siblings, also used five other appellations: acennicge, lit. “parent (fem.)”, bearncennicge, lit. “bearing mother”, byrðere, lit. “bearer”, cennestre lit. “parent (fem.)”, sunucennicge lit. “descendant's ancestress”, and probably other undocumented “folk-type” appellations. The A.-Sax. cen- (ken-) at the root of acennicge etc. forms notions of “production, conception, procreation, birth, genitals, parent”, see gene. The Tr./A.-Sax. suffix -ge is a denoun directional suffix, a la “from birth, from procreation”, etc. The true cognates of mother are the appellations that include the energetic suffix: A.-Sax. modor (with alternate spellings), OSax. modar, OFris. moder, ONorse moðir, Dan. moder, Du. moeder, OHG muoter, Gmn. Mutter, etc.; Mediterranean Lat. mater; Gk. meter; Hindustan Skt. matar-; N. European Balt. (Lith.) mote; OCS mati; and OIr. mathir of the Kurgan migrants. The Goth. aiþei, OHG eidi, MHG eide “mother” corresponds to the Türkic appellation of respect apa “senior female”, the Türkic ata “father”, and Gmc. edda “senior”. The complementary Goth. awo and Lat. ava “grandmother” correspond to the Türkic appellation of respect aba, aby for “senior male”, they demonstrate a parallel line of the paradigmatic transfer, see father. The “IE etymology” is laughable “probably derived from baby talk”; these babies ascend to the 4th mill. BC, and race far and wide across Eurasia. The “baby talk” comprises a faux *ma- and a faux “kinship term” suffix *-ter-. Since the ma-/ba- (ma:, me:, ba:, be:, bi) “mare” is a root for fem. animals (Cf. mare and bitch), the “IE” etymological pearl unwittingly ascends “mother” to “mare” (see mare, bitch), for which the same “IE etymology” cheerfully asserts the absurd “no known cognates beyond Germanic and Celtic”. It also invents a senseless “kinship term” faux clone of the real energetic suffix. In contrast, the complimentary “father” the same “IE etymology” is forced to recognize as ascending to the attested atta, in a “PIE” format a faux *atta, an obvious but unacknowledged reflex of the real Türkic ata “father”. Strangely, the fake “kinship term” suffix does not participate in forming the “PIE” atta fatherhood. This type of repugnance and mental rambling is symptomatic for the doctrine-driven immunity to reality innate to the “IE” school of thought. What, albeit unwittingly, leads to the Türkic origin of the “father”, does not come up in case of the “mother”, as though they are guests from different planets. In reality, “mother” belongs to the line-up of the Türkic terms of kinship widespread in the “IE” languages and in other linguistic families across Eurasia, mamü along with aba, ata, baba, and dedä (see father), the term meme “breast” inevitably also belongs to this paradigm. The energetic mood suffix -ter of the Gmc. branch, juxtaposed against the OIr. forms mathir “mother” and athir “father” of the Celtic branch, indicates that it had already existed by the time of the Celtic departure from the N. Pontic territory in the 4th mill. BC. Such uniquely developed and multi-faceted paradigmaticity constitutes authentic evidence attesting to the Türkic roots, a fatal anathema in the “IE” linguistics. It attests to demographic amalgamations effecting paradigmatic transfers of linguistic complexes from the donor ethnicities to the recipient ethnicities. Within a framework of a real science, a close study of the geographic and ethnic prevalence of the various terms may help to discern tendencies and connect the dots in demographic flows. See bitch, father, gene, mama, mare, milk, papa.

English nascence (n.) “birth, birthing” ~ Türkic ña:š (ñash) (n.) “fresh, year, life, small, young, child, young child, son, childhood”, fr. a polysemantic noun with prime notion “fresh, moist”, via a notion “fresh every year” and “a year of one’s life”, hence the “new beginning” and the “birth”, with further embodiments in concrete nouns “small” “young” “child” “son” “childhood”. The form ña:š is a form of ya:š, Clauson asserts that “words which began with y- in viii (century) had earlier begun with d- or n-”, and specifically cites the form ña:š as the older form of ya:š, “There is, however, seldom any difficulty in determining the original forms of such words.” Absent a contemporary record of the older form ña:š, the phonemic study is the best initial terminus that leads to the modern form ya:š from the ancient form and base semantics. The “IE etymology” ascends nascence to Lat. verb nasci “to be born”, unaware that the Lat. nasci is an allophonic form of the Türkic ña:š, and then it incorrectly jumps to the OLat. gnasci and genus, which are derivatives of an independent Türkic stem gen-, see gene. The ña:š comes from the name for the “spring”, the spring rebirth of the life, while gen- comes from the name for the female reproductive organ as a derivative for the notion of reproduction. The “IE” cognates are practically absent, nascence and its derivative nativity (Lat. nativus “born, native”) are unparalleled in the “IE” family, while the ña:š/ya:š is ubiquitous in the Türkic linguistic family. The etymological value of the word is its ascendance to the primeval notion, a trait missing in the “IE” constructs. The close phonetics and exact semantics validate the Türkic origin. See gene.

English needle (n.) “conifer leaf, spur, stylus” ~ Türkic ine (igne:, yignä, yiŋna) “needle”. In the daily life, needle is “tool for sewing”. Clauson (1972, 110) uses Türkic forms to demonstrate that prosthetic initial semi-consonant is secondary, as is also the -ŋ- for -g-; among good many variant forms are ine, ine:, yi:ne, igine, igne:, yigne, yigne:. From the line-up, it is clear that the form ine/ine:/yi:ne, preserved in the Kıpchak and Koman languages and the Qawanlmi l-kulliya dictionary contained a prototype for the Gmc. languages. Cognates: A.-Sax. nædl, OSax. nathla, ONorse nal, OFris. nedle, OHG nadala, Goth. neþla, Gmn. Nadel “needle”; OIr. snathat “needle”, Welsh nodwydd “needle”, nyddu “to sew”; OCS niti (нити) “thread”. In the Gmc. version, nee is an elided version of ine-, with allophones of adjectival/adverbial suffix -la/-lä: (i)nela > neþla (nethla) > nædl/næthl > needle. The Celtic forms snathat and nod(wydd) ascend to the N. Pontic forms of the 6th-5th mill. BC at the time of Celtic circum-Mediterranean departure, and indicate that the Türkic forms were probably elisions of the most ancient original nad/nath > ine. The Türkic etymology, though curvy and mushy after a timespan of 6000 years, appears preferable to the “IE” etymology, which invents phantom words and suffixes, and uses unrelated semantics of “wrap up” and “spin”. Notably, the pra-pra-Celtic Kurgans left from the N. Pontic 2000 years before the arrival there from the Central Europe of the much future Aryan farmers, and 3000 years before the Aryan departure to India and Iranian Plateau. That makes the connection between the Celtic forms for “needle” and Skt. form for “wrap up” very much phantom. The pra-pra-Celts also departed 4000 years before the arrival to the Aral Basin of the Kurgans that formed the Ogur languages after de-aridization and re-population of the Central Asia at about 1000 BC. That excludes any influence of the Ogur languages on the Celtic forms. The extent of our knowledge is Celtic > Late Türkic > Germanic > English. In contrast to the “IE” etymology, the Türkic etymology is feasible historically and phonetically, and pinpointed semantically.

English oath (n.) “solemn promise” ~ Türkic ötä-, (öte:-, öde:-) (v.) “perform, execute (obligation)”. The modern Russ. does not discriminate between t and th, the dictionary entry may in reality mean th instead of t, making the proto-form even closer. The connection between the forms ötä- and ant/anta probably ascends to a form of öŋdi: “customs, Common Law”. Cognates: A.-Sax. eaðan “make oath, swear”, að “oath”, cyningaeðe “oath to a king”, frithað “oath of peace”, etc., ONorse eiðr, Sw. ed, OFris. eth, Du. eed, Gmn. eid, Goth. aiths “oath”; OIr. oeth “oath”; the Irish might be a borrowing, but is argued to be a source; Mong., Tungus-Manchu anta “oath”, Türkic ant, and “oath”. The time depth of the form að is attested by numerous A.-Sax. compounds with að “oath”. All Gmc. cognates are phonetically close to the Türkic form ötä and its derivative ötäg “obligation, debt”, with perfectly identical semantics. All Gmc. cognates are phonetically close to the Celtic cognates phonetically and semantically, which points to, but can't be validated, that it is among the earliest Celticisms in the Gmc. family (Smirnitsky, 1998). It may ascend to the Globular Amphora period, the time when it split the Corded Ware populace into two unequal parts. The variety of anlaut spellings points to the vestiges of attempts to render the labial ö-: ei-, ee-, ai-, oa-, oe-; the induced articulation ow- of the Eng. spelling oa- still forces to produce a rounded vowel ö-. The use of the Türkic ötä is connected with the verb ič-/ach-/ish- “drink”, since the numerously recorded and depicted for the Scythians, Huns, and Türks act of pledging an oath was accomplished by joint drinking a mix of blood and dilutant of water or wine from a sacred dish, if possible made of a skull of a decimated enemy; in modern Türkic languages “to give oath” is still expressed as drinking: Kazakh ant ishu, Azeri ant ichmek “drink oath”. Among the “IE” 439 languages, except for Gmc., no cognates whatsoever; only Gmc. branch has cognates; both IE's Gmc. “proto-words” *aithaz and “IE” *oi-to- are figments of aroused imagination, imposters mirroring the real attested Türkic ötä-.
83

English papa (n.) “father” ~ Türkic baba/babai/papa/papai “father”. Türkic root baba/babai is “father, grandfather” with a notion “ancestor”, Cf. Scythian Papai “primogenitor, ancestor” (Herodotus, 4.59), Altaic, Chuvash, Khakas, etc. papai “father”. Papai is a full form, papa is a cognomen. Türkic has seven roots to refer to ancestral relatives: aba (Lat. ava), ace (allophones ece, eče:, ečü, ede (Norse edda, Sp. edad “age”), eke:), ata, baba, dedä, kök, tüp; of these, ata (allophones father, eðel), dedä (allophone dad), baba (allophone papa) endured into the modern Eng., some (dad, papa) are rated as colloquial, apparently in reference to the other Gmc. languages rated as standard. In some instances all the above terms revert to their prime notion of the “ancestor, elder”, and apply to females as a concrete noun (Cf. Sl. baba). Like other Türkic terms of relationship, papa is a notional term, with a general notion “ancestor, elder”, and in different contexts may mean, and be fossilized, as ancestor, father, grandfather, uncle, grandmother, and, like its European counterparts, the word may denote terms of relationship or respect (like the papa “pope” of the Christian clergy) or affection (toward an elder). Lit. and formal translations are not always accurate: “Pope Francis” is a throne name, with the original semantics “Father Francis” long abandoned, hence a lit. translation “Father Francis” or “Progenitor Francis” would be inaccurate. Papa appears as a paradigm, with synonymous dad, eðel and father, the last two are allophones of atta “father”, and dad is an allophone of dedä “father”, originally each one conveying its semantic nuance. To miss this screaming paradigm would take either a ton of ignorance or a strenuous effort by a partisan aficionado. The term baba for “father” has allophones standing for the Catholic and other Popes, generic for the Eastern Orthodox priests, and among others the Arm. papik (պապիկ) “grandfather”, Eng. papa, pop, pappy, etc., Fr. papa “father”, Sl. baba “grandma, old woman”. The allophones of papa are sown across Eurasia, mostly as concrete nouns. Cited cognates: Eng. papa, pappa, pa, pappy, pop, poppa, A.-Sax. fæder “father, male ancestor”, OSax. fadar, OFris. feder, Du. vader, ONorse faðir, OHG fater, Gmn. vater; OIr. athir “father”; Fr. papa, Lat. papa, pater; Gk. pappa, pater; pappas “father”, pappos “grandfather”; Sl. papa, otets, (папа; отец ~ Tr. ata); Skt. pitar-; OPers pita; Basque aita; Sem. aba, abu, Arab. ab (باء); Hu. apa; Sum. ab, aba; Kor. abeoji; Mong aav; Swahili (Bantu) baba. Most of these “cognates” are not cognates at all, they ascend to the alternate roots aba (aba, abu; apa, etc), ata ( father, eðel, etc), and baba (Swahili/Bantu baba) of the same paradigm. The “IE etymology” is laughable “probably derived from baby talk”; these babies must be older than the first dolmens, and ventured wide across Eurasia. The examples demonstrate unfettered Eurasian distribution of the Türkic terms for “father”, unfettered variations of allophones, time depth ascending to the first historical compilations, and paradigmatic transfer of different subsets of the basic complex of seven designations into different languages and linguistic families. Such uniquely developed and multi-faceted paradigmaticity constitutes unfalsifiable evidence attesting to its Türkic roots (Eng. dad, father, and papa; Goth. aba and atta, Sl. ded and otets, Lat. avus and atta). It attests to demographic amalgamations effecting paradigmatic transfers of linguistic complexes from the donor ethnicities to the recipient ethnicities. A close study of the geographic and ethnic prevalence of the various terms may help to discern tendencies and connect the dots in demographic flows. Notably, the Swahili/Bantu baba is consistent with the genetic finding that a part of the Celtic circum-Mediterranean Y-DNA R1b migrants in the 4th mill. BC ventured into the sub-Saharan Africa and amalgamated with the locals. See age, ethel, dad, father, uncle.

English peace “absence of war” ~ Türkic baz, barısh “peace”, ultimately fr. verb ba- “wrap, band, bundle” via baz “pacify”, and bar- “going (visitation, social intercourse”). The forms baz and bar- (mar- with m/b alteration) are largely parallel, lending to a common origin with eventual s/r split and reciprocal spread. The form baz is closer to the majority of the European forms. Türkic has a synonymous form amulluk “peace, tranquility” in the eastern languages (Uigur); apparently baz, barısh and amulluk were overlapping western and eastern terms respectively, amulluk has not reached Europe, but its allophone mir- did. Cognates: A.-Sax. frið (frith), Goth. wairfi, wairbeigs “peace” “at peace”, Gmn. Friede, Norse, Sw. fred, Icl. frið; Anglo-Fr. pes, OFr. pais (11c.), Fr. paix, Lat. pax, Provenčal patz, Sp. paz, It. pace, Cat. pau; Hu. béke; Latv. miers, Sl. mir (мир), Slvt. mier, Mong. amar (амар); Hunnic bejke, Sum. pag, Ch. 和平 hepíng. The “IE” exercises notwithstanding, it is quite obvious that all these allophonic forms derived from the same source, related to the 4th mill. BC record of the Sumerian cognate, and split between m/b alternation versions, with the b- version further splitting into b-, f- (v-), and p- versions: bir-, fir- (vir-), and pir-; the quality of the phoneme rendered as -z- in the transcriptions of the Türkic word corresponds to the transcriptions -s, -th, -tz, -z/-d, -c (-ch), and -x in other European languages. Other modifications include the well-documented prosthetic anlaut h- in and m/n (ng) alteration in Chinese, contraction fir- > fr- in Germanic languages, and ending variations -g, -sh, etc.; the Goth. rendition wairfi (~ bairthi) is a closest rendition of barısh. The Balto-Slavic, Sl., and Mong. forms belong to the m- version: mir, mier, amar. The Türkic, Hunnic (Isfahan Codex), and Hu. retained the b- formant. The systemic changes allow to trace the separate paths, including those of the Burgund/Bulgar/Provence/Fr. p- form, a separate and older Lat. p- form, NW European f- (v-) form, separate paths for the Central European and Far Eastern m- form, and Eurasian steppe zone b- form. Tracing also carries time stamps: 4th mill. BC Sum. fr. 6th-5th mill. BC Kurgan migration to Mesopotamia, Chinese fr. Zhou Scythian Kurgans migration of 20th – 16th cc. BC, Burgund Vandal Kurgan migration of 2nd c. BC – 5th c. AD. It is clear that the Sum. version is a vernacular offshoot of the pre- 4th mill. BC western steppe belt Sprachbund that reflects, but not defines, the variety of the allophonic forms of the time. The peculiar coexistence of the m/b alternation within the same communities endured for 7 millennia and has survived into the present times. The Eng. transition fr. Gmc./A.-Sax. wairfi/frið to largely Romance pax/peace attests to linguistic turmoil at the beginning of the 2nd mill. AD. See band, frog, mare.
84

English quarrel (n.) “altercation” ~ Türkic qaršï, keriš (n.) “enmity, discord, quarrel”, ascending to qaršu “opposite, against, facing you”, a derivative of a polysemantic verb qar-/ker- “overflow, break out”. The Eng. unexplainable idiom “to throw out one’s chest” is a calque of the Türkic metaphorical “bark, quarrel”. Another form of qaršu, in the Hunno-Bulgarian language, was kötur “behind, facing your behind”, which gave its name to the Hunnic Western Wing ~ Kutrigurs in Gk. rendering. The path to English is described as going via OFr. querele, Lat. querella “complaint”, queri “to complain, lament”, which transparently ascend to the Türkic qaršï. No “IE” cognates whatsoever.

English queen (n.) “female sovereign ruler” ~ Türkic yeŋä/jenä “wife”. The word queen belongs to the cluster of Türkic terms connected with feminism that are found in English, Gmc., and many “IE” languages: Eve, queen, wife. The term ascends to the Turkic stem yen-/jeŋ- “win”, reflecting the ancient Turkic tradition of pre-marriage competitions, where wife is a prize for the pretender's winning a wrestling match with his chosen maiden, hence the idiom “prize wife”, a calque of the Türkic jenä. Cognates: A.-Sax. cwen “queen, female ruler of a state, woman, wife”, OSax. quan, ONorse kvaen, Goth. quens “wife, spouse”, qino “woman, wife”, qens “queen”; Gaelic bean, Ir. ben “woman”; Gk. gyne, gune (ɣυνή) “woman, wife”; Balt.-Sl. (Lith.) jmona, , (OPruss.) genna, (Pruss.) genno “woman”; Sl. (OCS) zena, (Ukr.) jona, jinka, (Blr., Bulg., Croat) jena,jena, (Sloven., Czech., Slvt.) žena “woman, wife”, (Pol.) żona, (Luz.) žona; Arm. kin “wife, spouse”; Skt. janiṣ “wife, woman”, gna “goddess”, Av. jainish “wife”, gǝna-, ɣǝna, ɣna, ǰaini “woman, wife”; Kashgar, Kucha sän, sana “woman”; Ch. 后, 後 (hou) “queen”, 妻 (qi) “wife”, 妻子 (qizi) “wife, family”, 的妻子 (de qizi) “wife, wives”. The term proliferates in the Türkic, Gmc, Celtic, Balt.-Sl., Indo-Aryan, and reaches Far East, covering most of the Eurasia and far exceeding the “IE” areal. In that, the term's distribution parallels that of the whole cluster. An attention attracts the Celtic group, which had to carry this word from the N. Pontic to the Bell Beaker Iberia on the circum-Mediterranean Kurgan route, which would attest that the conjugational wrestling tradition dates to prior the 5th mill. BC. The South-Central Asian areal distribution attests to the presence of this term in the N. Pontic area prior the 2nd mill. BC. The Chinese cognates reflect the Scythian Zhou component in the Chinese language, ca 2300-1700 BC. Proliferation of the term in the Balt.-Sl. languages attests to its adoption prior to the split of the Balt.-Sl. tribes, their palatalized form is shared between the Balt.-Sl. and Indo-Aryan vernaculars, accurately reproducing the OT form yeŋä/jenä. The Lettish sieva belongs to the same cluster, it is a form of the Turkic sevig “love, beloved, loving, darling”, from “sev-/seb- to love”. The path of the queen/yeŋä/jenä to English likely was the same as for the word girl/kyr, via a distinct Gmc.-Sarmatian path, the initial q- attests to the Ogur source. See Adam, Eve, girl, king, quim, wife.

English regal (adj.) “related to supreme ruler” ~ Türkic arïɣ (adj.) “noble, honorable, flawless, faultless, clean, unpolluted, pure”. The initial base notion is “pure, clean”. All European allophones elide the unaccented anlaut vowel and carry a distinct semantics of the “nobility”, “rule”, and “ruler”. Cognates: A.-Sax. -ric “king”, rice “rich, powerful”, A.-Sax. rice “kingdom”, Goth. reiks “leader”; OIr. ri “king”, Gael. righ, Gaul. -rix, Welsh brenhinol/frenhinol/mrenhinol “regal, royal”; Lat., rex “king”, regere “to rule”, regalis “royal”, OFr. roi “king”, regal “royal”; Skt. raj- “king, leader”. The attested Gaul. and A.-Sax. forms are agglutinated to the name according to the Türkic syntax (e.g. Chingis-khan, Boarix, Bilge-Kagan, Gunderic, etc.). Eng. cluster includes “royal”, “rex”, “regalia”, “regime”, “regent”, etc., all related to Fr. and Lat. sources supposedly derived from the Lat. stem rex “king”, an allophone and semantic extension of the Türkic designation arïɣ “noble, honorable”. It is unrelated to the “IE” directional notions of “right” and “straight”. Distribution indicates that the title was carried overland to the Northern Europe by the pastoral tribes of the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Hunnic circles, to the South-Central Europe by the circum-Mediterranean Celtic migrants who left the N.Pontic in the 6th-5th mill. BC, and to the South-Central Asia by the Aryan migrants between 2000 and 1500 BC. In the “IE” etymology, based on some phonetic resemblance, the dubiously compatible notions of “right”, “straight”, and “king” are conflated, and individual words are extracted from the eclectic pile based on the opinions formulated by reverse projections. The distribution of the words with the directional semantics “right” and “straight” attests a much later existence in the geographical area of the Eastern Europe of a parallel directional lexicon that did not affect the earlier circum-Mediterranean Celtic migrants. The directional cluster includes cognates that can be dated to the period much after 6th-5th mill. BC and before 2000 BC: A.-Sax. riht, Goth. raihts, OHG recht, OSw. reht, ONorse rettr “right, correct”; Lat. rectus “right, correct”; Av. raze- “to direct”, Pers. rahst “right, correct”. The terms for “king” (Skt. raj-) and “direction” (Av. raze-, Pers. rahst) migrated from the Eastern Europe to the South-Central Asia after 2000 BC. The “IE” linguistic etymology is in conflict with the dating provided by archeological and genetics disciplines. The Türkic etymology is semantically precise, phonetically near perfect, its distribution is consistent with other extracts from the Türkic phylum in the European and Eurasian languages. Combined with numerous other title-related Turkisms in English (baron, earl, king, queen), that presents a case of systemic paradigmatic transfer to English, an inescapable evidence of the common origin. See baron, earl, king, queen.

English saga (n.) “historical narration” ~ Türkic savga- (v.) “tell the history, narrate”. The deverbal verb is formed from the verb söy-/sav-/söjle/suj/söle/süle/sülä “say” with a rare in the eastern Türkic languages imperative suffix -ga-, a variation of the “rare” in the eastern languages instrumental deverbal noun suffix -gu, and thus the suffix is either a guest from the western Türkic languages, or archaic, and likely both. Ultimately, the stem sav/sab (and verbal sav-/sab-) is a derivative of the stem sa- “count, reckon”, see sane, sanity, say. The verb form with -g- (sög-) is cited specifically for the modern Tuvinian (annalistic Tabgach) languages. The -g/-y alternation is a case of very early sound change -g (-k) > -y > zero. Cognates: A.-Sax. sagu “a saying”, ONorse saga “saga, tale, story”, MLG, MDu. sage, zage, Gmn. Sage “legend, fable, saga, myth, tradition”; Ch. shua 说 “saga”. The “IE” etymological attempts conjectured an ultimate “PIE proto-word” *sekw- “say, utter”, mechanically extracted from the Gmc. allophones, and unwittingly replicated the Türkic söy- “say, utter” with its allophones, but without recognizing the origin from the base sa-. The base sa- in turn, in addition to the secondary semantics “tell, narrate” also conveyed by the form sav-, can be also articulated sä-/sə- and the like, Cf. articulation of the element in the forms sayla-/saila-/saylə-/seyle-/seiyle-/suyla-/šayla- “discuss”. These moments are consistent with the Gmc. articulations. The semantic and phonetic match is perfect, independently confirmed by the “IE” etymological exercise. The form savga- serves only as a marker on a road, the variety of the daughter forms and their Eurasian spread suggest more than a single possible path, but the ultimate origin from the stem sa- is indisputable. The word saga (n.) appears as a paradigmatic transfer case, with synonymous “tale” (n.), thus the same stories are variously called saga or tale (tal), or even both, Cf. Saga “Ynglinga tal”, lit. “Saga Ynglinga tale”, complete with the noun locative conjugational suffix -ga, “Tale on Yngling” or “Story on Yngling”. Snorri did “Ynglings Saga” and Thjodolf did “Ynglinga tal”. In a Ch. rendition the “Ynglings Saga” would be called “Ynglinga Shua (说)”, and the “Ynglings Tale” would be called “Ynglinga Tan (谈)”, another Ch.-Türkic-Eng. paradigmatic transfer link. Neither Eng. nor Ch. can ever be accused of historical cross-contamination. It is nearly impossible for a professional to ignore the conspicuous paradigm. See tale, sane, sanity, say.
85

English sagacity (n.) “insightful, wise” ~ Türkic sag, sağ (ğ may be articulated silently), saq “wise, talented, foresighted”, from the stem sag- “mind, intelligence, acumen”, deverbal noun fr. sa:- “count”. Cognates: MFr. sagacité, Lat. sagacitatem, sagax “sagacity”, also “of quick perception, prophetic”. The Romance and the English forms carry a trace of the Türkic agglutinated suffix -g/-ɣ/-ag/-aɣ/-ïg/-ïɣ/-ig/-iɣ/-ug/ -uɣ/-üg/-oɣ/-ög that forms nouns and adjectives, and produced a number of allophonic suffixes in Lat. The Romance form also retained the semantic derivatives of the Türkic sag, sağ. The confused “IE etymology” incredulously derives the English sage “wise (n.)” from the Lat. sapere “to taste”, entirely ignoring the Lat. word sagax “sagacity”, and then for some unspecified reasons uses sage < sapere “to taste” to etymologize sagacity. Go figure. See saga, sage, say.

English salary (n.) “compensation, payment” ~ Türkic salɣa- (v.) “to pay off compensation, to zero off payment account”, in both cases referring to periodical or final payment for regular or specific service. Ultimately a derivative fr. the verbal stem sal- “move, dispense” that conveys a notion of outward motion in numerous ways, of which “give” and “dispense” is but an one facet, represented by translations “expel”, “draw (something) aside”, “bring (carry, bear) to”, “send”, “spend”, “release”, “move”, “hurl”, and more, see sale. Cognates: OFr. salarie, Lat. salarium “salary, stipend” for “soldier's pay”. Türkic mercenaries served in all armies from Mediterranean to Yellow Sea for as long as we have written history, everybody had to learn to pay salɣa, including Romans, Greeks, Persians, and Chinese, among many others. The Alexander sarcophagus depicts Persian soldiers exclusively as Scythians in Scythian hats shooting Parthian shoot with composite bows, in the battle scene the Persians are nowhere to be found. Accordingly, the word salɣa had to enter lexicon of all those farming states that employed Türkic mounted mercenaries. We have OFr. salarie, Lat. salarium “salary, stipend” for “soldier's pay”; The “IE” folk etymology for “salary” of “pertaining to salt” is totally incongruent: if the Türkic word for payment would have resembled avis, this same kooky etymology would have had it “pertaining to birds”. The Türkic cognate of salɣa is salïɣ “taxes, dues, imposts” with the same notion of “you owe me, you pay me”. The original semantics, associated with payment for hired guns, and the phonetic similarity attest to the real origin. See sale, satisfy.

(Skip) English saldo (n.) “outstanding balance” ~ Türkic salɣa (v.) “to pay off compensation, to zero off payment account”. Ultimately a derivative fr. the verbal stem sal- “move, dispense” that conveys a notion of outward motion in numerous ways, of which “give” and “dispense” is but an one facet, represented by translations “expel”, “draw (something) aside”, “bring (carry, bear) to”, “send”, “spend”, “release”, “move”, “hurl”, and more, see sale. See salary, sale, satisfy.

English savant (n.) “scholar, pundit” ~ Türkic savan/saban “prophetic, wise” (adj.) with an instrumental noun suffix -an/-än (-ən), OTD form savčï/sabčï “prophet, messenger”, a derivative of sav/sab (v.) “word, speech” with an agent noun suffix -čï/-či (-chy/-chi) “speaker, teller, talker, informant” that grew into “foreteller” and then to “prophet, messenger”. The instrumental suffix -аn/-än (-am/-en) produced object noun savan/saban with semantic “speaking, speech, telling, tale, informing, information” that grew into “foretelling, divination” and then to “prophetic, wise”. Cognates: A.-Sax. sefa “mind, understanding, insight”; OSw. sebban “perceive, note”, OHG seffen; Fr. savant “learned man”, Sp. se, sabe “to know”, Lat. sapere “wise”, sapientem “wise” from palatalized form sab > sap. Notably, English, Gmc. and Lat. have all preserved the Türkic substrate form with the Türkic non-animated adjectival suffix аn/än, attesting to the origin of the word; the ending -t, -s, etc. are individual modifications. English and other Gmc. forms did not fall into the Lat. palatalized form sap, showing parallel independent processes of modification and innovation. All Türkic courts at all levels employed a staff of counselors whose duty was to know the future (Cf. the Merlin). Since the “recall” of the ruler was swift and lethal, counselors' importance at the courts was immense, and their accountability for predictions and advice was existentially crucial; their longevity was short, and their turnover was relatively high. At the Bulgar/Avar courts they were called Boyars/Bolyars/Boils, Cf. Tonyukuk's title Boila Baɣa Tarqan, Boila stood for “seer” and is usually translated “wise”. The Türkic root forms sav/sab/sag/sai have a flavor of suffixed derivatives of once one-syllable primal form se/sa that may be older than the haplogroups R or R1. The suggested “IE etymology” of sap “liquid in a plant” is as far from being relevant as it can get; no “IE” cognates whatsoever lay outside of the Gmc.-Lat. circle. See say, sage, sapient.

English secret “hidden” ~ Türkic soqru “secret, hidden, covert”, probably a derivative of soq-/sïɣ-/suk- “hide, insert”. Cognates: Latv. slepens, Lith. slaptas; Sloven., Serb. skriv-, Slvt. skry-, Bosn., Croat skri-, skro-; Lat. celatum and secretum; Fin. salaisuus, Est. saladus; Az. sirli; Akkadian secru “concealed/closed up”, secretu/secratu “concealed woman” and an Akkadian appellation for the goddess, the earliest record of the 28-24 cc. BC. The Akkadian word does not ascend neither to the Sum. nor Semitic origin, and it is patently non-IE. The Az. form allows development into both the sVl- and sVr-/sVkr- forms, covering the whole spectrum of the European s- forms with quite peculiar distribution in Balt.-Sl., Sl., Fennic, and Lat. Since the slp- forms of the Latv., Lith., Fin., Est., and of the Lat. celatum form are incongruent with the skr- form of secret, as reasonable cognates they should be rejected. That leaves the skr- forms of the Akkadian, Lat., and Sl. forms as reasonable allophone cognates of the Türkic soqru. The perfect semantic and near-perfect phonetic match practically exclude a random coincidence. The randomly accidental presence of the word within the “IE” family attests to its status as a loanword and thus excludes an “IE” provenance of the word and the absurd of the pseudo-scientific “PIE proto-word” *krey-/*krehi(y)- fantasies.
86

English son “male offspring” ~ Türkic soŋ (son_g) “offspring“, soŋsuz (son_gsuz) “childless” (-suz is a negation suffix), ultimately fr. soŋ (son_g) “end, after, then, trailing” (M. Kashgari). Cognates: allophones of son in all Gmc. languages, all archaic Gmc. allophones also denote “offspring, descendant”, with peculiar semantic dichotomy shared with Tr.; A.-Sax., OSax., OFris. sunu, ONorse sonr, Goth. sunus, OHG sunu, the Icl. sonur is a lit. compound allophone of the Tr. soŋ er “male offspring”; Balto-Sl. (Lith.) sunus, (Slavonic) syn; Lat. sunus; Gk. huios; Av. hunush; Skt. sunus; in Ch., sun 孙 and sunz 孙子 is “grandson”, another peculiar English/Türkic/Chinese concurrence, with a spill into Romance (Lat.) and Slavic. Lat. is an oddball in using an allophone of son, all other Romance (and Uralic) languages use variations of fil. Besides archaic Skt., the eastern “IE” languages do not know neither fill nor son, attesting to an absence of a pan-IE “proto-word”, and a guest status of all stems but one. The A.-Sax. has numerous appellations for “son” (byre, doc, eafora, hyse nap. hyacas, maeg, etc.), but only sunu participates in forming relationship terms like “grandson”, attesting to its lexical primacy and hence to the Türkic substrate origin. The “IE etymology” strenuously ignores linguistic situation within the “IE” family, and suggests a partial solution exclusively for son, from a notion “give birth” based on Skt. and OIr. distant homophones (sauti and suth respectively). That partial suggestion is not sustainable, first because OIr. “son” is not an allophone of son, secondly because it does not explain the path for the Türkic and Chinese Eurasian languages that do use the allophones of son, thirdly, it can't explain the Türkic-Gmc. dichotomy, and fourthly it does not explain the oddity of the Skt. and OIr. sharing the same word for “parturition” in spite of these two migrant groups drastically different paths in time and space (2nd mill. BC eastward vs. 5th mill. BC westward). Instead, the Kurgan migrations provide corroborating scenario of spreading the term soŋ to the Northwestern Europe, Skt. and China, and for the Türkic-Gmc. dichotomy. It also explains the absence of allophones for son in Celtic languages, the Celtic Neolithic circum-Mediterranean departure from the Eastern Europe is dated to 6th-5th mill. BC, before the soŋ became a term for “son” in the Eastern Europe, and the Gk. and Aryan migrations from the Eastern Europe took place in the 2nd mill. BC after the soŋ became a term for “son”. The anlaut -h- in Gk. and Av. is consistent with the s-/h- transition observed for the Caspian-Aral basin. See
87

English sooth (n.) “truth, reality” ~ Türkic čïn [chyn] (n.) “truth”, (adj.) “true”. Ultimately an allophonic derivative of the verb sa- “count, reckon”, explicitly corroborated by the Sl. synonyms, Cf. sane. According to the “IE” explorations, soð is a contraction of an unattested sonð “true” from some imaginary unattested faraway neverland. The sonð, in turn, is a transparent allophone of the Türkic čïn, which closes the loop and gets rid of the imaginary neverland. Cognates: A.-Sax., OSax. (contracted) soð (soth) (n.) “truth, justice, righteousness, rectitude”, ONorse sannr (adj.) “true”, OHG sind, sand “true”, Goth. sind, sunja “truth”, OIsl. sannr, saðr “truth, veracity, dictum”; Sl. sut (суть), sa (са), su (су), jsou/ysou “substance, meaning, kernel”; Lat. sunt; Skt. santi; Ch. chin 真 “true, really”. No sensible “IE” etymology, it is roaming phonetically across the entire linguistic field, the mechanical constructs of the type *h₁sónts, *es-ont-, *h₁es-, *es- lead from nowhere to nowhere. Equally uncouth is a suggestion to mechanically link the word for truth with the word sin “transgression”, an unwitting allophone of the Türkic verb sın- “break, trespass”, see sin. In the Gmc. languages, the form sun-/san-/so- was supplanted by the synonymous forms of “true” (Cf. Goth. triggws), the allophonic forms of the Türkic dürüst, see true. Both, the Türkic forms for “truth”, and the word for “sin”, found their way into Gmc. languages. The separate paths crossing linguistic families to the European and Ch. groups are obvious. The Eng. form, a stand-out within the Gmc. languages, tentatively links its distinction with the anabasis of the Saxon-Sekler-Scythian-Saka people vs. the westward path of the Corded Ware Gmc. people and the eastward path of the Skt. The unequalled abundance of the A.-Sax. derivatives of soð points to a long cultural timeframe. The Chinese chin 真 “truth” is likely a reflex of the Scythian Zhou component in the Chinese language. Ultimately from the same source, the paradigmatic transfer of the duo's čïn and dürüst synonyms and allophonic forms forthrightly attests to the very specific common Türkic genetic origin. See sane, sin, true.

(Skip) English tend (v.) “look after”, tutor (n.) “guardian” ~ Türkic taya “nurse, nursing”. The notion of “save, preserve, guard” is expressed in Türkic with a verbal stem tut-, which is an obvious candidate for all the English, Lat., and Türkic derivatives and cognates. English has an abundance of derivatives: attend, tender, tutor, and many others; Türkic has a matching variety of derivatives, all congruent semantically across languages. The Türkic cognates include: taya- (v.) support (a child); tayjši (taishi) mentor; taytür fine, refined; tiun steward; among the cognates is Ch. tayshi 導師, complete with the Türkic suffix -shi/-chi of profession, trade, or involvement, apparently ascending to the Zhou tradition of mentoring the youngsters. In Türkic tradition, the honor and obligation of mentoring boys belongs to the grandfather on the female line, but with the Qin/Han takeover, the Türkic family tradition of tutoring was abolished, and tutors were appointed by officials or seniors. Likely, the Türkic notion of gentle support, a nurse, was a primary semantics that developed into notions of gentleness and tutoring, and ended up, among others, with English tending offers. The Lat. tutor (n.) “guardian, watcher” and tutela “guarding, watching” from the verb tueri “watch over” are direct reflexes of the Türkic taya “nurse, nursing”, complete with the Türkic suffixes -or for “man” and -la to form adjectives and adverbs. The Hu. dajka “nurse” apparently is also a reflex of the Türkic taya “nurse”, possibly taken from the Ogur branch. Genetic composition of the Hungarians suggests that Magyars were a union with predominance of Türkic Sarmatian males and Fennic Uralian females, and the females carried their language into posterity. This belief is corroborated by the archeological observations in the South Urals in the Late Sarmatian period. The “IE etymology” is absent, in the IE-centered compilations any etymology is missing, the attribution is a standard “of unknown origin”. Curiously, while the tend does not have an “IE” etymology, the attend does, from a Lat. tendere “stretch”. If one can stretch stretch into nursing and tutoring, stretching dinosaur into mama is a child's play.

English thief (n.) “stealer”, derivatives and variations thieve, theft (n.) ~ Türkic tef, tev (n.) “guile, deception”. Cognates: A.-Sax. theof, theofian, OFris. thiaf, OSw. thiof, MDu. dief, Gmn. diob, Gmn. dieb, ONorse thiofr, Goth. thiufs; Balt. (Lith.) tupeti “to crouch”. For theft: OE theofð, WSax. thiefð, OFris. thiufthe, ONorse thyfð, with suffix -itha, which is the Türkic abstract noun suffix -č/-čï/-ču/-čü cognate with the same function Lat. -ita, Balt. -ži, Slavic -ch/-ishch (-ч/-ищ). Thus, the Türkic tefč or thefč (tefch or thefch) corresponds to A.-Sax. theofð (theofth) etc. Theft is one of the cases where the modern English word, in addition to the stem, preserved the word with agglutinated Türkic suffix in its recognizable form.

English throne (n.) “monarch chair” ~ Türkic tör, törä “throne, honorific seat, imminence, importance”, törä “throne, law, custom”, tören (n.) “celebration, ceremony”. The analogy with the European (throne) and Hebrew (law, torah) is undeniable. Cognates: Lat. thronus, Gk. thronos “elevated seat, chair, throne”. The word throne became an international word with the same meaning in all European languages, and numerous idiomatic extensions in every language, mostly international calques. The Türkic traditional ceremony of physically raising to the throne on a felt carpet retained its echo in the idiom “raise to the throne”, and in the British bag of wool on the seat of the throne. The reunion of the base word, tör, törä, with the two precise semantic meanings, throne and law, between the three unconnected languages with the two distinct leading paths probabilistically is near absolutely impossible. The earliest the word törä “law” could reach the Near East from the Middle East is with the Abraham migration ca. 12-15th cc. BC, and on to English in the 5th c. AD. The earliest the word tör “throne” could reach the A.-Sax./English is 5th c. AD, coming from the European Huns. These two independent paths attest to a complicated case of paradigmatic transfer leading to the final reunion in English, and indelibly attest to the ultimate Türkic common source that started in a nomadic yurt. It is impossible for any etymologist to see the törä “law” and not to question the reason for such a remarkable consonance with the torah /tora/ “law”, if only to dismiss away the coincidence as purely fortuitous or by some other palatable explanation. It is equally impossible to drop an explanation for the consonance between the second meaning of törä “throne” and the word “throne”. The ethics and credulity of such research begs for skepticism. See torah.
88

(Skip) English trust (n.) “certainty” ~ Türkic döres(t) (Tatar), tröst (Turk.) (n.) . Cognates: A.-Sax. treowian “to believe, trust”, treowe “faithful, trusty”, ONorse traust “confidence”, “to trust”, OFris. trast, OHG trost “trust, fidelity”, Goth. trausti “agreement, alliance”, Du. troost. Notably, “IE” cognates are nowhere in sight. Apparently, the only possible source is the Sarmatian migration from the Ural-Itil area, the “Wendeln/Veneds” circle, which brought over the Oguz-Kipchak form to the central and western Europe. The eastern Türkic forms, from the verb tayа- “rely, lean, rely on, depend upon” are phonetically much different from the western forms. The vowels -au- in the ONorse and -eo- in OE apparently tried to convey the Türkic round-labial ö well-preserved in the French phonology.

(Skip) Gmn. Ulan “cavalryman” ~ Türkic “ulan/oglan" - “young man”, “scion of a noble family”. Same word in Pol., Russ.. See clan.

(Skip) English Urheimat, German Heimat “fatherland, motherland, homeland” in Urheimat ~ Türkic xajmatläx (Chuv.) “kindred”. The same word in common Türkic would sound as hünmäklïg. The Chuv. composite consists of components xaj + mat + läx, or kin (Hun) + abstract noun suffix -mat (forms -ma/-mä/-maq/-mäk/-mïr-/-mur) + abstract noun suffix -lig (forms -lig/-liɣ/-lik/-lan) “like”, i.e. lit. “of the kinship”; the suffix -lic is still productive in English, it is a part of the nouns “public”, “alcholic”, “bucolic”, etc.; the form xaj, as a colloquial form of the kin/Hun, is known from the Armenian endonym Hai, as a Caucasian designation of the Hailandurk Huns, and form the modern ethnonym Haitak/Haitag for the descendants of the Caucasian Huns. Notably, the OHG pra-form heimoudil (hei-moud-il) of the modern Gmn. Heimat contains the Türkic root -il-, which stands for the “country, land, nation” i.e. lit. “of the kinship country”. In English, the Gmn. Heimat became popular in the compound Urheimat, widely used in linguistics in relation to the soil where the romantic tree of the Indo-European linguistics was gestated. It turned out, it was gestated in a wagon, on the road from the Balkans via N.Pontic to the Baltic. See kin.

English ware “manufactured goods, goods for sale” ~ Türkic tavar “goods, property for sale”. Ultimately fr. the verb tav- “(in respect to property) deal, dealing, turnover of working capital” recorded in the form tavïš- “to trade (mutually, cooperatively)”, initially for domesticated animal property, and later specifically for “merchandise, trade goods” property, i.e. manufactured goods. A synonymous Türkic satïš- “to trade (mutually, cooperatively)” found a wide distribution in India, even becoming a tribal/clan name, while an echo of the form tav-/tavïš- was recorded with an instrumental noun suffix -gach as an annalistic tribal name Tabgach (Tavgach, Tuba, Tuva, Tuvinian, Ch. Tuoba) for the rulers of the Chinese Empire Wei (Tuoba Wei 拓跋魏, 386–535). The uniformity of the Gmc. forms attests that the peculiar trade term was internalized at a very early stage with elided unaccented anlaut ta-, probably confused with the article die/de, Cf. Scand. die Waare/de Waare. Cognates: A.-Sax. waru, Eng. ware “manufactured goods, goods for sale”, OFris. were, MDu. were, MHG, Gmn. ware, Sw. vara, Dan. vare, Du. waar, Scand. die Waare/de Waare, all meaning “goods”. The Türkic and Gmc. forms are allophonically eidetic and semantically identical. With the Türkic word used from Pacific to Atlantic, there is no need to fantasize an artificial semantically incongruent” mechanical concoction of a “PIE root” *wer- “perceive, watch out for” to designate goods and trade. See tavern.

English Yule (n.) “winter holiday” ~ Türkic yol (n.) “road, way”, as a winter holiday “road, way (of fate)”; the original full name of the holiday was “Yule Tengri” ~ “Fate (from) Tengri” ~ “Fate (from) God”, it is celebrated on the winter solstice, with spruce, music, dances, and gift exchanges. Cognates: A.-Sax. geol, geola, Ang. giuli, ONorse jol, Gmn. Yule; OFr. jolif; Modern Fr joli “festive”, semantically extended to “pretty, nice”; Modern English jolly “festive”; Sum. yol “road, way”. In the religious and “IE” etymological fields, the term is dumbfoundingly rated “of unknown origin”, although it is still active in the Türkic-populated areas, and is sufficiently well described in the ethnological literature. An 8th c. Tibetan inscription from a Thousand Buddhas cave mentioned Yol-Tangri “God's Path” revered in the fortress Shu-balyk in Dunhuan. After advent of Christianity in the 4th c., the winter solstice period was reassigned to mean “the 12-day feast of Nativity”, with the advent of Christianity it was transported to Northern Europe, and in the 11th c. it was reassigned to Christmas, becoming a “Christmas Yule”, or “Christmas holiday”. The term is still active in the Northern Europe, with all its traditional trimmings. The Sum. yol attests 4th mill. BC, a long way to the Norse Christianity and Papal edicts. See jolly.

English youth (n., adj.) “young person” ~ Türkic yaš (yash, adj.) “youth, young, green”, also “year” (in terms of age). Cognates: A.-Sax. geoguð “youth”, related to geong “young”; OSw. juguth, OFris. jogethe, OHG jugund, MDu. joghet, Du. jeugd, Gmn. Jugend, Goth. junda “youth”. In ME, the medial -g- became a yogh (geoyoghuð ), which then disappeared. The Türkic prosthetic y- is a dialectal version of yok-/jok- dialects that distinguish Ogur languages innate for the Huns and Bulgars, their ancestors, and their descendants. It is expressed as anlaut y-/j-/g- and their close allophones; Oguz languages do not use prosthetic consonants in front of the initial vowel. A bifurcated version of yas is qar, with s-/r- alteration, also typical for Ogur/Oguz split. The terms like young are derivatives of yaš “green, youth” with suffix -n/-ng/-ŋ of adv. of quality from adj. Notably, English retained the connection between youth and green, which in Türkic is a single polysemantic stem yaš. See baby, brother, child, cousin, doll, puppy.
89

4.4 Religious

English abyss, abysm (n.) “bottomless (gulf), greatest depths” ~ Türkic abamu (n., adj.) “endless”; unrelated to homophonic abam/apam “if”. The abysm falls into the group of the terms inherited from the Buddhist nomenclature. Cognates: OFr. abisme, Fr. abime, Sp., Port. abismo, VLat. abysm, LLat. abyssus. No “IE” cognates outside confined examples, the VLat. and LLat. examples are late borrowings. For such a peculiar abstract notion, the phonetic and semantic coincidence is striking. The “IE” etymology is not applicable because the word lays outside of nearly all of the “IE” family's languages. A suggested etymology is Gk. a- negation + byssos (βασσοσ) “bottom” fr. bathos (βαθοσ) “depth”, which ultimately ascends to the Türkic verb bat (v.) “immerse in water”, see bath. A parallel emergence of the cognates abamu and abysm for “endless” is impossible, that casts doubt on the Gk.-origin etymology. The Türkic-language Buddhist nomenclature has a Buddha Abamu associated with eternal nirvana, another attestation against a Gk. origin, that also could have suggested a Hindi origin that penetrated Gk. and Türkic languages, but a parallel derivation of a concrete noun (Gk.) and adjective (Tr.) from a proper name of a deity is also too far fetched to be possible, and although Hindi does not have the word abamu for “bottomless”, “depths”, “endless”, “eternal”, and the like, the source may be Prakrit or some other Indian vernacular. That largely leaves Türkic as the most probable source that applied abamu to a concrete Buddha, came to Romance languages via Burgund nomads as attested by Fr. and LLat. connection, and was independently acquired by Gk. See bath, bode, bursary, mantra, monastery, sin, testament.

English Adam (via Bible) “first man, progenitor” ~ Türkic adam, adami “(generic) man, human”. Ultimately fr. ata/ada “father” with a possessive suffix -m “my father”, i.e. not a some abstract “father”. The Semitic aba/abi “father” is unrelated to the Türkic ata “father”, the possessive suffix -m can't be explained in the framework of the Semitic languages, and the Semitic aba could not have produced the form adam. Now Adam is international word, its origin is ascribed to the Heb., but except for the 42+ Türkic languages, no other language on our globe has adam for the generic “man”. Only the Türkic languages use adam in non-religious context: the English “I met an old man in the grocery store” in Heb. reads “פגשתי איש זקן במכולת” with איש “man” = hoish, not adam, while in the modern Turkish it is “Ben bakkal yašlı bir adamla karšılaštım”, with adam “man” + accusative case suffix -la. In Heb. Adam אָדָם is a proper name “Adam”, not a איש “man”; the האנושות is “mankind”, not “adamkind”; and adamah is “ground, earth's surface”, not a “man”. The Heb. etymology, albeit popular, does not hold the water, and even though during the last 3000 years the religious proper household name Adam had enough opportunities to dub as a common noun, it still did not go there. Only the Türkic phrase “God created man” uses adam for “man”: “Tanrı adam olušturulan”. With the advent of the Christianization in the 5th-7th cc., the Biblical Adam at times probably was used eponymously for “generic man” or “human, humans at large” as part of religious or literary rhetorical trade vocabulary. The Biblical presence of the eponymic Adam and Eve, both from the Türkic linguistic field, attests that the Genesis mythic story originated in the Türkic folklore. That guidance allows to suggest that the hero name of the Sumerian mythic story, conventionally read as Akkadian Gilgamesh, should be read as Sumerian Bilgemiš, from the Türkic Bilge “Wise” and an old denoun adjectival/adverbial suffix -miš, i.e. “Omniscient”, quite suitable for the epical superlative title-name. See Eve.

English alms “donation, offering” ~ Türkic alım “offering”, lit. “give takings” from a cluster consistent with religious semantics: аlmak/algı “taking, payment”, acıma “pity”. Ultimately a noun derivative of al- “take, capture, accept” (Cf. A.-Sax. alaeccan “catch, take”, alaenan “lend, grant”, the language of generous giving is extremely well developed in A.-Sax.). Cognates: A.-Sax., Gmn. ælmesse, A.-Sax. aelmes, almysse, OSw. alamosna, OHG alamuosan, ONorse ölmusa, Ecclesiastical Gk. “charity, alms”, eleemon “compassionate”; Lat. eleemosyne, eleemosyna; Romance languages: OSp. almosna, OFr. almosne, It. limosina. In Gmc. languages, allophones of the Turkism alms and their derivatives are practically the only way to express pious offering. Etymology: supposedly “of unknown origin”. The Türkic аlmak lit. stands for “make alms”, transposed in English to make alms “make alms” (inf.). Alms belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition terminology, along with the lexemes cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mengir, mound, pyre, tomb, tumulus. See cairn, coffin, curse, make, yield, etc.

English amen “so be it” (adj., adv.) ~ Türkic ämin (emïn, e:mi:n, imin) (adj., adv.) “safety, security, protection”, the act of protection and reassurance. Ultimately a derivative fr. the noun am “pudenda, quim, vagina, vulva”, Cf. amra:- “to love”, see Amor, and an allophonic verb um- “desire”. The prime notion developed into a cluster of flavors connected with female beginning, femininity, and motherhood. Among illustrating derivatives are the notion “love”, Cf. amra:- “to love”, umdu: “desire, covet”; the notion “safety”, Cf. ämin “safety”, amrul- “calm down”, amšu “offering”, amul “quiet, quietly, gently, peaceable”, amulluq “tranquility”, amurt- “pacify”, amüč “gift”; the notion “hope”, Cf. umdur- “to hope, beg”, umid “hope”, umun- “to desire, request, pray”. Secular applications of the form ämin/emïn/imin are expressed in the cited examples (for the purposes of illustration, with maximum use of the English Turkisms):
ämin (“safe, assured, protected”) qamuɣ (all, entire, gamut), i.e. “all (is) safe” lit. “gamut amen/safe/protected/assured” (OTD 75),
yolda (“yule, road”) ämin (“safe, assured, protected”) jorït (journey), i.e. “yule/road (is) safe (for) journey”) (EDT 161, OTD 75).
In the religious context, the Ämin/Emïn/Imin literally means “Assure/Protect Us”, “(Give/Bless) us (with your) assurance/protection”. The notion “us” is expressed with the suffix -in, which forms reflexive verbs from the verbal roots “self, me, selves, us”, or noun result (i.e. “protected, safeguarded”), or dominant nouns/adjectives “greater safety, security, protection” (Cf. -en in Gmc. languages and its relicts in Eng.: children, oaten, oven). The suffix -in also forms instrumental denoun nouns (i.e. “Protector, Guardian”), or noun/adjectives and semantically not applicable to the religious context concrete nouns. The extreme polysemy of the suffix -in and its use in forming numerous downstream suffixes attest to its high archaicity. The same can be stated about the lexical cluster derived from the Vm- type root, with its interlinked and synonymic derivatives. Considering that most of the religious lingo is formulaic and extremely conservative (“amen” is used identically by all three contiguous religions, starting from the Judaism, i.e. from the second half of the 2nd mill. BC), its use may project beyond the Sumerian times. The interpretations “so be it”, “faithfulness, loyalty”, and a host of other interpretations in numerous languages are conditioned on tradition and diverse linguistic apparatuses. They are rather literary translations with means of specific vernacular apparatus, practically useless for etymological exploration. Usually, semantics of those translations is in stark conflict with the spirit of a prayer, they contravene the humility of supplication. No prayer can end with a demand or an assertion that the demand must be satisfied. Semantically, a prayer must conclude with an exclamation of the type “Please, we beg you to do that”, where “that” is the content of the prayer, its expressed desire, its expressed expectation, and its expression of a submittal to the will of the Almighty. Neither the edgy “so be it” nor the senseless “faithfulness, loyalty” fits the plea. The Türkic ämin, with its allophones, does not carry that conflict. It asks for protection, for safety, it asks for benevolence. The deverbal noun ämin is a derivative of the verb äm-/em-/um- “ask, hope, desire, expect”, with the suffix -in it produces a noun result expressing trust “reliable, reliably, dependable, dependably, correct, correctly”, reassurance “safety, security, protection”. The religious and “IE” etymologies end up at Heb. amen אמן “faithfulness, loyalty”, but the idea that non-Judaic and non-Christian Türkic tribes across Eurasia learned the word from Heb., or that this is a chance phonetical and semantic coincidence is preposterous. The Arabic influence is ruled out for the same reason, the non-Islamic Türkic tribes across Eurasia could not get it from the Arabs. In addition, in parallel with the other religious terms like the adam and eve, the Türkic word ämin is used for most casual speech: “safe roads” (lit. “reliable roads”), “dependable caravan”, “do not trust (friends)” (lit. “do not rely on”), “hope on somebody” (lit. “hope, sureness”). It is used with appropriate derivatives and numerous allophones, a sure indicator of the indigenous lexeme with religious application being only a minor semantic offshoot. None of the languages that utilize the formulaic religious “amen” use it as an active word-forming root outside of the religious context. Adoption of the exclamation amen from a Tengrian ritual into the pre-Heb. and then to Heb. ritual was a forerunner of its adoption into the Christian and Islamic rituals, and a harbinger of its global spread. See Adam, Amor, Eve.

English Amor (God of love, Roman pantheon), amorous, amorist, etc. ~ Türkic amra/amran- “to love”, amïraq/amraq “beloved, dear, friend”. The word Amor has found broad international distribution as the Roman God of love, also known as Lat. Cupido (desire), Eng. Cupid, and as a French noun les amours. The Roman Amor was identified with the Gk. Eros. As Eros, Amor was a fourth primordial god to come into existence, after Chaos, Gaia, and Tartar, mentioned in one of the most ancient Gk. sources (Hesiod ca. 700 BC). The Türkic name of Tartar is tat, tatar “alien, foreigner”, its sacral function was the alien underworld. So, three out of four Gk. primordial gods have corresponding Türkic etymology. One of the two has largely synonymous Türkic predecessors, the amra “to love” for Amor in the Roman pantheon, and a corresponding er (with derivatives denoting masculinity, maleness, male potency) “to make love” for Eros in the Gk. pantheon. Notably, the Amor/Cupido marks his victims specifically with arrows, the innate Türkic weapon and tool, in contrast with lances, spears, javelins, darts, slings, etc. And from the first depictions, Amor/Cupid used the unequaled composite bow, the distinct weapon of the Scythians, Parthians, Huns, Türks, and Mongols. Herodotus attested a Greek – Türkic Scythian symbiosis in the N. Pontic, hence the use of the Türkic terms in the Greek mythology should be expected, Cf. Herkul (Hercules) “mighty man”, lit. “man (as big as) a lake”. A thousand years later, the verbal form amïr- “to love, be friendly” and its derivatives amïrtɣur-/amïrtqur- “pacify, calm, suppress” became the Sl. word mir (мир) for “peace”, “(peaceful) people”, and eventually for “world”. See -er.
90

English bursary (n.) “treasury of religious order, student grant” ~ Türkic bursaŋ (bursoŋ, bursuŋ) (n.) “monk community”. The stem of the term is burs, and -aŋ/-oŋ/-uŋ is a 2nd pers. possessive suffix. Cognates: A.-Sax. purs “purse”, ONorse posi “bag”, LLat. bursar, bursarius, bursa “purse”, Romance bursa “purse”; Ukr., Sl. Bulg. bursa “religious school”; Ch. fosen, bvyr-sag “Buddhist monk community”. Ultimately a contracted form of the Skt. buddha sangha, the form bursa became an international term for a seminary and seminary student stipends, its spread and history are intimately connected with the Türkic languages. The spread started with the Middle Asian Manichean religious schools of the 4th c. AD, there was established the Türkic Manichean terminology. The word probably predates the advent of the Manichaeism, first appearing still in the Buddhist Türkic community prior to the 4th c., and rolled over to the Manichean terminology with the growth of the Manichaeism's popularity. In the Central Asia, popularizers of the terms were probably the travelling Sogdian and Türkic adherents, and in Europe the waves of the Türkic nomads possibly starting with Sarmats (carrying syncretic Buddhistic Tengriism), then Alans (adherents of the same) and Huns (adherents of the same), then the European Türkic converts to Christianity, before the advent of the Middle Age Kipchak Khanate (Tataria). The unexpected semantic transition to the notion purse went from the original “Buddhist congregation” to “seminary” (Sl, Ukr., Bulg. bursa “seminary”), to “stipend” for the seminary students, to a “seminary treasury” (Eng. bursary, bursar “treasury, treasurer of a college”), and on to the purse as a “money bag” (OFr.). The peculiar IE-centered philology plays a somersault acrobatics, turning etymology on its head: it starts with purse and bourse that date to the 12th and 16th cc. respectively, proceeds to the 17th c. bursary, and drifts to the 16th c. Scottish “stipend”. The Manichean religious schools of the 4th c., the antecedent Skt. Buddhist seminary, and the early turn of the eras Ch. Buddhist monks fall by the wayside. In the geocentric-like linguistic model, the Medieval Latin becomes a parochial center of a new etymological reality. The Burgunds, who likely endowed the OFr. and LLat. with their concept of the purse for religious education's public money, the A.-Saxon's purs, and the 1.5 millennium-long line of the scholarly predecessors are all dumped into a neverland.The duo of the bursary and purse constitutes a live case of paradigmatic transfer,via the Eurasian Türkic nomadic milieu, from the times older than the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. See purse.

English cairn (n.) “mound of pebbles, stones” ~ Türkic kayır “small pebble”. Cognates: Gaelic carn, Scottish carne “heap of stones”; Kipchak kayır “small pebble”, OT qaya “cliff, rock (stone)” with derivatives, qayır “sand (rocky sand)” similar but different from kum “sand”. The practice of cairns is a manifestation of a belief that everything has a soul, small pebbles deposited at a certain place are symbolic donations to the soul (of the location, forest, gourge, etc.), called Saints and patrons in Catholicism, as a sign of respect and acknowledgement, and a prayer for a safe passage. The patrons are held as both kind and vengeful, able to be helpful or tricky depending on the degree of respect paid by the passer-by. A cairn over a grave serves the same purpose, to mollify the soul of the deceased to be kind to the passer-by. To transit an area devoid of the pebbles, they have to be carried as travel supplies, sometimes for a great distance, a kind of a ticket obtained in advance. Neither the tradition, nor the ritual are dogmatized, details vary from place to place; Christianity syncretized the ritual but moved it into the churches and associated with pictures, while Islam and Manichaeism are largely oblivious to the folk superstitions as long their tenets are observed. Cairns appeared at the very beginning of the Kurgan Culture in the areas near Asian - European divide. The presence of the tradition among Celtic people corroborate their Eastern European departure point timed to the 5th-4th mill. BC and somewhat contemporaneous with the first Kurgan waves into the Central Europe. The Celtic circum-Mediterranean migration path is traceable by markers of R1b Y-DNA haplogroup. The word is obvious “guest” in the European languages, and has no “IE” precedent. The forms qayır (/kayir/) and cairn (/keyrn/) are separated by temporal distance of 11 millennia (“lateral time”, 6 for cairn + 5 for qayır), and geographic spread across Eurasia. Cairn belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition, along with lexemes cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mengir, mound, pyre, tomb, tumulus. See cave, grave, tomb, tumulus.

English cherub “baby angel” ~ Türkic čebär (cheber) (n., adj.) “beauty, beautiful”. Cognates: A.-Sax. cerubin, LLat. cherub, Gk. cheroub, Hebr. kerubh “angel”. Possible link is based on consonance and suitable semantics.

English coffin (n.) “box (for a corpse)” ~ Türkic kovı: (n.) “cave, underground hollow”, with a second notion of kovı: “surrounded”, i.e. a passive form of the notion “box”, whereas “box” is active “surrounding, enclosing” something, and “cave” is contents passive “surrounded, enclosed”. The second notion allows derivatives of the “enclosed” type, like “container”, “bag” and “box”, best expressed semantically by the noun hamper “confining restraint”. The word “coffin” is a derivative of A.-Sax. cofa “cave”, burials in essence are artificial caves, cavities delineated by protective structure (Cf. synonymous A.-Sax. grafan “to dig, dig up”, Goth., OHG graban “to dig”, and A.-Sax. graef “cave, grave”; Cf. tomb, tumulus fr. Tr. “to dig”, grave fr. Tr. gür “ditch, cave”); coffins evolved fr. initial boulder, slab, or plank cage to self-supporting wooden box and stone monolith or slab sarcophagus. In the historical period, in the salient tradition of funeral rites, the deceased Türkic rulers before burial were carried by wagon for last respects around their country in a coffin casket filled with honey as a preservative (called arï yaɣï “bee butter” in the sources); in a country the size of Europe that trip could last for many months; burials were performed twice a year, after the ground thawed and before the ground had frozen; preservation of corpses for long periods was essential for successful funeral ritual, to ensure reincarnation of the dear deceased. The English kurgans attest that the traditional funeral ritual was observed on the English soil, and elements of its terminology must have been carried over to the later customs and periods. In Türkic languages, possessive form of the kovı: is kovı:n, lit. “his cave”, with the A.-Sax. base form cofa the same would be cofin; the form cofin (coffin) attests that the word has formed within the Türkic linguistic milieu, while the aliens took suffix -ı:n for a part of the root. The related recorded Tr. words are kovuk “hollow, empty”, kavuk “bladder”, kovğa: “pail, bucket”, ka:b “cover, sack, leather bag, water-skin, vessel, container”, kowuč “persecution”, kavıd- “protect”, etc. Allophones and derivatives of the Türkic kovı: occupy a substantial place in the Romance and Gmc. “IE” vocabularies in Europe, attesting to a long period of internalization, Cf. concave, cove, coffin, and cave in; the “IE” Asian vocabularies also have cognates. Cognates: OFr. (12th c.) cofin “sarcophagus”, with extension “basket, coffer”, Fr. coffin, Lat. cophinus “basket, hamper”, Gk. kophinos “basket”; under the “IE etymology” the source is rated as “of uncertain origin”. The case of OFr. “sarcophagus” firmly connects cofin with funeral ritual, the reference to “basket” attests to routine wattle construction, much more practical than a plank assembly till the spread of iron tools in Europe toward and beyond the new era; and the reference to “coffer” implies a hidden-away strong box-type container, a precursor of a modern safe; the peculiar Eng. (late 14th c.) semantics of “pie crust” attests that cofin was understood as a “shell”, irrespective of its mode of construction; the implied notion of the original “cave” has endured in the shades of semantic application across languages and time. The Gk. form came fr. the Scythians/Sarmatians they interspersed with in the N.Pontic and Balkans. The sacral terminology connected with funerals tends to retain its thematic connotations, profanation is avoided by using accepted synonyms; that ensures its survival along with its synonyms even in an alien element; it can be thus expected that the notion of “basket” for cofin (Cf. It. cafano, Sp. cuebano) carried its connotation of non-casual character of “ossuary” well into the present. The recorded A.-Sax. terms for “coffin” are all native European, non-nomadic terms: cist “chest, casket” (cistern), licbeorg “coffin, sarcophagus” (body-bearing), ðruh “trough, chest, tomb, coffin”, licðruh “coffin” (body trough), cystian (v.) “to put in a coffin”; the nomadic terminology escaped the literati, like the uncouth Cockney went unrecorded, and the “coffin” belonged to the under-radar lexicon of the Anglo-Saxon pastoralist class till it surfaced under the influence of the Norman lexicon. Although unattested by Romanized contemporaries, cofin belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition, along with lexemes cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mengir, mound, pyre, tomb, tumulus. See cave, cavity, grave, tomb, tumulus.

English curse “invoke evil upon” ~ Türkic qur- (v.): qarɣiš “curse, invoke evil upon”, qarɣa “to curse, to invoke evil upon”, qar-/cur- “choke, gag”. The stem qur with allophones is extremely productive, with wide and diverse semantics. No similar word exists in Gmn., Romance, or Celtic, but A.-Sax. cursian “to curse”, cursung “cursing, damnation, place of torment”, cursumbor “incense”; OFr. curuz “anger”; Sl. chur “hoodoo”; Hu. kar “damage”; Sum. kur, kar “damage”. The pinpointed distribution points to the Scythian-Sarmatian conveyance to the northwestern Europe, Burgundian conveyance to Fr., and Bulgarian conveyance to Sl. and Hu. The “IE etymology” has a standard “of uncertain origin”, but some attempts to ignore Türkic origin are inventive and imaginative. The distribution of cognates repeats the pattern of other words with “of uncertain origin” and “of unknown origin”, and with historical presence of the Sarmats/Saxons/Burgunds/Bulgars in the area where Gmn., Romance, Celtic, or Balto-Slavic languages have formed.

English Eden (Bible) “paradise garden, garden of Eden” ~ Türkic ed “property, riches, thing, article, object”. Now Eden is international word, its origin is ascribed to Heb. edhen “pleasure, delight”, and it may be so, who can tell? But Hebrews were much consistent in using untranslated foreign words in their Genesis story: Tr. Adam, Tr. Eve, Av. pairidaeza “enclosure, park”, from Akkadian pardēsu “enclosed garden”, earliest record 1000-700 BC, earlier than the earliest possible date of Avesta (4th or 6th c. AD), and a loanword within “IE” family ~ Heb. פרדס, pardes (later introduction not used in the Hebrew Bible), so why expect that Eden is different? The Türkic edin means “with riches”, -in is instrumental case noun suffix, and the explanation where the four rivers watering the Eden start is quite consistent with the Türkic naming convention: Four Rivers is as much a calque of Törtsu as Seven Rivers is a calque of Jetisu. See Adam, amen, cherub, Eve, ewe, loaf, torah.

English elf (n.) “mischievous small humanlike fairy” ~ Türkic elvir-/elwir- “unleash, charge, accuse”, a compound of elük “joke, jeer”+ ir “man, person”, fr. elü:- “mock, ridicule”; the path fr. elü:- to elük and elvir- may be parallel and not sequential, the elvir- has elided of -ir, but the intact elvir- has survived in the popular Gmc. and Sp. name Elvira. The other active forms are elves (pl.), which retained the original reflex elv- fr. elü:- and produced the Eng. derivative elf (sing.), elfin (adj.), elfish (adj.) and Tr. eliklä- “to joke, jeer”. Cognates: A.-Sax. elf (Mercian, Kentish), ælf (Northumbrian), ylfe (pl., WSaxon), -elfen (fem.), OSax. alf, ONorse alfr. The alleged Gmc. alp belongs to a completely different species, in Tengriism it is a super-being, conceptually giant, assistant of the Almighty, the angel and archangel of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic genesis stories, and the eponymic name for the Alps mountains. The alp has nothing to do with albino “white” other than echoic articulation. The “IE etymology” of the “origin unknown” but possibly albino “white” to be used “figuratively” for a “mischievous small humanlike fairy” is bordering on mischievous lunacy, and would not fall under any of the hundreds of the phonological laws employed to disqualify on technicalities any unwelcome candidates. Besides Elvira, old and modern names survived as names Alfred/Ælfræd, Alvin/Ælfwine, Eldridge/Ælfric, etc. The name elf belongs to the host of the widely known religious and lore terms of the Türkic origin, see Adam, alms, amen, Amor, cherub, Eden, Eve, and so on.

English Eve (via Bible) “first man, progenitor” ~ Türkic eve, generic for “engender, birth-giving woman”, ewči/evči “wife, woman”, ewinlig/evinlig “pregnant”, Cf. Tuv. ava “mama”; the word is an allophone of the forms aba and baba, with a slew of other allophonic forms that include the Lat. ava and Norse edda expressing concrete notions of “ancestor, forerunner, predecessor” and generically a notion of “elder relative”. The term Eve can't be separated from the primal forms for papa and father, it is the same word with distinguishing semantical and grammatical shades of female gender. Now Eve is international word, its origin is ascribed to Heb., but the Heb. popular etymology does not hold the water: Heb. חַוָּה Hawwah, “living being” from base hawa “he lived”, is phonetically and semantically far from being our “foremother”. The Türkic Eve is as generic “foremother” as the Türkic Adam is generic “man”, and it also does not need subtle casuistic reasoning to come up with incredible etymology. Statistically, the chances that these two generic words would precisely coincide, both phonetically and semantically, in two unrelated languages is as close to zilch as it comes, which means that if the Heb. etymology is correct, the Türkic Eve “foremother”, save for a supernatural miracle, can't even exist. The term “Eve” predates Bible on the European peninsula, it was deeply instilled in A.-Sax. related to notions “mother, womanhood, progenitor”. Cognates: A.-Sax. awe “married woman”, aewbryce “adultery”, lit. “beaking a woman”, aewenbroðor “brother by the same marriage (same woman)”, aewielm “source, fount, spring, beginning”, aewnian “to marry”, aewumboren “lawfully born”. These terms obviously predate the first translation of the Bible into the Greek. A suggestion that A.-Sax. or Lat. had to borrow a Heb. word to denote primal notions of “mother, foremother” is preposterous. The ewe “female, mama” unites the terms ewe, Eve, and Adam into a separate complete paradigm that came to English via two separate and independent paths, one native and innate, the other with the Christianization. See ewe, quim, tit, wife.
91

English faith (n.) “religious beliefs, system of religious beliefs” ~ Türkic vara (n.) “piety, reverence (fear) of God”. Forms and cognates: A.-Sax. faith “duty of fulfilling one's trust”, swerian “take an oath”, OFr. feid, foi “faith, belief, trust, confidence, pledge”, OSw. swerian, ONorse sverja, Dan. sverge, OFris. swera, MDu. swaren, OHG swerien, OGmn. wara “truth, faithfulness, grace”, war “truthful, loyal”, Gmn. schwören, Goth. swaren “to swear”; OIr. var “vow, solemn promise”, fir “true, veracious”, Lat. fides “trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief”, fidere “to trust”, verus “veracious, true”; Gk. pistis πιστησ “faith”; Sl. vera “faith”; Av. var- “believe”, varǝna- “faith”. Goth. tuzwerjan “to doubt”, unwerjan “discontented”;. M.Vasmer lists these two Gothic words under the entry of Sl. vera “faith”, a Türkic loanword in Sl. lexicon. Goth. tuzwerjan is transparent rendition of the inverted Türkic veransiz: ver + an (noun suffix, rendered yan) + siz (negation suffix, rendered tuz) = “faith (n.) without” = “infidelity” => Goth. tuz + wer + jan; both the inversion and the translation are suspect, but inversion is theoretically possible; however, neither “doubt”, nor “infidelity” are synonymous with “faith”, as the august “IE” maniac M.Vasmer would want us to believe, in fact it means the opposite; the Goth. unwerjan “discontented” is a similar case, the inverted Türkic veranаŋ: ver +an (noun suffix, rendered yan) +аŋ (negation suffix, rendered un) = “faith (n.) none” = “infidelity” => Goth. un + wer + jan (See un-); here also both the inversion and the translation are suspect, with inversion theoretically possible; but “infidelity” translated as “discontented” does not make sense, and the mother of all “IE” etymologists should not have produced the mother of all “IE” etymological blunders. With Türkic vara, there is no need for manufactured “IE” unattested *bheidh- to come up with English, Gmn., and Slavic forms for faith. (See swear). It appears that before the advent of the organized religions, the “(mandated, approved, or enforced) system of religious beliefs” did not exist, vara was strictly personal devotion for the Supreme Being (inclusive of demi-god or angelic auxiliaries), and there was no fact of life corresponding to the notion of faith that required the word “faith”. Upon the advent of the organized religions, the old word vara “piety, reverence”, in all its polysemantic and dialectal expressions, was recycled to reflect the new phenomenon. Assigning origination dates for such words is pointless, all kindred people had it from time immemorial (say, 15 kya), otherwise they would be arbitrarily stigmatized as irreverent without any trace of evidence. See swear

English God (n.) “supernatural being” ~ Türkic kut (ɣut, qud, qut, xut (hut)) (n.) “soul, deity, divinity, spiritual being, spirit, host”. The word kut must have evolved long before 5th mill. BC, when appeared first Tengrian kurgans marked by Tengrian ritual of sending the deceased off to Tengri for reincarnation; the Kurgan migrants to Sumer brought along the name for Tengri that we know in Sumer phonetics as Dingir and in Sumer cuneiform writing of the 4th mill. BC. With the appearance of the monotheistic Tengriism, the previous kut deities retained their functions as syncretic local patrons and protectors, subordinated to or created by the Creator Tengri. From the available information, we can only guess that it were the Kurgan waves that brought with them Tengri (later Thor) and kuts to the Central Europe and Scandinavia. In the Tengrian hierarchy, the kut immortal deities occupied place a grade below Tengri and a grade above immortal heroes Alps, but their roles overlapped. Among the Türkic people Tengri retained the name as generic for God, but in Europe, Thor was a personal name of a Supreme Deity, and could not be used as a genetic term for the newly introduced Christian God, while kut retained the semantics of a Deity. Cognates: Eng., Du. God, Dan., Norw., Sw., Gud; Gmn. Gott; Pers. kuda; Hindi Buddha; Türkic khudai (reportedly reverse re-borrowed fr. Pers.). The Hindi form Buddha appears to be a structural transition from a closed syllabic morphology to an open syllabic morphology with prosthetic initial consonant (B)u- + da: kut > khuda > uda >(B)u-ddha. The appearance of the term Buddha (ca. 563-483 BC) is connected with the extracts from the Scythian Saka tribes, Skt. Shakiya, reigning in N. India; the title-name Gautama consists of the same stem kut “give (blessing, fortune, luck” + Türkic deverbal noun suffix -ma voiced in an open syllabic morphology Gauta-ma; the notion “enlightened” is a derivative of the Buddhist teaching. Not only the “IE etymology” is absent, but even any etymology is missing in the IE-centered compilations. The phonetic and semantic match leave no doubts on the Türkic origin of the Gmc. term. Notably, the formulaic “My God” ~ “mein Gott” carries the Türkic suffix -m as prefix in the “IE” syntax, like the other suffixes reincarnated as prefixes in the flexive morphology, the Türkic -m is my ~ mein in Gmc. languages (Deus meus in Lat.). The term kut is extremely polysemantic, in addition covering “happiness, blessing, grace, wealth, luck, success, happy lot, dignity, majesty, true state of being, bliss”, and probably another lot not found in the dictionaries. See give, good, gut, my.
92

English Gorgon (n.) “evil monster” ~ Türkic qörq- (v.) “fear” (v.). Via Gk. (pl. Gorgones), gorgos “terrible”, so scary that a glance at monster turned a looker to stone. The conventional wisdom is that the scarecrow term “of unknown origin” came via enlightenment from the Gk., and could not have been home grown, which may be too presumptuous, given the exact functional, semantic and phonetic correspondence. In Türkic, the suffix -gün (-ɣïn, -gin; -ɣun, -gün; -qïn, -kin; -qun, -kün) forms a deverbal noun agent, thus Gorgon is just The Terrifying (OTD, pp. 195, 196, 653, 654), pointing to the origin of the Gk. myth without singularly defining the source of the English word. Notably, Skt. also uses suffix -gun to form deverbal agent nouns, Cf. Skt. dhutaguna “holy (person)”, demonstrating that syntactically, the original agglutinative Skt. was not aversive to internalizing Türkic morphological elements.

English grave (n.) “burial place” ~ Türkic gür (n.) “grave”. The Türkic allophonic forms are gör/gür/kör/xöor “grave, ditch, cave”, a fairly compact phonetic variety. Cognates: A.-Sax. græf (Middle Ages to 17c.) “grave, ditch, cave”, Dan. grav, Du. graf, Gmn. Grab, Icl. gröf, Norw., Sw. grav, OSax. graf, OFris. gref, OHG grab “grave, tomb”, ONorse gröf “cave”, Goth. graba “ditch”; Welsh garnedd, carnedd “burial kurgan”; Lith. grob “grave”; OCS grobu, grobnica “grave, casket”. The European distribution restricted to the northern Gmc., Celtic, Balt., and Sl. branches indicates transmission via Sl.-type languages that prefer anlaut consonant strings: gör > gr-. The distribution parallels that of the synonymic term tomb, but with a narrow northern path. The basic notion of the term grave/gür is “ditch, cave”, of the same source with the grave (engrave, scratch); the notion “tomb” is a derivative, and notwithstanding etymologies to the opposite, is unrelated to the adjective grave “make heavy, burden down” with the origin in Türkic aɣrï- (v.) “be sick, make sick”. The terms tomb and grave belong to the most conservative class of the words. Grave belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition, along with lexemes cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mengir, mound, pyre, tomb, tumulus. See aggravate, tomb, tumulus.

English gut (n.) “innards” ~ Türkic kut (qut) (n.) “soul, vital force, spirit”. Cognates: A.-Sax. guttas “bowels, entrails”, ME gote “channel, stream”, MDu. gote, Du. goot, Gmn. Gosse “gutter, drain”. The meaning of “abdomen, belly” in English is from ca 1400. In English, this word pops up from nowhere in the 19th c., with connotations “spirit, courage”. In Türkic, kut is the most valuable gift that a human can have, it is the soul in Christianity, and the soul in Tengriism, with the small difference that in Christianity, the soul is not a personal endowment, it is not connected with a personal act of Almighty, and in Tengriism the Almighty personally endows every human being with a personal kut soul. The Tengrian kut is indestructible, it can leave a body and come back, and upon a death it reverts to Tengri to be given a new body. Thus, no living human should be afraid of death, he or she is about to come back to our precious world in an act of reincarnation. Not for 40 days, as testified disciples during the Roman times, but for a whole new life. Upon departure, the kut enters into the inventory of the Almighty, and He himself gives it another body to live in on this Earth. Enter the Christianity, and the kut becomes innards, the soul becomes “spirit and courage” of the human being, and then his guts. The Türkic kut is polysemantic, its other meanings are “supernatural spirit (a la angel, but autonomous, not subservient); luck, blessing, grace, prosperity, good fortune, success, happy lot; dignity, majesty; praying”, one of the most important derivatives is qutadɣu “happiness, fortune”. The everlasting soul in one etiology becomes intestines in another etiology. No “IE” etymology, no speculative attempts to establish “IE” etymology. Nowadays, the guts have two non-intersecting meanings, it is an immaterial spirit burning in someone who has guts, and it is the intestines and other inedible organic matter in the bellies of mammals and fish. Thus, both Tengrian and Christian concepts peacefully coexist in our confused lexicon. The perfect phonetical and semantic coincidence is transparent with little understanding of religious dynamics.

English hall (n.) “expansive room” ~ Türkic qalïq “upper chambers, upper floors, hall, room”, “sky, heaven, air space, air”, a noun derivative fr. the verb qalï- “rise, airborne”. The notion of qalïq, besides the “upper chambers” and “sky, heaven, air space, air”, connotes specifics of “airy space”, “openness to heaven” and “gathering place”, making it an ideal word for religious imagery, epitomized in the Goth. expression Walhalla (Valhalla) “dead-hall” (Hall of dead), an allophone of the Türkic ölqalïq “death-hall” (öl “death”), and its A.-Sax. allophone Waelheall “death-hall”. The ligature wae- is probably an attempt to render -ö- with means of the Roman alphabet. The Buddhist roots of the heavenly concept Waelheall are illustrated in the idiom qalïqlïɣ nirvan, lit. “heavenly nirvana”, the qalïqlïɣ alone already conveys a sacred “heavenly”. Cognates: A.-Sax. heall “spacious roofed residence, house, temple, law-court”, OSax., ONorse höll, OHG halla, ONorse höll, Goth. heall Du. hal, Gmn. halle, “hall”; OE hell, Goth. halja “hell”. The conversion of the Buddhist “heavenly nirvana” to “hell” apparently is due to the inventiveness of the Christianization process; otherwise the etymological linkage of “hell” and “hall” is not quite apparent. The Gmc. semantics is a transparent continuation of the Tengriist and Buddhist religious tenets, the “death-hall” is a kind of a waiting room after death and before reincarnation; its conversion to a Christian purgatory is a much later invention, a concept introduced into Christianity as a reflection of the Gmc. religious model. Albeit the term hall is exclusively Gmc. inheritance, the “IE etymology” appropriates it as an “IE” word like if it was present in the majority of the “IE” languages, ascends hall to a navel-gazed PIE root *kel- with invented meanings “hide, cover, conceal”, and connects it with cell (with s-), testing the limits of credulity. On the way, it replaces the sacral meaning of heall with mundane semantic extensions, abandons its own asserted sacral connection with the notion of hell, and thus dispenses with the entire sacral concept conveyed by the Gmc. word Walhalla. A major documented Gmc. historical and ethnological layer is obfuscated on the altar of the “IE” linguistic theory. In reality, the word hall belongs simultaneously to the terrestrial and heavenly worlds, it is an earthly dwelling and a heavenly abode. English did preserve the semantics of a heavenly abode, for example the Hall of Fame far transcends the dimensions of an earthly dwelling, it is as secular as a purgatory or a death-hall.

English Helen, Hellen, proper name fr. Greek mythology” ~ Türkic ellen- (v.) “rule, govern, reign, subjugate”. Cognates: A.-Sax. ellen “strength, courage, zeal”, ellenlic “brave”, on ellen “boldly”, ellen(craeft) “might, power”, ellen(dead) “heroic deed”, ellen(gaest) “powerful demon”, ellenheard “mighty, brave, bold”, etc.; in Gk. mythology, daughter of Zeus and Leda, and a cause for Trojan War; as Hellene denotes Greeks; nowadays an international name. As an ethnonym, Hellene “brave” parallels the exonym German, Tr. erman “strong”, lit. “manly”; the Hellene also appears as a Tr.-based exonym. The notions of “mighty, brave, bold” and “rule, govern, reign, subjugate” are systematically synonymous, numerous ruling titles are reflexes of the notions “strong, mighty, large, wealthy” and the like. The Eng. word courage “bravery”, a derivative of the Tr. kür/gür (adj.) “courageous, stout-hearted”, replaced the A.-Sax. ellen, Tr. ellen- “rule”. Notably, the A.-Sax. compounds on ellen, ellen(gaest), ellenheard closely reflect the Tr. compounds en- + ellen-, ellen- + göster-, ellen- + chäre. See courage, guest, heart.

English hell (n.) “infernal place for sinners” is a convoluted case, with ingenuity and ideology supplanting reality. The “IE etymology” conjectures that hell is either an allophone of hall, or a native Gmc. word akin to hole. In the first, little credible scenario, etymology is transparent, hell ~ Türkic qalïq “upper chambers, upper floors, hall, room”, “sky, heaven, air space, air”, a noun derivative fr. the verb qalï- “rise, airborne”. The notion of qalïq, besides the “upper chambers” and “sky, heaven, air space, air”, connotes specifics of “airy space”, “openness to heaven” and “gathering place”, making it an ideal word for religious imagery, epitomized in the Goth. expression Walhalla (Valhalla) “dead-hall” (Hall of dead), an allophone of the Türkic ölqalïq “death-hall” (öl “death” qalïq “hall”), and its A.-Sax. allophone Waelheall “death-hall”. The concept of Waelheall is connected with the spread and syncretization of Buddhism, epitomized in the idiom qalïqlïɣ nirvan, lit. “heavenly nirvana”, the qalïqlïɣ alone already conveys a sacred “heavenly”. The secular sense of the word qalïq grew into the Eng. word “hall”, the A.-Sax. allophone heall “hall”. According to the first conjecture, the sacral sense of that word hall grew into the Eng. word hel, hell “hell”, a novel Christian concept that together with the concept of sin did not exist in Tengriism. That is plausible, albeit improbable and unprovable. If it is true, the sacral notion of “hell” is a debased notion of “death-hall”, with added unmerciful judgment and eager physically sadistic torture for despicable ghostly souls. In support of the first conjecture is cited its Lat. equivalent Limbus Patrum “Patriarchal Limbo”, a kind of a business class purgatory lounge. The point of the argument is that both hall and hell stand for “purgatory”, the first or second class sitting is irrelevant. If it is true, the term hell is a derivative of hall that is an allophone of qalïq in its sacral function.
A little problem with that assertion is that cultural borrowings come with their own terminology, and the terminology was abound, accessible, and drilled into innocent minds together with the novel concept: ad, Hades, Gehenna, etc, that on top of the native euphemisms denoting the sacral infernal place for sinners: grornhof lit. “sad home”, grund lit. “ground, bottom, abyss”, manhus lit. “home of wickedness”, weargtreafu lit. “home of the damned”, wyrmsele “hall of serpents”. Such oversupply of the native “hell” terminology plus the proselytizing lingo prompts a doubt on the first “IE” conjecture. An alternative, a calque of the notion grund “ground”, i.e. Türkic el with a prosthetic h-, would be consistent with the A.-Sax. huge scale of the hell derivatives atypical for the cultural borrowings, the semantics of the calque, and with practice of adoption native terminology for the new needs.
The second “IE” conjecture is more credible than the first, it connects Gmc. forms with A.-Sax. hol “hole, cave, den”, helan “conceal, cover, hide”, ONorse hellir “cave, cavern”, and with ONorse mythological female ruler Hel of the Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (A.-Sax. nifol “dark, gloomy”). The ONorse mythology echoes in Gmc. rendering the Gk. mythology of the underworld. It also brings hell to the Türkic phylum. In Türkic (Tuv.) khoolay (holai) is “hole (vent opening in yurt)” fr. the verb oy- “peck, make hollow”. The ONorse hellir is then a passive deverbal derivative of the verb oy- “hollowed, hole”, modified with the typical Gmc. anlaut consonant h-, synonymous with the noun kaba “cave, underground hollow”, see cave, hole. The second conjecture is more credible not because it divorces the “IE” conjectures in favor of the Tr. conjectures, but because it rests on the attested records of the ONorse mythology, ONorse and A.-Sax. lexical material, is consistent with the abundance of Gmc. derivatives, and does not rely on post-Christianization Gmc. notions OFris. helle, OSax. hellia, Du. hel, ONorse hel, Gmn. Hölle, Goth. halja (halya) “hell”. It does not need to appeal to a questionable notion expressed by unwieldy “PG” “someone who covers up or hides something”. A hole is a hole, it is sufficient without hiding. See ad, cave, hall, hole.

English magic (n.) “supernatural feat”, magus (n.) “magician, sorcerer”, might “power” (Sw N/A, F1068, 0.01%) ~ Türkic bögü:/bögö:/bok (n.) “magic, sage, wizard, sorcery, witchcraft, occult”. The form with an anlaut m- comes from systemic m/b alteration: bok ~ mok ~ mag. The Türkic word connotes both wisdom and mysterious spiritual power, that trifurcated semantic was carried on in many borrowings across Eurasia, see might. Cognates: A.-Sax. maeg “might (strength)”, fifmaegen lit. “five magic (powers)”, gaestmaegen “travelling magicians”, gigantmaeg “giant might (aeon)”, helicmaegen lit. “force(s) of hell”, hordmaegen lit. “mighty hoard”, innoðmaegen lit. “inner might”, maegsterdom “masterdom”, etc., Eng. bogus “not real, artificial, fake”; OFr. magique, Lat. magus “magician, learned magician”; Gk. magos (μάγος); Balto-Sl. (Latv) burvis, (Lith.) burtininkas, (Rus.) moguschestvo (могущество); OPers. magush “magician”; Arm. mag (մագ); Az. məcu(si), Tr. büyü(cü); Est. maagi, Fin. maagikko, Hu. buves (buvesz); Mong. bö’e; Jap. mahōtsukai 魔法使い; Kor. masul 마술, masulsaga 마술사가; Ch. moshu shī 魔術師. The word bogus for wizardry and magic lurked in the Eng. folk speech before showing up in the far away America, Cf. bogus, boss, OK. The standing “IE” claim that the word did not exist in the A.-Sax. is obviously false, not only it did exist, but the wealth of the derivatives shows that it was an innate word long before the claimed “late 14th c.” magic, the 12th c. OPers. borrowing magi, and the Bible's magi. It carried the bifurcated semantics of the power and occult noted by G. Clauson (G. Clauson, ETD, 1972, 324). It is doubtful that the old Gmc. languages did not have the word in their vocabularies, Cf. macht “power”, and the slew of derivatives. The Lat. semantics “learned magician” relays the notional aspect of the original “sage, wizard”. The Türkic title boyar for the members of the State Council, of the Bulgarian/Hunnic origin, may also be a derivative of the word bögü with the suffix -ar “man”, boyars were powerful high dignitaries endowed with prophetic powers of the wizards, Cf. the legendary Merlin. Both the m- forms and b- forms are found both on the Eurasian far west and on the far east, attesting to a parallel, likely recursive, numerous, and asynchronous, penetration of kindred groups spanning the width of the Eurasian continent. The traces of the nomadic pastoralists appear in the Mesopotamia in the 4th to 2nd mill. BC, in the Europe at least in the 4th mill. BC, and in the Far East ca. 2000 BC, plenty of time to disseminate cultural influences, including the Indo-Aryan migrants before their long-range anabasises, and the European Corded Ware populace. It was an international word long before the modern times, and in modern times it gained even a wider distribution, then and now across the linguistic families across Eurasia. The awing Eurasian scatter points to mobile carriers spreading the terms, the complimentary m/b allophones point to the source with systemic m/b alteration. The carryover of the bifurcated semantics of the power and occult, and the systemic m/b alternation are components of a paradigmatic transfer case definitively attesting to their origin from the Türkic milieu. See bogus, boss, might, OK.

English mengir (aka menhir) (n.) “upright monumental stone” ~ Türkic meŋgü (mengü) “memorial monument, stela”, from meŋü, beŋü “memorial”; commonly of stone, but mostly of perishable materials. Cognates: Breton menhir , Welsh maen hir, Cornish medn hir. The phonetic and semantic concurrence is perfect. No “IE” etymology; the offered folk-type Breton etymology men “stone” + hir “long” is dubious in light of the Tr. meŋgü. England has numerous balbal alleys lined up with mengirs, exactly like the kurgan burials across Eurasian steppes, hence the Welsh, Cornish, and Breton lexicons; the “Breton” word may be an Alanian word of the Amorican Alans, who moved into Brittany in the 5th c. AD, and kept their Kurgan burial traditions with kurgans and stelas. Alternatively, the Brits of Brittany were Sarmatians, or Scythians, or even Cimmerians engaged in the construction of kurgan cemeteries adorned with meŋgü stelas. The dictionary spelling meŋgü reflects a particular phonetical form (actually, a range of forms: meŋgü, meŋi, meŋkü, meŋü, beŋgü, beŋkü, extracted from different sources), the phonetical articulation of the menhir falls neatly in this dialectal roster. Mengir belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition, along with lexemes alms, cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mound, pyre, tomb, tumulus.

English monastery ~ Türkic religious prayer formula manastar “forgive my sins”. Cognates: LGk. monasterion “monastery”, monazein “live alone” from monos “alone” + suffix -terion “place of something”; LLat. monasterium. The concept of monasticism was brought to the European scene “from the east”, naturally with its own terminology, which is visible in the numerous examples of the Gk. religious terminology of the Türkic origin. Most of that terminology is either left hanging, or assigned impossible explanations (See Yu.N. Drozdov, 2011, On Christianity). The word monastery is a good example, in Türkic it is not a word, but a formulaic phrase that is next to impossible to randomly reproduce with any word in any language, let alone reproduce with specific religious monastic-related meaning using the lexicon from the time of the incipient Christianity. The “IE” etymology is clearly artificial, with suffix -terion “place” magically transforming into the verb zein = “live”. Other religious terms mechanically carried from religion to religion are Adam (Türkic adam = man [generic word]), Eve (Türkic eve = engender, birth-giving woman [generic word]), Hell (not in English, but in Gk., Rus. ad, Türkic ada “calamities and suffering” [generic word]) leave no doubt that the Biblical creation account follows the archaic Türkic religious concepts, the echoes of which have survived to this day. In the centuries before our era, Türkic has already syncretized Buddhism with Tengriism, that is evidenced by the heavy load of Skt. Buddhist religious terms in the Old Türkic Dictionary (1969), which includes 208 of them. Some of these terms, in addition to the authentic Türkic terms, also found their way into the incipient Christianity.

English pyre (n.) “immolating fire” ~ Türkic bur- (v.) “fire, bake, boil”, bu (n.) “steam, vapor, fragrance”. Cognates: A.-Sax. fyr “fire”, waelfyr “funeral pyre, deadly fire” (Tr. öl bur “death-fire”); Lat. pyra “pyre”; Gk. pyr “funeral pyre; sacrificial altar, fire (place)”, for other cognates see fire. Other than p-/f- alteration, the A.-Sax., Eng., Lat., and Gk. forms are identical, and originate from the same source with the Türkic bur- (v.) and bu “steam” (early Akkadian na-piš-u “breathing, inhale, scent” (loanword stem paš/piš, 28-24 cc. BC)). With the advent of Christianity, the ritual of sending the soul of the deceased to the Almighty with a fire smoke (A.-Sax. wudurfec “smoke from a funeral pyre”, wudur “odor, breath”) for reincarnation was suppressed, its terminology waned, and was re-imported back in a new form, from the lands where the old A.-Sax. ritual had survived, under the same name, and was viewed as an exotic tradition. Pyre belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition, along with lexemes alms, cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mengir, mound, tomb, tumulus. See boil, fire, grave, tomb, tumulus.

English sin (n.) “transgression” ~ Türkic sın- “break, trespass”, a reflexive derivative of the verb sı:- “break, destroy”, used both literally and metaphorically. A homophonous sibling verb sıŋ- “sink, absorbed, digested, swallowed by earth” adds extra ominous flavor, a noun sin means “grave”, a noun cin (jin) means “evil spirit”; the terms are generic and not religious, but are used in religious lingo, i.e. sınyuk čaxšaputluğ “break commandment(s)”, siŋdür- “cause to be absorbed, drawn in”, sınsı (adj.) “beguiling but harmful”. Dialectal allophonic forms syn, suin, tsuy, sü (Ar.) “sin” are found in Buddhist and other religious literature. Cognates: A.-Sax. synn “moral wrongdoing, offense against God, misdeed”, OFris. sende, ONorse phrase verð sannr at “found guilty of”, OSw. sundia, MDu. sonde, Gmn. Sünde “sin, transgression, trespass, offense”, possibly cognate to Lat. sons “guilty, criminal”; Ch. tsui 罪. The “IE” “reconstructions” also cite Goth. sonjis, ONorse sannr “true” ~ Türkic čïn (chyn) (n.) “truth”, “true” (adj.), like if “black” could be same as “white”. The “IE” etymologies do not make sense neither for “sin”, Lat. sons < Tr. cin, nor for ONorse sannr < Tr. čïn, essentially suspending them up in the thin air, nor are they capable to explain the origin of the Ch. allophone.

English testament (n.) “will, assertion” ~ Türkic tutsuğ (n.) “will, testament”. Cognates: Lat. testamentum “last will”, testis “witness”; it is a household word for most languages that once were within the sphere of the Roman Catholicism. The Türkic tutsuğ is a derivative of the verb tutuz- “entrust”, a form of the verb tut- “keep, hold, grasp, seize, guarantee”. The tut- is a majority form, a minority has it dut-, and it is a pure incidence that testament is not a destament; the breakdown between the t- forms and d- forms is fairly well established, suggesting what group of tribes introduced the word into the Roman religious lingo. The metathesis of -ts- to -st- ( tutsuğ > testis) and the shift of tu- to te- probably resulted from adaptation of the foreign term to the local language; some dialectal form with rounded ü tütsüğ may imperceptibly merged ü to e [Clauson viii papa.10]. The unequivocally identical semantics and fairly eidetic phonetics unambiguously attest to the genetic connection, possibly from a Buddhist or Manichaean religious vocabulary. Notably, the word testament belongs to the host of late Turkisms in the early Christian argot [Drozdov, 2011], assimilated probably in the first centuries AD. The “IE etymology” came up with perplexingly complicated complex of three words starting with a first root tri- (as in the “third person”) to concoct a phrase “third person standing by” to somehow imitate the uncooperative phonetics. In lieu of the Old Testament, we have Old third person standing by. In the contest of “IE” philological ingenuity, this compound deserves an undisputed prize place.

English tomb (pronounced toom) “burial place” ~ Türkic tumlu “tomb”. Cognates: Du tombe, Dan. tomben; Ir. tuama; OFr. tombe, It. tomba, Sp. tumba, LLat. tumba “tomb”, all Romance are late arrivals; Gk. tymbos “kurgan, cairn”; Azeri türbə, Turk. türbe; Mong. tuun “tomb”. The Türkic tumlu with allophones tublu, tumlu, tuplu is a noun derivative of the verb tobul-/tomul-/tupul-/tübül- “dig, breach, crack, punch”, which allows directional type derivatives: tubluqa (tumluqa) “into the burial” (OTD 586). The verb tobul-/tomul-/tupul-/tübül-, in turn, is a derivative of the verb tom- “throw”, with its allophones. The attested consonantal dispersion b/p, the vowel alteration o/u/ü, and systemic m/b alternation point to the deep time depth and dialectal dispersion. The Gk. semantics is identical with the Türkic semantics, and since the Greeks did not bury their deceased in kurgans, clearly indicates a lexical borrowing. The LLat. borrowing is probably via Burgund pre-Christian lexicon of Savoy and Provence. The “IE” speculation of the tomb being a derivative of “to swell” and linked with “thigh” does not fit neither semantically nor phonetically nor historically, since the “IE” burial tradition does not build kurgans. Notably, the synonymic grave parallels the spread and timing of the tomb, its origin comes from the Türkic kör “grave”. The terms tomb and grave belong to the most conservative class of the words. Tomb belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition, along with lexemes alms, cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mengir, mound, tumulus. See mengir, tumulus, grave.

English torah (n.) “religious law” ~ Türkic tör, töra, törü (n.) “teaching, law”, cognate of the verb törü “created, born, plant (set up), initiate”. Other meanings are “custom, common law, base law, accepted order, rules”. In addition to the native töra, törü, Türkic has borrowed allophones darm, darma, tarma, etc., apparently fr. religions that syncretized with Tengriism. The Hebr. torah reportedly is a verbal noun from Semitic horah “he taught, showed”, a phonetically dubious etymology. Lat. form is Torah fr. Heb. In Türkic, tör is a throne place in a dwelling, the place opposite the door facing east and accordingly the throne is also facing east, a heart of the dwelling is tör. The Tör “law” is a meaning derived from the place where the rules are set. One of the speculations on the origin of the term “Türk” connects it with the notion that the term is an ideological supraethnic term alluding to a society that adheres to the Tör, with plural possessive suffix -k. The term Tör was used in the runiform coin legends on the Central Asian coins half a millennia earlier than the appearance of the term “Türk” in the Chinese and Greek annals. Another meaning of the form törü is “state”, essentially meaning “of the law, of the rule”. The runiform inscriptions for initial t use the grapheme þ later known as interdental voiced th in the Germanic runiform script. Notably, the Germanic term Thör ~ Þör for a Supreme Deity and a lawgiver is phonetically and semantically identical with the Türkic Tör depicted Þör in the inscriptions. Notably, the Sl. form tvorit (творить) “create” carries a prosthetic -v- in the first syllable after t- and before -o; usually it is added in front of the Türkic loanwords beginning with vowel. The Türkic term Tör/Thör/Þör belongs to impressive group of the Türkic words used in the Hebr. Bible and its translations: Adam, alms, amen, cherub, Eden, Eve, God, sin, tomb. These religious terms constitute a paradigmatic transfer via Hebr. and directly to Eng. via A.-Sax. (i.e. God, sin, Þör, tomb), attesting to genetic connections. With time, the original A.-Sax. Tör/Thör/Þör conflated with the Hebr. torah. See Adam, alms, amen, cherub, Eden, Eve, God, sin, tomb.

English tumulus “ancient burial kurgan, burial mound” ~ Türkic tumlu “tomb”. In essence, the Lat. tumulus is an allophone of the English tomb and Tr. tumlu. “IE” cognates are unknown: etymology jumps fr. Lat. tumulus straight to derivative of unattested PIE for “to swell” and straight to “thigh”, thus specifically recognizing a kurgan-type of the tomb; it does not fit neither semantically nor phonetically nor historically, since the “IE” burial tradition does not build kurgans. The “IE etymology” correctly connects tumulus with tomb, which in case of the Türkic Tengrian burial tradition is synonymous with (not necessarily ancient) “burial kurgan”, also called “tumulus”, “mound”, and “barrow”. The notion of the kurgan grave is preserved in the Gk. tymbos “kurgan, cairn” and Mong. tuun “ (kurgan) tomb”. Tumulus belongs to the transfer paradigm of the mortuary tradition, along with lexemes alms, cairn, coffin, curse, God, grave, hall (e.g. Walhalla), hell, mengir, mound, tomb. See tomb, grave.

English ulan “young man, usually with military connotations” and clan “people related by blood or marriage” ~ Türkic oglan, uhlan, ulan, oğla:n (ğ = silent g) “offspring, son, boy”. The root ög- is “mother”, og (ok) is “clan, inheritance” lit. “arrow” and metaphorically “family, tribe, familial branch, stock” with semantical extensions, la:n is an ancient Türkic suffix forming names of living creatures. The ulan is an obvious recent (Middle Age) borrowing from Türkic, but the clan comes from the same word, only from the Early Classical Time, “likely via Etruscan”. The obsolete reference to the Etruscan is based on the 20th c. reading of the Etruscan inscriptions, where oglan means “son”, and before the concept of the Kurgan waves. In the last 3,000 years had developed a slew of forms and meanings for oglan/ulan: “son” and its derivatives “offspring, youth, young man, hero, strongman, warrior, rider, cavalryman, militiaman, descendant, clan of descendants, clan, family, stock”, and possibly hundreds more semantic derivatives in different linguistic families.

English vampire (n.) “ghostly corpse drinking blood of living” ~ Türkic ubyr (n.) “ghostly being, warlock”, lit. “devourer” fr. the verb ob-/op-/-/öp-/up- “gulp, suck in, devour edaciously”. Instead of the more dramatic drinking blood, the Türkic version devours living beings, it belongs to the times with undifferentiated reality, myths, religion, and folklore, when prototypes of the religious good and bad angels actively participated in both religious mythology and minstrel legends, Cf. “Kuban. Chulman Tolgau” that ascends to the Bronze Age. The magic of incapacitating an ubyr vampire with a wooden stake through his chest at the dark of the night later transformed into silver stakes during daylight hours. The Türkic equivalent of ubyr from the word ič “drink” is ičgek “drinker, vampire”,effectively they are synonymous. The root of the second member of the Türkic idiom aša- ič- (asha- ich-) “eat and drink” has been preserved in the A.-Sax. ðicgan and ge-ðicgan (with -ch-) “drink” (and “eat”), in a case of paradigmatic transfer. Neither of the terms ubyr or ičgek has been recorded in the A.-Sax. vocabulary. However, the Eng. references to narrated blood-sucking ghostly corpses date to 1196. Cognates: Gmn. Vampir (18th c.), Fr. vampire (18th c.), Hu. vampir, OCS opiri, Sl. upyr (упырь) “vampire”, objora (обжора) “glutton”, Serb. vampir, Bulg. vapir, Uig. öbur “wetnurse” (V. Radloff, “Probing a Dictionary of Turkic vernaculars (Die Sprachen der nördlichen türkischen Stämme)”, v. 1-4. SPb., 1893-1911, I (1893), 1782 on), Tr. “edacious, glutton” (V. Radloff, ditto). The prosthetic anlaut v- apparently originated in the Bulgarian/Sarmatian milieu, it was systemically inherited by the Sl. Turkisms, or was added at Sl. internalization of Türkic words starting with vowel. No “IE” parallels, the origin of the western forms is ascribed via Hu.; some perverted attempts (M. Vasmer and others) tried to ascend the preceding Sl. form fr. the later western form, such speculations are emblematic at a certain stage of the “IE” historiography. The Hu. origin, with Bulgaro-Slavic phonetics, alludes to the post-Honfoglalás time of the Hungarians' move to Pannonia (9th c. AD), an unlikely scenario for a word that is a part of a myth cast millennia before; a likelier scenario would bring some allophonic form of this word to the British Isles with the A.-Sax. milieu, it would live there with the myth till the later days, when it would conflate with the allophone of the fashionable literati. The geographical distribution and lexical traits are peculiar: mythological content and semantics are specific to the western, Sarmatian area, in stark contrast with the eastern Karluk (Uig) and Oguz (Tr.) area, attesting to the local western origin. The same is attested by the specifically Sl. reflexes found in Hu. and further west. The western prong of the path parallels the path of the word Yule and similar linguistic relicts. As a part of the ancient genesis myth, the vampire mythological image and lexeme constitute a case of paradigmatic transfer positively attesting to their Türkic origin. See eat, Yule.
93

4.5 Commercial

English bazaar, an international word that spread throughout Eurasia and beyond, from Türkic baz/boz “to be loud, to scream” that in addition to bazar, generated an extensive family of semantically related words in Türkic and Slavic languages. The English flea market, Gmn. der Lausemarkt, Fr. marché aux puces are calques of the Türkic phrase bit bazary “flea market”.

English bodega, also boutique, “small shop of any sort” ~ Türkic butïq (butiq) “branch, limb, offshoot”. See boutique, bud.

English boutique, also bodega, “small shop of any sort” ~ Türkic butïq (butiq) “branch, limb, offshoot”. Cognates: A.-Sax. buttuc (buttuk) “end, small piece of land”, lit. “appendix (land)”, OHG buode, MHG bude; OFr. botica, Sp. bodega; Sl. (Russ.) budka (будка), (Ukr., Blr., Pol.) buda (буда), “small building”; speculated unrelated cognates OFr. apotecaire, Lat. apotheca, apothecarius, Gk. apotheke “barn, storehouse”. In a small-town entrepreneurial world, boutique was an appendix to the residency, a supplementary business, and the semantics of the word “branch, offshoot” is “appendix”, first used in the literal sense in France, attested as a Burgund Vandal “Wanderer” word botica from the Provence and Savoy. The A.-Sax. “appendix (land)” corroborates the original meaning of “offshoot”. The “IE etymology” ascends to nonsensical apotheca fr. apo- “away” + tithenai “put”. The “IE etymology” reverting to apoteca is unsustainable on phonetical grounds and unsustainable semantically: the obvious coexistence of the boutique and apoteca phenomena in France, and apoteca elsewhere in Europe, and the semantic incongruence since apoteca could at the same time be boutique if it was an appendix to a doctor's or a barber's home, and since apoteca was a specialty store like a tailor or shoemaker store, versus the boutique being a general convenience store, all that makes the “IE” attempt unsuitable. The Spanish version of botica is bodega, a form also adopted in English. See bodega, bud.

English cash “money box” ~ Türkic kečä “box”, a derivative of case “box”. The English semantic transition from cash “money box” to “money, coin, cash” is a late development, now universally borrowed from English as an international word. See case, cashier.

English cashier “money clerk” ~ Türkic kečä “box”, a derivative of case “box”. The English semantic transition from cash “money box” to “money, coin, cash” is a late development, now universally borrowed from English as an international word. The Turkish kasiyer “cashier” is a good example of re-conflation and reincarnation, an innate Türkic compound of two Türkic words kečä “box” and er “man” was re-imported into Turkish with a novel semantics “cashier”. See case, cash

English chapman (n.) “trader, peddler” ~ a compound of Türkic čıp (chip, chyp) (adj.) “slim (branch, twig)” and man “man”, see cheap and man respectively. The prime meaning of the word čıp is “twig, stem” that ultimately has produced metaphorical “abscess” (čïpqan, for resemblance to berries on a twig) and “slim” (quality of twig), the čıp “slim” is the base for Eng. chip (v., n.) “fleck, bit” and adjective cheap “slim (price, bargain)” that blossomed in the west, as attested by a constellation of derivatives in A.-Sax., see cheap. Cognates for cheap are few, and besides Türkic languages, where apparently it is a relict of the western Türkic languages represented by few archaic examples confined to Gmc. group, with a jaunt to Lat. Cognates for -man are widespread among Türkic languages, also with a detectable tendency for the concrete determinant -man “man” to disperse from the western Türkic languages, see man. Chapman follows the model of A.-Sax. ancorman, hierdeman, woruldman, and the Tr. ataman “leader”, lit “father-man”, dušman “enemy”, hetman (getman) “title”, müsülman “Moslem”, etc. Distribution of both component terms is peculiar, čıp/cheap within Türkic and NW European languages, and -man/man the same groups plus eastern “IE” languages (Cf. brahman), in all instances both components are oddities within the family of the “IE” languages, with spotty apearance contrasted with the distribution of the “IE” synonyms. That attests the non-IE origin for both components, and corroborates the Türkic origin for both of them. See cheap, man.

English cheap (adj.) “inexpensive, bargain” ~ Türkic čıp (chip, chyp) (adj.) “slim (branch, twig)”. The prime meaning of the word čıp is “twig, stem” that ultimately has produced metaphorical “abscess” (čïpqan, for resemblance to berries on a twig) and “slim” (quality of twig), the čıp “slim” is the base for Eng. chip (v., n.) “fleck, bit” and adjective cheap “slim (price, bargain)” that blossomed in the west, as attested by a constellation of derivatives in A.-Sax. Eastern Türkic languages retained numerous words for “cheap”, with local predominance: arzen, ıŋğay/ıŋtay/oŋoy/oŋtoy, kolay, oŋday/oŋdöy, ucuz/uci:z; the abandance of terms and forms attests that the notion of “inexpensive, bargain” is relatively late necessity caused by developed trade and competition, the linguistic inventions responding to that need originally were colloquial, and the western “cheap” belongs to that group of innventions. Besides the commercial terms “bargain, purchase, sale, price (deop ceap “high price”, chapman (trader), market, trade or deal (traffic in something)”, A.-Sax. used the stem ceap for a slew of other trade-related subjects: cattle, goods, possessions, property, rich, wealthy, gain, purchase money, purchase slave, bribing, market price, compensation, tollbooth, etc. The wealth of semantic extensions indicates an absence of corresponding local lexicon, an advent of a new social structure, and a new social model based on free trade. The concurrence of phonetic (čıp - cheap), semantic (slim/thin - slight/little), and semantic overtones (cheap - flimsy, cheap - stingy, cheap - tasteless, cheap - slim/thin on morals) leaves little room to doubt the Türkic origin. The “IE” etymological appeal to Lat. caupo (with ch-) “petty tradesman, huckster” leads to nowhere, explaining one unknown with another, a euphemism for “of unknown origin”, clandestinely implying a non-IE origin. Historical background also rules out the early Lat. origin, since the early (2nd c. AD) Goths bordered and intermingled with the Greeks, not Romans, and extensively used Gk., and not Lat., as a source of cultural borrowings. The presence in A.-Sax. of two synonyms, both ascending to Türkic speech, also rule out a Lat. origin: undeor lit. “un-dear” ~ Tr. terim “dear” + -an (negation) expressing “cheap” and ceap (with ch-) expressing the same “cheap”. The Gmc. allophones for “trade” are confined to Gmc. languages, with an oddbll stray borrowing into Lat.: A.-Sax. ceapian (with ch-), OHG. coufon, Goth. kaupon. Notably, Sl. languages used for “trader” a direct borrowing fr. Tr., gost (гость), an allophone of Tr. göster “visitor, stranger”, pointing to a path separate from the Gmc. and Lat. paths. The evolution of the term cheap from bargain trading to barter and eventually to monetary exchange quite obviously developed in the European arena and within the Türkic milieu. That is attested by the nearly excusive propagation of the term čıp in the western arena, contrasted with the presence of only archaic value of “slim (branch, twig)” in the eastern Türkic languages, and by exclusive use of the Türkic nomenclature and values for the monetary exchange (peneg “small coin” - penny, sheleg “unbroken, whole, interchanged” - shilling, manat - money, kı:z cost; Cf. Sl. tanga “bundle of pelts” (used as money) - denga (деньга) “money”, kuna “monetary fine for murder” - kuna (куна) “small silver coin”, pul “fraction, divided” - pul (пул) “small copper coin”). The western and eastern exchanges overlapped, for example, Khazars (7th c.) collected 1 shilling (sheleg) traditional tax from households within borders extending from the Avar Kaganate in the west to the Horezm in the east. They inherited that taxation system from the Bulgars, who inherited it from the Huns. The Eng. cheap, chapman, and gold (al(tun) “gold” - Goth. gulþ “gold”, with prosthetic anlaut g-) belong to the trading paradigm that includes a whole system of commercial and monetary terms, reputably ascending to the Huns, but in reality extending for another half a millennia to the Sarmat times of the 2nd c. BC with paradigmatic transfer of the first, most basic commercial terms. Some of these commercial terms penetrated OFr. and LLat., pointing to the Vandal/Burgund source. See chapman, gold, guest, money, penny, sale, shilling.

English cost (v., n.) “toll, price” ~ Türkic kı:z “rarity; costly, expensive”. Cognates: OFr. cost “cost, expenditure”; the suggested unrelated semantically and flawed phonetically Lat. constare “stand at” is clearly a dubious attempt. The traces of the semantics of “rarity; costly” can be observed in the A.-Sax. word cost applicable to the herb costmary Tanacetum vulgare emphasized to be used sparingly. The origin of the word is clearly non-IE, attested by complete absence of any “IE” cognates, while semantically the word belongs to the group of Turkisms with retail trade-connected semantics and mostly confined to OFr. and adjacent Romance languages. Like other late Turkisms in OFr., the origin of the modern cost is likely connected with the Burgund (Bulgar) nomadic Vandals, later the Provence and Savoy, and whence OFr. and VLat. The auslaut -t may be an archaic Türkic plural indicator, assimilated as a part of the stem. While the modern Eng. cost is limited to the trade-related field, the A.-Sax. word cost has at least four unrelated separate meanings, pointing to a homophonic origin of the word from four separate independent languages; almost all derivatives in the A.-Sax. are from a notion “choice” (ceosan), attesting to its innate endemism.

English gain (v., n.) “obtain something desirable” ~ Türkic gänč (gənch), gänǯ (gənj), genǯ (genj), kenǯ (kenj), kaznak “treasury, riches, booty”, exemplified in modern Turkish with truncated semantic field as ganimet “booty, loot, trophy, prize, plunder”; ultimately from a noun derivative conveying a semantic notion of “procreation, expansion” gen-/ken- of the adverb and noun gen, ken “behind, after” with suffix -č (č), Cf. keŋürüš (ken_gürüsh) “increase, gain”. The differences in spelling may reflect less the dialectal pronunciation and more the transcriptions with Middle Eastern scripts. The synonymous kaznak ascends to the verbal root kaz- “dig” with rich trail of derivatives, the “acquire” and “cauldron” are main themes; it is clear that it is related to the gänč only by conflation. A third root ka:n- “satisfied, satiated” may, other than being another form of gen-/ken-, have also conflated with the notion of gen-/ken- “produce, generate”. Essentially, gain means “harvest”, it is not a result of production but rather of a collection, that explains the suffix -č (č) in all gänč allophones. Cognates: A.-Sax. cennes “generate, produce, product”, cennan “produce”, gegaeð “gain”, the ME gaignage “profit from agriculture” is a later semantic expansion in the agrarian environment, Goth. geigan “gain”, the form ga-geigan attests the root form geg-; OFr. gaaigne “gain, profit, advantage, booty, prey”, gaaignier “to gain”; Chinese 獲 hou (Pyn.) “received” semantically relate to gain and echo phonetically. The semantics of the word reflects the lifestyle of the Türkic mounted tribes in the pre-industrial age, sufficiently documented by historians and chroniclers from the incipiency of writing, and geographically from the Mediterranean to the Yellow Sea. All allophonic phonetic forms have two forms ge-, ke- in the anlaut, with the second consonant variously -n- or -g-, or both. Both the phonetic form and semantic nuance are well preserved from the earliest documented originals long predating the late European records. The allophonic Chinese form ca. ge, gei > hou may reflect a form of Türkic gänʒ from the Zhou times.

English gold (n.) “heavy yellow chemically inert precious metal” ~ Türkic altun “gold”. The Türkic altun consists of the root al “orange (color, adj.)”, and adv. and adj. suffix -tun. The suffix -tun (-tün) is an inactive relict, found in archaic forms: altun ~ al “orange, lower, take, sift”, otun/udun/utun/ütün “bad, spoiled” ~ öd/öt/üd/üt “hole, fire”, qatun/xatun “mother-queen” ~ ka “family, vessel”, tütün “smoke” ~ tü “color, hue”. The root al “orange” is seen in Gmc. and Sl. forms, and its allophone ar in Skt., Av. and OPers. Cognates: A.-Sax. gyld, gild, OSax., OFris., ONorse gull, OHG gold, Goth gulþ (gulth), A.-Sax. gold, Gmn. Gold, MDu. gout, Isl. gull, Du. goud, Dan. guld; Balto-Sl. (Latv.) zelta, (OCS) zlato, Rus. zoloto; Skt. hiranyam, Av. zaranya, OPers. daraniya. All “IE” forms have an Ogur-type prosthetic anlaut consonant, in standard modifications of g-, j-, h-, d-, z-. The suggested unattested “IE” proto-forms *ghel and *gulth, conceived in the same Ogur-type form, are variations on the motive of the Türkic al, with semantically parallel notion “to shine”, the unattested concoctions contrast with the reality of the real and still active Türkic root. Distribution of the variations on the theme -al- is consistent with the “IE” languages emanating west and east at around or after 2000 BC from the N. Pontic area, they were spreading in three basic flavors, -al-, -or-, and gol-, which in Türkic languages would be interchangeable with gul.

English inch (n., v.) “small length, 2.5 cm” ~ Türkic ınča, yınča, anča “less, small”. Ultimately a denoun derivative fr. the noun in/i:n /en/yi:n “burrow, warren”, a cognate of the Eng. inn “lodge”. The metaphorical form ınča/anča relays a notion of smallness, quietness, only, but, and the like, it is not attested to be connected with a notion of some fraction. As a unit of measurement, the Türkic “small” can be used universally, to length, volume, weight, etc. Unlike the suggested Lat. un “one”, semantically ınča expresses a measurement directly. Numerous allophones and meanings attest to the primeval origin of the word ınča. According to G. Clauson, ınča: was the original archaic form (EDT 172); the word was formed with an equative suffix -ča that endures in the European languages, including the Lat. form. The notion of the word ınča/anča is reflected in its derivatives: yinč- “slight, delicate, thin, slim”, inčkä, jïnčkä “thin, slim, narrow”, yinčge:, yinčür- “slight, thin, slim, delicate”, yinčgä, yinčkä “barely visible, thin, narrow” (Ogur forms), and the like. The concurrent existence of the i- and yi- forms attests to an early dialectal split into Ogur (pervasive, with prosthetic semi-consonant) and Oguz (minority). The form a- (anča) overlaps a wide swath including Kipchak, Khakass in the north and Kashgar in the south: ančağ/ančak “only, only just, but, particularly”, ančakına “very little”, etc. The best illustrations are the expressions that ring an Anglo-Türkic bell: ınča: munča, lit. “less or more” (Eng. idiom “more or less”) and ınča: bunča, lit. “less or bunch”, with many other idioms with similar and extended semantics. The Sp. is not far behind: the favorite expression mucho dinero is an allophone of the munča tanga. The expression ınča (spelled anča) yeme kutluğ kıvlığ meaning “am I not so fortunate” is lit. “less (inch) so God-given” in a word-for-word rendition of the Türkic phrase. The form ınča (vs. the form anča) is best known fr. Uigur records, including the Uigur Christian records. Cognates: A.-Sax. ynce “inch”, yndse “ounce (unit of weight)”; Celtic (OIr.) inis “small island”, (Gaelic) innis ditto, (Welsh) ynys ditto, (Breton) enez ditto; Lat. uncia “ounce”. The A.-Sax. ynce “inch”, recorded in Romanized form with y- and -ce- for -ča (-cha), relays exactly the Türkic ınča with pharyngeal vowel -ı-/-ï-, eventually it shifted closer to the front as is articulated in the modern pronunciation. The English inch is peculiar to English, it is not found in any other Germanic language. The Celtic forms are notably closer to Eng., the Lat. form is more remote. Originated fr. the same phylum, the Lat. and Eng. allophones reached their destinations via different independent paths, as attested by the phonetic peculiarities. All forms stress the semantics of the smallness. The “IE etymology” connects ynce/inch with the peculiar to Lat. uncia “twelfth (part)”, a derivative of un “one”, with etymologically inexplicable semantic jump from “one” to “twelfth”. The Türkic etymology does not need any artificial semantic jumps, it naturally extends the notion of “small” to any object, including the Eng. small length and the Lat. small volume/weight, explaining both the Lat. and Eng. idiosyncrasies. The Türkic etymology is also consistent with other Türkic measurement terms found in Anglo-Türkic monetary triad (the word shilling was first record is in the Gundobad's (474? - 516) Burgundian Code, after Burgunds extended to Savoi in 438) and at times in Lat.: money, pence, shilling, inch. See bunch, money, much, pence, shilling.

English money “currency” ~ Türkic manat, “money”. Manat is one of allophonic forms ultimately derived from mün “monetary wealth, capital”. A.-Sax. had an elaborate monetary lexicon that attests to a tradition of market economy way before the Norman invasion: mynet “coin, money”, mynetcypa “money-changer”, mynetere “minter, coiner”, mynetian “to coin”, mynetisen “coinage”, mynetslege “minting, coinage”, mynetsmiððe “mint”, minte “mint”, etc., all transparent cognates of the mün and manat. The late OFr. monoie “money” belongs to the same lexicon, but apparently originated with the Burgund Vandals via a separate path. The term money belongs to the cluster of the Türkic monetary terms in English that was shared in the Central and Northwestern Europe for one and a half millennia, since the Hunnic times. Due to the late emergence of the monetary coins, the reverse origin (from Europe to Asia) may be suggested, but the absence of the primary source word and cognates in the pre-Hunnic European languages, and the converging attestation of the Türkic-based monetary terminology precludes that. The semantic and phonetic congruence does not leave any doubts on the unity of the origin. The word does not have cognates in either Lat. nor Gk., but Lat. has moneta “mint”, definitely connected with a notion of money, and reportedly coming from the title (not a surname, as asserted by some etymological experts who assign surnames to the Gods) of the Roman goddess Juno, whose prototype the Gk. Hera was a daughter of Saturn and had nothing to do with money. These early mythological stories are perfectly confusing for the experts, and citing them may help the wellbeing of the etymologists, but does not help the “IE” etymology. Besides being generic for “money”, manat is a modern unit of currency in the Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The semantic and phonetic match that ascends to the Türkic primary base mün does not leave any chances for random coincidences, especially so considering the Anglo-Türkic triad of money - penny - shilling ~ manat - peneg -sheleg. See means, mint, penny, shilling.

English penny “smallest unit of currency” ~ Türkic peneg, “small coin”. Cognates: A.-Sax. (OE) pening, penig, OSax. pending, OFris. panning, ONorse penningr, OHG pfenning, MDu. pennic, Dan. penge, Sw. pänning, Gmn. Pfennig; the Goth. recorded term is independent skatts, apparently reflecting the skins of the pelts in pelt money. The term penny belongs to the cluster of the Türkic monetary terms in English, Germanic, and now international lexicon. The semantic and phonetic congruence does not leave any doubts of the unity of the origin, the English form penig and the Türkic form peneg are absolutely identical. No “IE” etymology, predictably “of unknown origin”. See means, mint, money, shilling.

English sale (n.) “opposite of buying” ~ Türkic sal- (v.) “move, dispense”. The stem sal- conveys a notion of outward motion in numerous ways, of which “give” and “dispense” is but an one facet, represented by translations “expel”, “draw (something) aside”, “bring (carry, bear) to”, “send”, “spend”, “release”, “move”, “hurl”, and more. A trade idiom “move the goods” lit. and metaphorically reflects the sal-/sale as a notion of outward motion. Ultimately, the verbs sal- ( “move, dispense”, passive) and sat- (“trade, sell”, causative) are derivatives of sa:- “count”. The eastern Türkic languages did not invent, nor they needed to invent, a word expressing a noun “sale”, normally formed by morphological modification of the stem sat- (e.g. satïɣ “trade”), while the western languages did that using the building blocks of the Türkic languages. The eastern Türkic languages continued to use idioms like sat- al- (Cf. alimony), sat- ber- (Cf. to bear), lit “trade take, i.e. “to buy”, “trade bear to, i.e. “to sell” (satıp al- “to buy”, satıp ber- “to sell”). The western Türkic languages, probably in a course of amalgamation with alien languages that required to come up with a stand-alone noun, used the form sal- with a prime meaning “give” and a secondary notion of “give away, sell”, as a noun with emphasis on “trade”. Cognates: A.-Sax. sellan, syllan (inf.), salde, sealde, selest (conj.), asellan, forsellan (deriv.) “give, furnish, supply, sell”, sala “sale”, sealdnes, selen “giving, grant, gift”, Sw. salu, Dan. salg, OHG sala “sale”. All cognates belong to Gmc. branch, are used by a miniscule fraction of the “IE” languages, with no “IE” cognates outside the confined examples, they are obvious non-IE lexemes originated fr. a common source. A.-Sax. examples use “give” and “sale” interchangeably, the “sale” is an extension of “give”, continuing the Türkic course in an instance of paradigmatic transfer. Phonetically, A.-Sax. examples demonstrate a degree of the stem dispersion sal-, seal-, sel-, syl-, sall-, etc., natural for lexemes adopted by different alien vernaculars. The “IE etymology” is funny, it ascribes to the root sal- a meaning “grasp, take”, exactly opposite to the meaning of “sale”, i.e. “give away” presented by the A.-Sax. language. For the cognate word salary, “IE etymology” offers an origin from “salt”, and similar nonsense for other cognates, see salary. The limited spatial distribution allows to conjecture that the Gmc. forms evolved in the 2nd c. BC, when the Sarmat nomadic wave reached the north-central Europe and amalgamated with the local farming populations. That was probably an opportunity to create, outside of the Türkic morphological and grammatical norms, the separate noun sale and the verb sell. An originally single root, functionally distinguished by morphological markers and grammatical use, stratified into two independent words, first documented in the Goth. lexicon. However, our knowledge of the western Türkic languages is so minuscule that it leaves a possibility that the tip of the iceberg at our disposal does not cover the western area at all, leaving a possibility for the Türkic sal- to form the lexemes sell and sale with their precise meanings still in the Türkic Sarmat milieu. The linguistic pair sell and sale rose to great social prominence during the Industrial Era, with the emergence of mass production and mass distribution economies. Although not a direct allophone, sale belongs to the commercial paradigm that includes roots sal- and sat-; that paradigm also includes the word satïš, best known for the Gujarati cast and clan name Satïš “trader” in the far-away India. See salary, satisfy, sell.

English shilling (n.) “one twentieth of a pound” ~ Türkic sheleg (n.) “unbroken, unconvertible, unexchangeable “non-ambulant” coin”. The term shilling belongs to the cluster of the Türkic monetary terms in English, Germanic, and now international lexicon (i.e. shilling in Austria, New Zeeland, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, etc.). Cognates: A.-Sax., OSax., OFris., OHG, Dan., Sw. skilling, ONorse skillingr, Du. schelling, Gmn. Schilling, Goth. skilliggs; OCS skulezi, Pol. szelang, Sp. escalin, Fr. schelling, It. scellino; first record is in the Gundobad's (474? - 516) Burgundian Code, after Burgunds extended to Savoi in 438. The Russian Primary Chronicle under the year 885 noted that Radimiches (Slavic group) paid Khazars a tribute of one shilling per household; thus before the advent of the Varangians the eastward distribution of the term reaches the Volga river. The semantic and phonetic congruence does not leave any doubts of the unity of the origin, the form shilling comes from the nomadic Vandalic tribes. The word can't be sanely etymologized from the “IE” languages, predictably it is “of unknown origin”, and neither the Vandals nor the Khazars surely were not renowned Latin rhetoricians. The shilling is a component of the Anglo-Türkic triad of money/penny/shilling ~ manat/peneg/sheleg. The very existence of the triad constitutes a case of a paradigm transfer, and saliently attests to a common source within the Türkic phylum. See means, mint, money, penny.

English tariff (n.) “tax, charge” ~ Türkic tarïɣ (n.) “tax”, initially mostly in kind, later also in money, fr. tarïɣ “grain”. The Türkic taxing system for dependent population and usually for settled traders, farmers, and transit goods developed extensive vocabulary to enumerate different obligations, different dependencies, and different native languages: bert, čatipa, qalan, qatïl, salïɣ, tütün are a sampling documented in the OTD; tütün is a chimney tax (tütü “smoke”), tarïɣ is tax in grains (tarïɣ “grain”), and it is used in paired adjectival idioms to specify what kind of tax, like aš tarïɣ “tax in kind”, lit. “feeding tax”. Supposedly, the path to the English adopted form is It. tariffa, MLat. tarifa “list of prices, book of rates”, via Arabic ta'rif “information, notification, inventory of fees to be paid”. No “IE” cognates, and apparently the ancient Gmc. people used different words for august impositions (A.-Sax. gafol, Gmn. Steuern conflict with Türkic phonetics, and generally speaking, the European taxing terminology is of relatively recent origin).

English tavern “public house - road restaurant, bar, inn, or any combination thereof” ~ Türkic tavar. The cognates are limitless: OFr. taverne “shed made of boards, booth, stall”, “tavern, inn”; Lat. tabernaculum “tent”, taberna “hut, cabin, booth”, “hut, shed”; Arabic dabbar “small cattle”; Russ. tovarnik “shed, barn, stowage”, the Russ. fem. form of tovarisch is tovarka, with fem. suffix -ka, it points exactly where the male form came from; Scand. die Waare/de Waare “goods”, which produced A.-Sax. waru and Eng. ware “manufactured goods, goods for sale” ~ Sw. vara, Dan. vare, OFris. were, MDu. were, Du. waar, MHG, Gmn. ware, all meaning “goods”. The Türkic word apparently filled in a huge lacuna in the social and economic life of the Eurasia, its derivatives are spread everywhere in the Eurasia, and now are disseminated across the globe. The dictionary entries just for the Türkic term include:
1. article of commerce, sales
2. possessions, property, goods, acquisitions
3. supply train (military, with spillover to civilian), base camp
4. herd driven for sale
5. goods of processed leather
6. goods and tabor (train of wagons, “tabor” is a derivative of “tavar”) with goods, fortified camp, fortified convoy stopover
7. money, as an adjective of the word “tavar” = goodies for sale
8. related to supply train convoy and to its goods, an adjective
The derivatives pop out in most unexpected circumstances, for example the Biblical Tabernacle comes from a tent (yurt) used as a sales stand to display and sell goods carried by the convoy train, it is a cousin of the word “tavern”. The Russ. tovarisch, popularized after the Russian revolution, is a derivative to denote members of the convoy's cohort. The feeble “IE” etymologies all pull in different directions, coming up with individual and unrelated phonetical siblings for each derivative on ad hoc basis, frequently with the help of the unattested inventions, like *traberna, from trabs “beam, timber”. Try to merge the Lat. “beam, timber” with the Arabic “herd of small cattle for sale” and the Hanseatic League “base camp, convoy”.

English toll “payment, fee” ~ Türkic tölač “compensation, fee”, from the verbal stem töla-, töle:- “pay, pay off”. Ultimately töle:- may be a metaphoric form of semantically connected tüle:- “shed (hair, skin)” and a base for tölük “strength, power”. Cognates: A.-Sax. (OE) toll, toln, ONorse tollr, OFris. tolen, OHG zol, Gmn. Zoll; LLat. tolonium “custom house”, Lat. telonium “tollhouse”; Gk. teloneion “tollhouse”, telones “tax-collector”, telos “tax”. The original general European sense was “payment exacted by authority”, “charge for right of passage”, while in Türkic the verb töla- is a generic word for payment for service, for payment that you owe, for payout. A.-Sax. has an extensive set of derivatives, attesting to long-established fiscal order: tollere, tolnere “tax-gatherer”, tollsceamol (tollshemol) “treasury”, tollscir (tollshir) “taxing district”, tolsetl “place of toll or custom”; Cf. the Austrian city Tuln was a toll collection point. Apparently, the Gk. merchants learned the term through their wallets, paying for ferries and safe passage on the way, and that particular semantics gained hold on the Southern European scene, but is likely irrelevant to the Gmc. domains in the Northern Europe. The Latins used the Gk. word. The “IE etymology” ultimately derives toll from an unattested PIE *kwel- “to roll, to move around, wheel”, which does not make much sense either semantically nor phonetically; the “IE” languages do not have a key underlying cognate of toll in a verbal form “to pay”, leaving the term an isolated and queer case. The Türkic etymology is transparent and obvious.
94

4.6 Household

English abode (n.) “dwelling” ~ Türkic oba (n.) “dwelling”. Oba is a denoun adjectival derivative of the verb abï- “hide, conceal”, i.e. “shelter”, oba extends its semantics from a “dwelling” to a “country”, “homeland”. Allophonic forms of oba is oma (the Gothic Oium), with m/b alteration, and opa with b/p/v/f alteration. Cognates: A.-Sax. hof “enclosure, court, dwelling, building, house, hall, temple, sanctuary”, Norse opphold, Dan. ophold, Sw. boning, Gmn. Aufenthalt; Lat. habitatio, It. abitazione “home”; Sl. (Blg.) obitel (обител), (Blr.) abitsel (абіцель), Slv. obydlie. Rus. obychno (обычно) “habitually”; Dagur obo, EYu. owo, WMong. obugan “kurgan, grave mound” (metaphorical for “final dwelling”); Manchu muhun (< *obuhun) “burial kurgan of nobility” (metaphorical for “final dwelling”), Jurchen bo “house”. The word is genetically related with the toponym Europe (Evropa ~ ev “home” + opa “home, country” > “homeland”). The A.-Sax. and Lat. allophones have a prosthetic anlaut h-. The eastern terms refer to dwelling in literal and metaphorical contexts. The distribution indicates that all European cognate forms for abode, including It., passed through the Gmc. channel. The eastern terms directly point to the Kurgan eastern waves as a linguistic source, connecting the west with the east. The “IE etymology” is patently faulty, on purely phonetical grounds it rightfully connects abode (n.) with OE verbal noun abide “dwell” in its “remain, wait, delay, remain behind” aspects, since a temporary stopping place along a pastoral route is also an oba, to remain, take rest, and wait. However, it then confuses abide with the unrelated semantics of the noun “wait”, a proposition that irrationally turns “wait” into “dwelling”, and would not feasibly create a slew of “dwelling” cognates across Eurasia and in the Gmc., Sl., and It. languages. See Europe, habitat, world.

English ashlar “connecting slab, brace” ~ Türkic aslïq- “to connect”, ašla- “to brace”. Ultimately fr. as-/aš- “suspend, hang”, via asıl- “join, hung, suspended” that has peculiar semantic extensions “crucified, executed, precipitous; advantage, profit, interest; pend (pendant, suspend), attach, stick; cook (suspend over fire)”. While the Eng. ashlar is a narrow trade term, its unexpected Eng. cognates derived from as-/aš- are ubiquitous: assign, assassin, assassinate, etc. There is also overlap and possible conflation with derivatives of aš- “enlarge, increase, more”. Cognates: this uncommon term is shared by few northern Germanic languages, without any dialectal modifications, tentatively pointing to English as a source language for recent borrowings. In English, the word belongs to the class of words that at a late date (13th c.) popped up from nowhere, and other than Türkic do not have cognates in non-Germanic European languages. No “IE” etymology. The loss of unaccented anlaut vowel is a typical phonetic modification. The English semantics developed from “connecting slab, bracing slab” to “"large, flat stone block” to “tall and lank” (1817, American English). Probably, the spread of the Roman arch construction method replaced the previous stone bracing method and for a time retired the term. Nowadays the term is narrowly used for pre-cast concrete rectangular blocks.

English barn “grain/fodder storage shed” ~ Türkic barın- “to shelter, lodge”, hence “shelter, lodge”, ambar (anbar) “grain/fodder storage shed”, ultimately a derivative fr. the verb bar- “go, leave”, in this context “leave, flee to shelter”. Cognates: A.-Sax. bernhus, berenhus, A.-Sax. bereærn, beretun; Sl. ambar, onbar; Chagatai, Crimean, Kuman, Tat., Turk. ambar; Pers. ambar; all “barn”. The “IE etymology” is convoluted: A.-Sax. bereærn ascending to bere “barley” and aern for “house”: bereærn “barley house” fr. bere “barley” + aern “house” << ONorse rann, Goth. razn “house”, A.-Sax. rest “resting place”, sealtærn “saltworks”; there neither bere, nor aern/rann/razn/rest are classed as “IE” words. The A.-Sax. beretun is no better, -tun is “town, settlement” in Celtic, it is neither “IE” nor a “storage shed”, nor an “animal pen”. The distribution in Türkic and Pers. throws a destructive curveball into already convoluted “IE etymology” using non-IE vocabulary, bernhus is a transparent compound of barın “shelter” + hus (koš/quš/xüžə) “house, hut”, i.e. barınkoš “bernhus”. The attested forms barn and ambar offer a common root, a perfect attested semantic meaning, and immediate phonetical proximity. See house, hut.

English board (n.) “flat length of timber, plank” ~ Türkic batğa:, batɣa (n.) “board”, apparently a deverbal noun/adjective derivative from the verb bat- “descend and disappear” formed with verbal adjectival suffix -ɣa/-ga, alluding to shaving of almost all material in making a thin board from a whole log. Cognates: A.-Sax. bord “board, plank”, “table”, “shield”, “ship”, “side of a ship”, ONorse borð, barð “plank”, Du. bord, boord “board”, Goth. fotu-baurd “foot-board”, OHG bart, Gmn. Bord “board”, Brett “plank”; MLat. bordus, It., Sp. bordo, OFr. bort “beam, board, plank”, “side of a ship”; Gk. pittakion “board”; Syriac petqa “board”; the distribution of the cognates is most peculiar; the Syriac form is eidetic with the Türkic form, complete with the suffix -ɣa/-ga, it probably expanded to Greece together with the utilitarian innovation: it was a generic board particularly used for cutting felt and pelt patterns for hats. With a spread of writing its semantics expanded to “writing tablet”, and in Türkic, eventually to “document”. The exceptional proximity of the Türkic and Syriac forms tends to indicate a path from the Middle East to Greece, a path separate from that of the Gmc. and Romance forms. The Gk. and Syriac forms constitute authentic cases of paradigmatic transfer, making the Gmc. cases appear as a secondary borrowing fr. an intermediary. A non-IE loan-word in the European languages, the “IE etymology” dreamed up a specifically Gmc. unattested phantom roots for “cut” and “border”, failing to acknowledge the Eastern Mediterranean cognates. The derivative notions connected with plank-built boats “ship”, “side of ship”, “tables”, “shields”, “borders”, “boardinghouses”, etc., were already seeded in the example of the A.-Sax. polysemy; the Romance forms are attested much later; at all times the spectrum of the derivative meanings is as wide as the use of the boards, they overlap and are inextricably entangled.

English bucket (n.) “vat, container, bucket” ~ Türkic but “vat, container, bucket”. See vat.

English burg “dwellings within fortified enclosure” ~ Türkic barq “building, estate, structure, dwelling”, hence balïq “fortified enclosure”, also dwellings within a balïq. Cognates are distinctly limited to the northwestern Europe: A.-Sax. burg, burh, OFris. burg, ONorse borg, OHG burg, buruc, Gmn. Burg, Goth. baurgs, all denoting “fortified enclosure” with excursions to “tower”, “fortress”, “castle”, “wall”, “citadel”, and the like. The differences between a tower ~ Tr. tura and burg ~ Tr. barq in English parallel those in Türkic, the first is a self-contained fortified dwelling, the second is a fortification containing dwellings, a girded place, see gird. In the Eurasia, barq/balïq and its allophones, including the western burg, are the most popular toponymic components. In both cases, the semantics varies with location, some types of balïqs and burgs may have other forms, which discriminate them according to the local specifics of the Sprachbund. The change from barq to burg and borough, and their local phonetics and spellings are local western innovations; the phonetical correlation with liquid -r-/-l- is observed for other words. See bark, castle, gird, tower.

English castle ~ Türkic kishlak (kashlyk) “winter quarters, winter village, winter fort/fortifications”. Cognates: Fr. castel, Lat. castrum/castellum “fort/fortified village”, forming -caster and -chester in place names, the “castle” was used to translate Gk. kome “village”.

English cemetery “land used for burials” ~ Türkic semäklä- (v.) “bury, burial rites”. Cognates: Tr. semäklägaü “to bury”, OFr. cimetiere “graveyard”, LLat. coemeterium. OE had licburg “cemetery” of Gmn. origin. The “IE” etymologies bring “dormitory” (Gk. κοιτώνες/koitones), “family, domestic servants” (OCS semija (семья)), “wife” (Lettish sieva), “bed, couch” (*PIE *version), “members of a household”, “measure of land” (A.-Sax. hiwan, higid), “cradle” (Lat. cunae), “propitious, gracious” (Skt. Sivah), all obviously unrelated to the acts of funerals. Given that funerals were one of the most persistent activities in the life of the families for dozens of millenniums, the burial terminology must be most resistant to modifications and cultural influences, including newly introduced religious lingo. In the European literature, the record on cemetery ascends to the early Christian writers, while a Gk. apparently unrelated version referred to “sleep of death”.

English court “area surrounded by walls” ~ Türkic qur- (v.) “arrange, build, line up, gather, stretch”, qur (n.) “sash, belt”. The modern use of “belt” for “encirclement” is a paradigmatic extension of the Türkic qur- “belt”, Cf. beltway, green belt. For cognates, etymology, distribution, and history see gird. See curtain, garden, gird, guard, and yard.

English curtain “barrier” ~ Türkic qur- (v.) “arrange, build, line up, gather, stretch”, qur (n.) “sash, belt”. For cognates, etymology, distribution, and history see gird. See court, garden, gird, guard, and yard.

dash 2
EDT 556, 557 1 ta&#353; (? d-) outside, exterior, courtyard, foreign country 1. A. внешняя /наружняя сторона, часть > dash-->
OTD 539 TAŠ II 1. внешний вид, облик; наружная, внешняя сторона-->
EDTL v.3 164 даш (n.) 'внешняя сторона (часть)’ >> appearance, elegance-->
dash 2 (n., adj., adv.) “appearance, elegance”~ Türkic daš (dash), taš (tash) “outer, outside, appearance, far”. ...

English eave (n.) “roof overhang” ~ Türkic ev “dwelling place: house, roof, residence, shelter, etc., incl. motherland (fatherland in Gmc. languages)”. The root ev and its allophones ob/op/üw/iv etc. are most productive, they lay at the base of a range of semantic extensions and derivatives in a spectrum of languages, incl. oba/habitat/obitel (обитель)/abbey; during the Late Antique and Middle Ages, numerous European polities carried the part oba for “country, homeland”: Taksoba, Dulo-oba, Asupa (As-oba), Altyn Oba, etc., it is still a most popular toponymic component in Azerbaijan. The word eave is a semantic extension of the notion “roof”. Cognates: A.-Sax. efes “edge of a roof”, metaph. “edge (forest)”, OFris. ose, OHG obasa “porch, hall, roof”, ONorse ups, Gothic ubizwa “porch”, Gmn. Obsen “eave”, oben, über “above”. The “IE etymology” is artificial and feeble, confusing cause and effect and coming up with unattested “*proto-word” for one of the effects as a suggested cause; on the positive side, it intimates that the word ev for a “shelter” may be a derivative of a notion “above”. Demonstratively, there is no “IE” “*proto-word”, each European language developed its own expression for the “roof overhang” and its far from being universal extension “porch”. Expressly, the ev “roof” with its allophones is limited to the Gmc. NW and the Türkic Eurasian steppe belt.

English Europe (n.) “large peninsula of Eurasia” ~ Türkic ev “home” + opa “country” > “homeland”. Oba is a denoun adjectival derivative of the verb abï- “hide, conceal”, i.e. “shelter”, oba extends its semantics from a “dwelling” to a “country”, “homeland”. Allophonic forms of oba is oma (the Gothic Oium), with m/b alteration, and opa with b/p/v/f alteration. Cognates: too many to list, see samples at abode, habitat, world; Lat. Europa, Gk. Evropi (Ευρώπη). The “IE etymology” is “of uncertain origin”, but numerous incredible speculations abound, suggesting Gk. “broad face” + “face”, a Semitic Phoenician name of princess Europa in Gk. mythology that leaves etymology unexplained, Phoenician ereb “evening” and hence “west”, Semitic Akkadian erebu “to go down, set"” (sun) and hence “west”, and probably quite a few more. The name has a long history, and definitely passed early Gk. milieu: it was first recorded in the Homeric hymn to Apollo (522 BC or earlier) as a geographic name. In comparison with all other suggestions, the Türkic etymology offers a closest phonetic and sound semantic match. See abode, eave, habitat, world.

English habitat (n.) “abode” ~ Türkic oba (n.) “habitat”. Oba is a denoun adjectival derivative of the verb abï- “hide, conceal”, i.e. “shelter”, oba extends its semantics from a “dwelling” to a “country”, “homeland”, or tribes or clans of the abode (principality), figuratively also “tomb”, “kurgan” for the final dwelling of a deceased. Allophonic forms of oba are oma/ömə (the Goth. Oium), with m/b alteration, opa with b/p/v/f alteration, and uba/uva with o/u (ö/ü) alteration. These forms abound during Late Antique and Middle Ages: Aepa (Ay-opa), Altyn Oba, Asupa (As-upa), Duloba (Dulo-oba), Europe (Evropa ~ ev “home” + opa “country” > “homeland”), Hinuba (Hun-oba), Kara Oba, Kemi Oba, Kul Oba, Lietuva (Liet-uva ~ Lithuania), Obaly, Taksoba, Tonuzoba, Ufa. To the same host belong the first compound appellation for Suei, the present Swedes: Soebies (Σωηβοι, Σουηβοι) ~ Su-ebi, Suebi (Su-ebi), Suevi, Suovi (Su-evi, Su-ovi); the presence of the determinant oba is attested by alternate forms with suffixes -an (abstract derivative) and -ty/dy (adverbial/adjectival suffix): Sueones (Swedes) and Suedi (Swedesh); in all these appellations the part Su/Sue/Sw stands for “water”. The “IE etymology” on purely phonetical grounds connects habitat “abode” with semantically unsuitable Lat. habere “have, hold, possess” derived from unrelated root, that also conflicts with the Sl. cognate obitel (обитель) “abode”, and the Mong. cognate obo “abode”. See abode, Europe, world.

English home (n.) “domicile, residence, abode” (Sw N/A, F179, 0.09%) ~ Türkic qoš/quš/xüžə (n.) “house”, see house. The Eng. house is a structure, the home is a place. The word home is an allophone of the word house, derived from the allophone qom of the basic Türkic base qo/qon “coach, migrate”, see come. The Türkic attested form qom is allophonic with the Türkic quš and qöč “(mobile) home”, the initial syllable qo “reach a destination point, stop” links together the ken of polysemantic multilingual derivatives. Semantic stratification apparently occurred still in the Türkic milieu, since Gmc. languages nearly uniformly retained a formed phonetic and semantic notion “home”; otherwise, the Gmc. origin would shrink to a very compact spread, an unsustainable proposition. The Türkic attested form qom “place to stop”, “reach a destination point, stop” metaphorically is synonymous with the notion “home”, Cf. idioms “home on”, “home in” i.e. “direct on a target”.It also carries a related notion of “hideout”, “hide” (treasury, conceal, bury). Cognates: A.-Sax. ham “home”, husa “member of a household”, hamlet (14th c.) “small village”, OFris. hem “home, village”, ONorse heima “home”, heimr “residence, world”, Goth. haims “village”, Dan hjem, MDu heem, Gmn. heim “home”, Icl. heima, Yid. היים (heym); Kurd. xane, Taj. xона (xona) (both are allophones of qon “stopover, camp”); Basque hasiera “home” (allophone of house/quš). The conception home and its Gmc. cognates does not correspond to any single word in most of the “IE” languages. For “house”, the “IE etymology” suggests the usual “of unknown origin”, but the allophonic word home, however, was inexplicably awarded with a PIE pedigree fr. some invention *(t)koimo-, which happened to be eidetic to the Türkic attested form qom allophonic with the Türkic house/quš. The form with final -m- (ham “home”) parallels the form come derived from the same polysemantic root qon-/qom- “stopover”. The cousins home/qom are one member of a remarkable case of a paradigmatic transfer, where the single polysemantic syllable qo- “come to a destination”, “leave (something), put, put down, abandon, give up”, “all, together” had developed three momentous streams of derivatives, each with its own rainbow of forms and meanings. Besides heavily seeding Gmc. family, they seeded the Slavic, Romance, Fennic, Ugric, Iranian, and Mongolian families, reaching to the isolate Basque language. Their distribution allows to time their spread in time, and suggests the temporal seniority of the Celtic languages. The commonalities between Gmc., Romance, Mongolic, Fennic, and Sl. groups excludes a any hypothesized “IE” etymology. The universal spread of the traced steppe lexicon may be timed by the Corded Ware period of the 3rd mill. BC and the subsequent return of the C. European refugees back to the C. Europe ca. 1500 BC. See come, coach, house.

English house (n.) “home”, hut (n.) “small crude dwelling” (Sw N/A, F253, 0.06%) ~ Türkic qoš/quš/xüžə “house ~ hut”. The nomadic notion “house, home, hut” reflects the mobile economy and mobile lifestyle, it is intrinsically connected with the notion “coach” (v., n.) “drive, ride a coach”, “carriage” expressed by the Türkic köch “ride a coach”, “coach, carriage, wagon, mobile home”. Coaches were mobile homes, yurts were transportable stationary homes. In today's lingo it is a coach and RV. Ultimately, the form qöč is a trade word derived fr. the base qo/qon “coach, migrate”, see come. Cognates: A.-Sax. ham “home”, husa “member of a household”, A.-Sax., ONorse, OFris. hus, Goth. hus (gudhus, lit. “god-house”), Du. huis, Gmn. hof, Haus, Icl. haz, Yiddish hwyz (הויז); Romance kasa/casa; Sl. kosh, khata (кош, хата): (Bulg.) къща (kushta), (Bosn., Croat., Serb.) kuca, kућа (kucha), (Macedonian) kуkа, (Sloven.) hiša (hisha), (Ru., Eastern European) khata (хата) “home”, koshevoi (кошевой) “boss, head of the mobile nomadic clan on a pasturing route”, OCS kochevati (кочевати) “rove, migrate”; Kuchean (“Tokh. B”, Tarim) koškiye “hut”, kwaspo “village”; Hu. haz; Mong. qos, qosilig, Kalmyk xoš (hosh, khosh). Türkic has verbal derivatives semantically related to the notion of shelter, movement, and rest, qöši-, qöšit- “conceal, hide, shade”, kösül- “stretch (legs, etc.)”, and those have synonymous -l- counterparts qöli-, qölit- “conceal, hide, shade”, kölül- “stretch (legs, etc.)”. That explains the basis for the suggested “PAlt. proto-word” *kul'o “enclosure”, q.v. The Gmc., Sl., Romance, Kuchean, and Hu., Mong. forms clearly ascend to the common origin, within the “IE” paradigm the equivalency of the Gmc. (hus) and Romance ((casa) forms is well established. The “IE etymology” suggests the usual “of unknown origin”, probably because “IE” languages have so many different roots, like the Lat. domum “house”; the hypothesized origin from hide unwittingly ascends to another Türkic stem qoy/quy “inside, bosom”, a deverbal derivative of the stem qon-/qom- “place to stop”, see come. A.Dybo (Dybo A.V., 2007, 808): English “house ~ hut”, with all corresponding ancient and modern Gmc. cognates, Romance “kasa/casa” with all corresponding ancient and modern cognates, Sl. “kosh, khata” and other cognates, Mong. “qos”, Kalmuk “xoš (hosh)”. According to A.Dybo, the word possibly ascends to a “Proto-Altaic” *kul'o “enclosure”, but that hypothesis is superfluous with the attested basic stem qo/qon “coach, migrate, stopover, place to stay”, of which the unattested “*kul'o” would have been an allophonic derivative. The form with final consonant -t- (hut, khata) parallels the form qöts of the Baraba, Chulym, Tobol, and Kuman languages, qötü “roof, shelter”; the form with final -m- (ham “home”) parallels the form come derived from the same root qon-/qom-, see home. The ubiquitous Eurasian distribution of cognates points to a Eurasia-wide spread, and the commonality between Gmc., Romance, Mongolic, Fennic, and Sl. groups excludes a tepidly hypothesized “IE” etymology. Notably, in contrast with other European languages, the Celtic languages, that left N. Pontic on a circum-Mediterranean anabasis in the 6th-5th mill BC, did not carry to the W. Europe any phonetically house-related terms of the pastoral migrations and camps. That stratifies temporally the Celtic Kurgan migration from the earliest Kurgan Wave migration of the nomadic pastoralists to the C. Europe dated at 4400-4300 BC. The universal spread of the subject steppe lexicon may be timed by the Corded Ware period of the 3rd mill. BC and the subsequent return of the C. European refugees back to the C. Europe ca. 1500 BC. See come, coach, hide.

English inn (n.) “lodge, public lodging” ~ Türkic i:n (n.) “lair, den, hole, cave, nest, hiding place, burrow”. Cognates: none discovered, no credible “IE” etymology. Ultimately, the European in and en, in- and en- and em-, are allophones of the Türkic in/en (n.) “bottom, descent” that gained usage as grammatical prepositions with a directional notion “inside” (Romance, Gmc., but not Balto-Sl.) and “encompassing” (Romance, Gmc., but not Balto-Sl.) respectively. The phonetic homophony and semantic match between inn and i:n are impeccable.

English key “lock opener” ~ Türkic kilit “key”, dialectal kirit, a derivative of stem kelbir- “enter, pass through, get in”, kilit (with -i-) causative form of the base verbal stem kel-, kei- “to come” lit. “let in” (Cf. Sl. kalitka with -a-), kiritla- is “to lock”. There is also a ring of the verb kil- “do, make, act”, something like a causative “operator (device)”. All these words are conveying notions of “entry, entrance”; a synonym of “key” is a deverbal noun derivative ačqïč “key” lit. “opener” fr. the stem ač- “open, open up”. Cognates: A.-Sax. cæg, OFris. kei “key”, supposedly “of unknown origin, with no certain cognates”; Lat. clavis, Gk. klηis/klαιs (κληΐς/κλᾱίς); Sl. klüch (ключ) “key”, kalitka (калитка) “small gate”; Arab. iqlid; in contrast to the Gk. and Arab. forms, the Türkic synonyms are transparently etymologized with the Türkic base verbs. The Sl. form klüch has a bifurcated semantics, “key” and “natural spring”, the Türkic stem kir- also has a bifurcated meaning of “break through”, a figurative name for a natural spring, attesting that the Sl. cognate of the Gk., Lat., and Arab. forms is a paradigmatic transfer of bifurcated semantics from the Türkic linguistic family; the forms for key in Sl., Lat., Arab., and Gk. point to the same source with dialectal form kilit/kirit, likely derived from a precursor of the form kir- recorded late in the 10th c. Besides near perfect phonetic proximity and perfect semantic concordance, the Fris. word may suggest either Cimmerian or Sarmatian origin, allowing for another peek at their languages. Notably, for centuries in the 11th-14th cc. the Bulgarian smiths from the Sarmatian lands west of Urals were mass-producers of warding locks for the North-Eastern European market, demonstrating traditional design and metalworking craftsmanship.

English port (n.) “harbor” ~ Türkic bar- (v.) “part, disappear, go, walk, die (metaph.), begin”. The form port is a deverbal noun from the verb bar- “part, depart”, grammatically “parting”, formed with the suffix -t, like the words gift, unit, Celt, etc. A semantic relict of the verb is the Eng. par “ongoing (price, standard, etc.”, an idiom expressing an average or the usual status (amount, number, etc.), a relict “of unknown origin”; the semantics of the “going, ongoing” is a reflex of the verb's sememe “go”. Ditto parcel, which came directly from the form of the verb bar- without substantiation with the suffix -t. A.-Sax. expanded semantics of port to mean “city”, Cf. “town with a harbor”, “entrance”, portgeat “city gate”, portweall “city wall”. Another extension is the “fracture, make into parts” portian “to bray (in a mortar)”; these extensions can't be attributed to Lat. loanwords. With usual phonetic variations, the verb formed derivative nouns part “separate, depart”, portion “parcel”, port “exit, entryway”, portal ditto, particle “part of a whole”, departed “deceased”, and so on. Another set of cognates is comprised of the terms connected with travel, i.e. far, fare, forward, faraway, far-off, etc., these siblings of the root bar- refer to the distance and travel means related to some type of outward motion. This cluster was conflated, in practice and etymologically, with the cognates of the verb ber- “bear” that describe status: fare, welfare, warfare, confer, etc. Etymologically the two fare words are no more than homonyms, one referring to status (bar- “depart”), the other to delivery (ber- “to bear, give”), see bear, fare. Cognates: A.-Sax. faran “to journey”, fara “travelling companion, comrade”, faru “journey, expedition, companions, baggage”, OSax., OHG, Goth. faran “travel” , OFris., ONorse fara ditto, Du. varen ditto, Gmn. fahren ditto; Lat. porta “gate, door”; Av. peretush “passage, ford, bridge”. The b/p/f alteration is regular, it is typical for the East European or West Eurasian palatalized pronunciation independent of the linguistic family association; the alternation of the vowels is stochastic and also regular. The form part, depart, departed is a calque of the Türkic formulaic epitaph “(I, he) departed (from family, friends, etc.)” barım, bardı: written in the Sogdian and Türkic runiform scripts; it is an instant of a huge paradigmatic transfer complex. Both Türkic verbs, the bar- and ber-, relay some type of motion, their initial distinctions did not survive internalization by numerous diverse vernaculars, leading to phonetic and semantic crossovers, Cf. Skt. para- “carry” fr. ber- “carry” vs. Av. pere- and Lat. porta fr. bar- “go”. The variety of forms and articulations attest to the long temporal paths, likely originated in the Corded Ware culture (R1a) of the 3rd mill. BC; that is corroborated genetically and closely linked with the Pit Grave stage of the Kurgan culture. The westward dissemination was split by the Globular Amphora culture (R1b), creating conditions for observed fossilized p-/f- split; the eastward dissemination brought the palatalized p- forms into the South-Central Asia. The paradigmatic transfer of phonetic and semantic patterns makes obvious the genetic connections between all these, prima fascia confusing, lines of the siblings. See bear, depart, fare.

English soap (n.) “washing cleanser” ~ Türkic soqun-, suqun- (v.) “wash, rub in”; sabïn, sabun, sovun, supanü (Chuv.) (n.) “soap”. The verb soqun- “wash, rub in” is a deverbal derivative from the verb suk- “insert, enter”. The link attests to the initial meaning “rub in”, the meaning “wash” is one of its semantic extensions. Cognates: A.-Sax. sape “soap, ointment”, WFris. sjippe, OHGmn. seiffa, MLG sepe, Gmn. seife, Icl. sapu, Du. zeep, that ends the listing of the Gmc. cognates; LLat. sapo “coloring ointment”, an obvious loanword; Romance: It. sapone, Fr. savon, Sp. jabon, Rum. sapun; Celtic: Gaul soap, Scottish siabann, Welsh sebon; Balto-Sl.: Latv. ziepes, different fr. Lith. word, Lith. and Sl. use the same non-IE word; Gk. sapoúni (σαπούνι); that ends the extent of “IE” W. European sampling; Basque xaboi; Fennic: Fin. saippua, Hu. szappan (sapan), Mari shabon; Eastern Europe and Asia: Chuv. supanü, 40+ other Türkic cognates, Taj. sobun, Gujarati sabu, more Asian “IE” traces, Mong. savan, Ch. 皂 zao, 肥皂 feizao (zaofei), Jap. 石けん, せっけん sekken. Cognates demonstrate malleability of the vowel and second consonant in transition between languages and language families, further obscured by incompatible spelling conventions. The o-/u- ambiguity, inherent to the Türkic family, was propagated by the further spread of the word. The distribution obviously rules out an “IE” origin: Chuvash, for example, is a geographical isolate not bordering on any non-Türkic or “IE” language that uses the root sup-, ditto the Mong., Mari, Ch. and Jap. words. The appearance of the LLat. word sapo also attests to its guest status within the “IE” family. Hu. is a recent migrant to the C. Europe. The Jap. form, completely identical to the Türkic form, and incompatible with the native Kor. form, attests that the word was brought to the Far Eastern China and Japan by the Türkic-speaking migrants, probably the Zhou Scythians. It could have reached Japan in its pristine form under a Chinese influence, Cf. Ch. and Jap. spelling using the same character. The distribution of the word is highly peculiar, it clearly is either a legacy of the ancestor language or a cultural borrowing across the linguistic families. The word belongs to the small and exclusive group of the very few ancient international cultural words with a span across the entire Eurasia, on a backdrop of its very few authentically native Eurasian synonyms. That warrants that the unattested PIE and PG “reconstructions” *soi-bon-, *saipon are patently bogus vis-à-vis the attested lexemes and etymology. Under the “IE” guise the “reconstructions” unwittingly imitate the attested western Türkic form of the Chuv. word without leading to and rather obfuscating etymology. The non-phonetic base of the “IE” and PG “reconstructions” is, however, valid: the practical use as a dyeing ointment, medicinal ointment, and a soap is attested by historical testimonies and by the linguistic etymology ultimately ascending to the base root and the notion “rub in”.

English stair (n.) “stepped ramp” ~ Türkic satu/šatu (shatu) (n.) “stair”. Cognates: A.-Sax. stæger “flight of steps”, “single step”, stigan “climb”, ON, OFris. stiga, MDu. stighen, OHG stigan, Gmn. steigen, Goth. steigan “climb”; Skt. stighnoti “mounts, rises, steps”. The need for stairs in Türkic stationary dwellings is testified by the Türkic-OSl. word terem present in all OSl. annals, it stands for a multi-story palace with its legendary balcony, terem was later supplanted by synonymic dvorets “palace”, but still in the 17th c. the Russian Czars lived in the terem. In addition to the terems, stairs must have had other utility uses in Türkic life. The form satu comes from the Middle Asia, precisely what Türkic form morphed into English stair is in question, but the presence of the same word from Albion to Hindustan with the Türkic in-between allows to expect something closer to the Frisian form; Skt. had to carry it from the Eastern Europe of the 15th c. BC. The “IE etymology” quite amusingly piles up on top of “of unknown origin” everything from unattested *conjectures to delirious cognates “place”, “suddenly”, and “walk”.

English tower (n.) “tall and narrow structure” ~ Türkic tura “fortified dwelling, fortress”; turag “asylum, refuge, den”, from verbal stem tur- “live, dwell”. The tur/tura has a number of other generic meanings: place, dwelling, house, cattle pen, stopover, village, settlement, and is best known from the toponym Turan in Avesta, formed with abstract noun suffix -an to derive nouns from concrete nouns, lit. “dwelling place”. English has retained that abstract suffix for denoun and deverbal adjectives, Cf. terranean, diluvian. A consonant form tu: uryny “birthplace” is semantically identical and also sounds like Turan. Obviously, every place where Türkic-speaking people lived was called in native languages a “dwelling place”, and could not be used as a distinct toponym. Consequently, the toponym Turan started as an exonym. Naturally, the people of Turan were called Turks, likely another exonym, Cf. exonyms Dagestani and Tatar to designate “locals, aliens”, a majority of whom were Türkic-speaking, or the Indians for Amerindians. The Avestan record was not the earliest documentation of the stem tur-, it was first recorded in the Assyrian inscriptions of the 23rd-20th cc. BC for the Turuk nomads, but it attests to the influence of the Türkic lexis on the Iranian languages in the pre-Avestan time. Cognates and speculations: Gmn. Turm “tower”; OSl. terem, Russ. türma (тюрьма) “prison”; also Lat., Fr., Sp. forms, Lat. turre, OFr. tor, 11th c.; Sp., It. torre “tower” “possibly from a pre-IE Mediterranean language”; that unwittingly imply that the Türkic and the English (Gmc.) substrate was the pre-IE Mediterranean language, i.e. that the English's substrate predates the Gk. in Europe. Among Türkic derivatives is türma “jail, dungeon”, from tür- “emplace” > Russ. türma (тюрьма) “prison”, a late cultural borrowing from the Tatar languages. Another Türkic meanings for türma is “grave mausoleum, grave”.

English vat (n.) “vat, container” ~ Türkic but “vat, container, bucket” (OTD 129). Cognates: A.-Sax. fæt “vat, container”, OSw., ONorse fat, OFris. fet, MDu., Du. vat, OHG faz, Gmn. faß, Sl. badiya, all “vat, container”. Here v/b, a/u are clearly allophones, as much fluid in Türkic languages as they are in other languages; the semantics is unmistakably perfect; like many other Türkic words, vat was lurking in the English language until recorded in the 12th c. No “IE” cognates or etymology for vat whatsoever. Clearly cognate of English bucket (n.), from Anglo-Fr. buquet “bucket, pail”, and diminutive A.-Sax. buc “pitcher, bulging vessel”; among the nomads, buckets traditionally were of leather and in forested areas also of wood. Unlike vat, bucket is claimed to descend from a unattested PIE *bhou- “to grow, swell”, an apparent nonsense. Like the vat, bucket was lurking in the English language until recorded in the 13th c.

English world (n.) “earth in its entirety” ~ Türkic аbïl (n.) “village, settlement”. Abïl is a denoun adjectival derivative of the verb abï- “hide, conceal” with innumerable derivatives, of which habitat, (Sl.) obitel, and (Mong.) obo are but a few examples. Abïl has produced allophonic derivatives like “village” and “world”. Cognates: A.-Sax. woruld, worold, OSax. werold, OFris. warld, ONorse verold, OHG weralt, Du. wereld, Gmn. Welt; Sp. Avila (settlement's toponym). The transition from the semantics “village, settlement” to aweld “land, possession, settled area” is documented in the form (Svi)aweld(i) “land, possession, settled area of Swedes” and numerous similar compounds of the Gmc. sagas (e.g. Danaweldi etc.). The loss of the unaccented anlaut a- and introduction of the prosthetic -r- are, like the word world itself, inner Gmc. innovations that produced a string of allophones dutifully listed in the “IE” etymologies. The b/v/w/f alterations are regular allophonic dialectal variations. The “IE etymology” connects the world with unattested PGmc. *wer “man” found in the compound werewolf, plus another unattested PGmc. *ald “old, age”, an incredible unsubstantiated proposition. It also ascribes to the original Gmc. form aweld the semantic extensions of much later times, like the “animal world”, “human existence”, “affairs of life”, “long period”, “human race”, “mankind”, “humanity”, etc., not ever mentioned in the primary Gmc. sources. Transition from аbïl to aweld to welt to world is documented, transparent, and does not need any unattested asterisked sobriquets, although the forms аbïl and aweld are separated by at least 2-3 millennia and 9000 km. The much greater transition from aweld to world was much more dynamic, it took only about 500 years, because it fell on diverse alien ears. See abode, habitat.

English yard (n.) “court” ~ Türkic yer (n.) “earth, land, ground, terrain, territory, place, landed property”, yerde with the denoun locative suffix -da/-dä/-de/-ta/-tä/-te “on the grounds, in the place, in the property”, and the like. The word and the anlaut semi-consonant could also ascend to the verb qur- (v.) “arrange, build, line up, gather, stretch”, qur (n.) “sash, belt”, denoting an enclosed space, that root produced the word “court” formed with the same locative suffix -ta. The court and yard are largely synonymous denoting enclosure. Phonetically, the anlaut consonant is symptomatic of Ogur languages, versus the anlaut vowel symptomatic of Oguz languages; -y is a semi-consonant typical for some Ogur languages, selected from a lineup of d-/g-/y-/j-. The phonetic difference between the court and yard points to separate origin paths, and likely considerable temporal separation. For cognates, etymology, distribution, and history see gird. See court, curtain, earth, garden, gird, guard.
95

4.8 Cooking and food
acid alimentation bake beer blend boil booze bouillon cabbage cake cannabis chaff cook curd fire food herb jam jelly juice kitchen loaf mead menu oat savory (26)

Conclusions

At their core, the leading hypotheses on the substrate of the English language, and by extension of the Germanic languages as a group, turned out to lead nowhere. They were not able to demonstrate continuity in the morphological and lexical aspects, they were not able to attest continuity in the phonological aspect, and they were not able to present instances where the English and suggested substrate language use the same word in the same grammatical function and with the same semantics.

The concept of the Türkic substrate does all of the above. In addition, it supports the existence of genetic connection between the Futhark alphabet and the Türkic alphabets, although its mechanism is yet to be analyzed, it demonstrates the common Türkic origin of the Latin and English linguistic building blocks, and it reflects the known development of the English language. It does not sue for political ends, nor does it mimic the fresh wave of the neutral-looking studious panegyrics to the “IE” extraordinarity. Historically, the Türkic-IE relationship is a yawning gap. A huge complex of disciplines, from archeology to theology, bear grains illuminating interactions, with linguistics sorely trailing in depth and width. A close inspection of mutual linguistic infusions would flag out a cultural and trade road far preceding the Silk Road.

The Türkic substrate concept is based on accumulated knowledge on the movement of the Kurgan people in the pre-historical and historical times, it is consistent with the findings of the archeology, genetics, and historical records. Moreover, it corroborates their findings, adding the linguistic aspect to the body of multi-discipline evidence. Composed in the 20th c. and widely popularized mantra on the Iranian-linguality of the Scythian and Sarmatian Kurgans (Scytho-Iranian Theory) stubbornly remained unsupported by contiguous disciplines, including linguistics, it remained infertile in its insights, and conflicted with the historical, ethnological, and biological records. Reverting back to the 2000-years old original concept of the Türkic-linguality of the Scythian and Sarmatian Kurgans restores concordance with the historical records, harmonizes the linguistic aspect with the other disciplines, allows a better understanding of the historical developments, and serves as a productive base for understanding of the substrate languages across Europe. Pinning down the Türkic portion of the substrate allows a deeper insight into the heritage from the times preceding and synchronic with the Kurgan waves.
135

In respect to morphology, the review of the modern English suffixes demonstrated that proportion of the suffixes inherited from the Türkic substrate stands at 63%, and in the Old English that proportion stood at 69%; the trend is consistent with the known development of the English language. Modern English is a product of perpetual creolization, pidginization, and blending of the linguistically incompatible mother languages, which in turn were products of perpetual creolization, pidginization, and blending. The mother languages came ingrained with linguistic typology, equipped with supremely developed morphology and lexis. The loss of the substrate morphological structure is expressed in the reduction and contraction of the morphological elements, and in concomitant increase in the number of lexemes required to fill in the semantic void created by the morphological contraction. Studies of modern creole languages highlighted their proclivity for marginalizing morphological structures of the substrate languages in integrating substrate lexemes into the new pidgins. English does not stand out, it presents a handy example of that common morphological trend.

The review of the word usage frequency in modern English demonstrated that proportion of the Türkic substrate vocabulary in the modern English is no less than 30%. Results were obtained using the standard experimental method of independent testing that examines random subsets of data for statistical validation of reliability and results. The method produces repeatable and predictable outcomes independent of the researcher. The test for the 800-word vocabulary returned 36.65%. That means that about 1/3 of the passage spoken or written in modern English ascends to the Türkic substrate. Accounting for the Türkic-derived morphological units in the same text would quite significantly boost that rough estimate.

The review of the modern English lexical units versus the Latin and the Türkic demonstrated that the Türkic substrate is present in the Latin, Sanskrit, and English, while the phonetical differences point to separate and independent paths leading to the Latin and English. In the English substrate layer, the Latin Turkisms conflated and superimposed on the English Turkisms, in the end producing modern English words with roots in Old English, Latin, Latin via French, and ultimately in Türkic.

The substrate-derived English lexis is consistent with the migrations outlined by the archeology and genetics, it carries the marks of the migrations, and in some cases allows to draw suggestions about location and time of their earlier presence. Within the framework of the “Indo-European homeland”, such cases allow to corroborate postulations of the “Circumpontic” hypothesis (Merpert, 1974, 1976) and “Kurgan theory” (Gimbutas, 1964, 1974, 1977, 1980) about the importance of the Eastern Europe in the evolution of the “Indo-European” languages, without their fancied allusions to the “Indo-Europeans”, but with evolutionary perspective on the migratory processes that had the Eastern Europe as one of the staging stations on the way from Asia to the Atlantic.

The waves of the Gimbutas' “Kurgan theory” are specific episodes pertaining exclusively to the Eastern Europe/Central Europe scenery, they are an incomplete part of the overlooked general migratory processes with the preceding waves leading to the Eastern Europe, with the parallel paths traversing Anatolia to reach the Balkans and Iberia, and with recurring reverse migrations. Having such omissions, the partial picture is inevitably faulty, and the confusion between separate migratory events in opposite directions and a millennium apart is not surprising. The horse was domesticated in the Northern Kazakhstan, the overlooked wave that brought domesticated horse to the Eastern Europe created conditions underlying the Gimbutas' “Kurgan theory”. Similarly, the migration stipulated within the “Anatolian” (or Neolithic Gap”) theory (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1980, Renfrew, 1987, Safronov, 1989, Gray and Atkinson, 2003) is only a specific episode of the Eastern European parallel path traversing Anatolia to reach the Balkans and Iberia, the partial picture is inevitably faulty, and results conflict with Anatolia's role as a migratory corridor for particular migrants at a particular time. Within a larger framework, having accounted for the ample reverse migrations, and freed from the parochial biases of the “Indo-European homeland”, the theories' data is largely consistent with the linguistic and migratory processes.
136

Afterword

The term “substrate” in linguistics refers to an indigenous language that in the process of diffusion and convergence contributes features to the language of the later migrants. The defining characteristic of the language is its grammatical structure, in this case the Germanic grammatical structure, initially inherited and relatively recently elided by English. The Germanic grammatical structure suggests that it was inherited from the substrate language. That raises a question on the substrate-adstrate relationship within the Germanic languages, opens a gate for a possibility of relexification of the Germanic and English languages on the “IE” substrate base, and requires a close study. The Relexification Hypothesis stands in opposition to the Substrate Hypothesis.

The well-developed “IE” Theory was exploited far beyond its capabilities. The “IE” Theory happened not to have a key definition what exactly constitutes the “IE” linguistic family, where are its boundaries, what are the criteria defining what is and what is not IE. Personal intuition substitutes for defined criteria. Consensus does not extend beyond the name “Indo-European linguistic family”, its contents are sorely undefined. The large proportion of English words that straddle credible “IE” and Türkic cognates may be indicative of what the base definition of the “IE” linguistic family should be. The present study enumerated a mass of lexical elements shared by the Türkic family with with various branches of the “IE” languages, and languages of a far-flung spectrum of various linguistic families across Eurasia. By peeling off Turkisms, the study sieved, indirectly and to a certain degree, the innate lexical bodies of the compared languages, a small step toward winnowing unadulterated picture of the mother tongues. The linguistic theory that brought over under a single roof geographically close languages of difference provenance can delve into the sieved material without a burden of circular reconstructions and malleable laws. Science celebrates resurgent facts that dislodge stale models and hypotheses, and open gates for new paths. The study is not refuting the “IE” paradigm, but is rather attesting to symbiotic relations between different human conglomerates composed of diverse human trunks.

It took about a century and a half to correlate dinosaurs with the birds. To save dinosaurs from the birdy onslaught, ideologists and scientists came up with theories, doctrines, and proofs. The contention within and without evolutionary biology continued till a series of dinosaurs came to light, forcing, save for a few stalwarts, a conclusion of the dispute. That moment opened gates for explosive exploration of the bird ancestry on the levels deemed impossible just a few decades earlier. Research shed a new light not as much on the birds as on the dinosaurs, giving them polychromatic colored instead of daub scales, boisterous physique and lifestyle, and turning terrible into cute. Connecting English with its ancestors promises nothing less, to bring colors to replace daub, make philology alive and boisterous, and knit history with language.

At the end of the 5th c. AD, Saxonia was located in the heart of the Europe, at the junction of Germany, Poland, and Czechia (Bohemia), adjacent, and probably a part, of the core Hunnic lands. It can be speculated that after the contraction of the Hunnic Empire, Saxonia came into being as a splinter of the Hunnic state, and possibly populated by a splinter Hunnic tribe lead by a splinter of the Hunnic dynastic clan Dulo. In support of this speculation can be cited vestiges of populations scattered in the nearby mountainous areas who connect their ethnic and historical origin with the Huns, the few literary references of the Huns remaining in that area, and details from the history of the Hungarian migration Honfoglalás to Pannonia and their interface with the local Türkic populations west of Pannonia. Tacitus located Saxes in Holstein, surrounded in the north by Angles in Schleswig and in the south by Angles in the basin of r. Weser, extending to Elbe (Angeiloi), in one continuous arc. Angles and Saxes fell under Hunnic supremacy at the turn of the 5th c., and two generations later started their expansion. They carried their Germanic language with the imbedded Türkic substrate not only to the British Isles, but to the Bohemia area, where their traces waned with time, and to the middle course of r. Elbe, where their traces survived into the present.

The continuity of the Celtic movement from the Iberia to the Central Europe and their eventual retreat to the northwestern fringes of the Europe is still unclear; the extent, details, and most cardinally the composition of the Celtic migrations across Europe are blurred, and since English has a notable Celtic layer, understanding of its origin or origins would help in understanding linguistical processes. The Scandinavian spill into the continental Europe brought along to the continental Europe their language and genes, of which the Y-DNA Hg I was a major component. Clarification of the early Scandinavian demographic, linguistic, and genetic impact on the Anglo-Saxon and British Isles area may impact the historical picture of the English language development. The distinct Anglo-Saxon language, perpetuated by the English language, has spread far and wide, first by colonial expansion, and lately as an international lingua franca. English preserved the language of the Eurasia, England preserved the Anglo-Saxon democratic traditions of the Eurasia, and they made them a heritage of the whole world. Numerous examples across Eurasia played out the same scenario: a relatively small group of nomadic horse breeders imposed themselves as ruling elite on an alien sedentary society, eventually adopting its language and creating a common syncretic religious ideology to cement their rule. Almost universally, the mechanism of the conquest was a peaceful marital union between the conquering and conquered elites. Invariably, the amalgamation of the languages reflects demographic and social situation, and creates a common lingua franca. Examples are plentiful, starting from Zhou in China and ending with Norman conquest of British Isles. In most cases, the new polities became known under the conquerors' name, like Tokhars, Kushans, and Russians. In few cases, a double name includes both names from the previous cycle of amalgamation, like As-Tokhars, or both names from the latest compact, like Indo-Scythians. The Anglo-Saxons amalgamated on the continent, they migrated to the British Isles under a double name where the part Saxon appears to be a cognate of the names Scythian, Saka, Esgel, Eseg, and more; these non-native renditions reflected a stem depicted at times as S'k with a glottal stop, but it was probably closer to the syllable syc- in the word syconium, with the semi-consonant -y- like in the word eyes. The plural form of the ethnonym may attain native suffixes -aɣut/-an/än/-ɣut/-güt/-lar/-lär/-s/-t or local plural markers, creating forms like Sykan (Saxon) and Saklar (Sekler). Traces of these processes have survived in the folklore of the tribes around Jutland and in the Norse sagas.
137

The blending of OE and Norman Romance is familiar to all students of English as a matter of fact, loanwords from Norman entered English and underwent phonetical changes without much to do about it, they did not originate a new linguistic law on phonetical adaptation that serve to discriminate between compliant and incalcitrant transformations, and to dismiss incalcitrant words as unrelated to the Norman; A.-Sax. turf and OFr. tourbe neatly occupy their appropriate spots on the descent tree without a need to conform to some linguistic law. In other words, no reconstructed OFr. form *tourbe is needed to arrive at turf, and any other allophone would be acceptable as long as the semantics proves a genetic connection. Going from the attested into unattested, however, requires conformance to the phonetical laws, and the semantically sound Türkic turan, turfan, or turmaq may be dismissed as gross noncompliants in spite of the convergent historical, archeological, and biological evidentiality. The resolution of the conundrum seems to be obvious: glotto-transformations are the consequence of the interplay of the historical, demographic, and linguistic factors, and not the other way around.

A comparative study of the western Türkic forms preserved in the European and especially in the Germanic languages may be helpful in resolution of ongoing linguistic problems, like the numerous occurrences of inconclusive translations from different alphabets, which may be confirmed using cognates in the European, Germanic, and western Türkic languages.

On the European arena, English stands out among the European languages. Few other European languages loom likewise. A most interesting subject is connected with the English – Chinese overlap, encountered in the present review of the English Turkisms. Here, examples of the English – Türkic – Chinese correspondences, in a very inexhaustible review, number about 30 out of 800 words, or about 4%. Some of them may be of Chinese origin, of the Austro-Asiatic family, but the majority are positively of the Türkic origin, because they belong to the category of the daily vocabulary older than the state of China, Cf. bĕn “I, me”, err “boy”, pan “dish”, ganche “coachman”, and such. Some of them may be random coincidences, because Chinese words are very short, which greatly increases a probability of chance coincidences, and that has to be validated statistically. Some of them may be late acquisitions, like the Buddhist fosen “bursa/purse”. The balance of the 30 words present an opportunity to peek at the linguistic contribution of the Zhou Scythians to the Chinese language. And since the sample of 30 words is but a random selection of a small part of the Chinese Turkisms that happened to reach English, a more comprehensive comparative review may be quite enlightening in terms of linguistic permeation ascending to the pre-historic times.

The review of the Türkic substrate in English allowed to discern some trends and make some predictions which underlying logics may or may not be consequently validated. One such prediction is that on closer examination, Latin would have more Turkisms with m-dialect than with the b-dialect. The specific testing results of this particular prediction, and other hypotheses may be helpful in archeology, genetics, linguistics, and Eurasian history. Another prediction follows an indicator that consistently exposes linguistic links between English and the languages of the Caspian-Aral basin. In numerous aspects, that agrees with the Edda messages about progenitor Ases. Directly and indirectly, the Türkic tribes of the Caspian-Aral basin interacted symbiotically for millennia with the sedentary population of the Sogd on economical, political, familial, and cultural levels, had to absorb some of the Sogdian lexicon, and had to carry some elements of the Sogdian lexicon to the NW Europe. A close examination of the Türkic-Sogdian links in the Germanic languages may expose some elements of the native Bactrian linguistic phylum prior to the later influences. Still another indicator consistently exposes linguistic links between English and Kirgiz languages, which at the Anglo-Saxon time still was on the level of Enisei Kirgiz. That unanticipated connection may shed a light on the little-known pages of the Eurasian history.

REFERENCES

Gadjieva English gabble

Adji Murad, 2002, Кipchaks and Оguzes. Medieval History of the Türkic People and the Great Steppe, News, Moscow, 78, ISBN 5-88149-076-2 (in Russian)
Agasyoglu F., 2000. Azer halgy (sechmə jazylar), Baku
Alinei, M., 2001, European dialects: a window on the prehistory of Europe//Lingua e stile, XXXVI, pp. 219-240.
Alinei M., 2004, Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis//Quaderni di semantica, No 26.
Allentoft M.E. et al., 2015, Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia Nature 522, 167–172 (11 June 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14507
Balkan K., 2000, Relations between the Language of the Gutians and Old Turkish//Journal of Erdemir, c. VI
Bichurin N., 1851, Collection of information on peoples in Central Asia in ancient times, Printing house of military schools, Sankt Petersburg, 1851 (Reprint)
Bikkinin I., 1994, Turkic Borrowings In English, PhD thesis, Turkic Borrowings In English (in English)
Caferoğlu A., 1968, Eski Uygur Türkčesi Sözlüğü //Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınlarından, Issue 260. Istanbul
Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names (CDEPN), 2004, Ed. V. Watts, Cambridge, CUP, ISBN 978-0521362092
Chemodanov N.S., 1962, Place of Germanic languages among other Indo-European languages, Moscow, USSR AofS
Chen Sanping, 1998, Some remarks on the Chinese "Bulgar"//Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, v. 51, No. 1/2 (1998), pp. 69-83
Chernykh E.N., 2008, Eurasian “steppe belt”: at the origins, Journal “Nature”, 2008. No 3, pp. 34-43 (In Russian)
Chikisheva T., 2010, Dynamics of anthropological differentiation in South-Western Siberian population in Neolithic - Early Iron Age, Professorial dissertation, Novosibirsk, 2010
Clark-Hall, J. R., 2011, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Wilder Publications, ISBN 978-1617201875
Clauson G., 1972, (EDT), ED of pre-13th c. Turkish, Oxford
Dialects of Türkic languages, 2010, Ed. A.B. Dybo, Eastern Literature, Moscow
Drozdov Yu.N., 2011, Türkic-lingual Period Of European Historyry, Moscow, Yaroslavl, Letter, ISBN 978-5-904729-20-2 (in English)
Doerfer G., 1963, Türkische und mongolische elemente im Neupersischen, I (1963), 96
Doerfer G., 1981, The conditions for proving the genetic relationship of languages//The Bulletin of the International Institute for linguistic sciences, Kyoto, Sangyo University v. II, No. 4 September, 1981
Dybo A.V., 2007, Chronology of Türkic languages and linguistic contacts of early Türks, Moscow
Dybo A.V., Starostin G.S., 2008, In Defense of the Comparative Method, or The End of the Vovin Controversy//Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3, p.139, Moscow, RSUH
Dybo A.V., Ed., 2010, Dialects of Türkic languages, Eastern Literature, Moscow
Dybo A.V., 2013, Etymological Dictionary of Türkic languages (Этимологический словарь тюркских языков), v. 9, Astana, Prosper Print, ISBN 978-601-7340-32-2
Feist, S., 1932, The Origin of the Germanic Languages and the Europeanization of North Europe. Language (Linguistic Society of America) 8 (4): pages 245–254. doi:10.2307/408831. http://jstor.org/stable/408831
138
Forrer E., 1934, Neue Probleme zum Ursprung der indogermanichen Sprachen.“ Mannus”, B. 26.
Gimbutas M., 1994, The Civilization Of The Goddess, ed. Joan Marler Harper, San Francisco, 1994, ISBN 978-0062508041
Gimbutas M., 1980, The Kurgan wave migration (c. 3400-3200 B.C.) into Europe and the following transformation of culture, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8, pp. 273-315.
Haak W.et al., 2015, Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, Nature 522, 207–211 (11 June 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14317
Hall J.R.C., 1916, A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary, Macmillan, New York.
Hatice Mergen et al., 2004, Mitochondrial DNA sequence variation in the Anatolian Peninsula (Turkey)//Journal of Genetics, v. 83, No. 1, April 2004
Hawkins J.A., 1990, Germanic languages//Major Languages of Western Europe, ed. Bernard Comrie, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-04738-2
Herodotus, 1942, The Persian Wars, Transl. G.Rawlinson, Modern Library, New York
Johanson L. Csató, Johanson E.A., The Turkic Languages, Routledge, 1998
Kashgari M., 2005, Divan Lugat at Türk (11th c.), Almaty, Daik Press
Klyosov A., 2010, The principal mystery in the relationship of Indo-European and Türkic linguistic families, and an attempt to solve it with the help of DNA genealogy: reflections of a non-linguist//Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, v. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58, ISSN 1942-7484, 2010
Klyosov A., 2012, Ancient History of the Arbins, Bearers of Haplogroup R1b, from Central Asia to Europe, 16,000 to 1,500 Years before Present, Advances in Anthropology 2012. Vol.2, No.2, DOI:10.4236/aa.2012.22010, http://file.scirp.org/Html/19567.html
Lambton A., 1954 – 1992, Persian Vocabulary (PV), Cambridge, University Press, ISBN 0 521 09154 3
Lopatinsky L.G., 1891, Abkhaz name for Balkars//Note on the Adyge people in general, and in particular on Kabardians//Collection of materials for description of the Caucasus places and tribes. Tiflis, 1891, v. 12 5
Maspero, H., 1978, Az ókori Kína. (The ancient China), Gondolat, Budapest
Malov S.E., 1952, Türkic Enisei writings: texts and translations. Moscow-Leningrad.
Mongait A.L., 1974, Archaeology of Western Europe. Bronze and Iron Ages, Moscow, Science
Mukhamadiev A., 1995, Turanian Writing//Problems Of Lingo-Ethno-History Of The Tatar People, Kazan, Academy of Sciences, pp. 37, 46on
Mukhamadiev A., 2005, Ancient coins of Kazan, Kazan, Tatar Publishing house, ISBN 5-298-04057-8
Murzaev E.M., 1977, Two toponymic subjects//Soviet Turkology, 1977, No 2 pp. 47-48
Old Türkic Dictionary (OTD), 1969, eds. Nadelyaev V.M., Nasilov D.M., Tenishev E.R., Scherbak A.M., Science Publishing, Leningrad
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 1989, ed. E. S. Weiner, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-198-61186-2
Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (PSD), 2006-2014, Babylonian Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology, Philadelphia, Open access http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd1/index.html
Polomé E.C., 1990, Types of Linguistic Evidence for Early Contact: Indo-Europeans and Non-Indo-Europeans//Markey-Greppin (eds.) When Worlds Collide 267-89.
Popper K.R., 1963, Conjectures and Refutations, the Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge, London
Prokosch E., 1939, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Society of America, ISBN 99910-34-85-4
Räsänen M., Versuch eines etymologischen wörterbuchs der Türksprachen, Helsinki, 1969 (Gmn.)
Rosenfelder M., 2002, How likely are chance resemblances between languages? http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm
Scherbak A.M., 1961, Names of domesticated and wild animals in Türkic languages, Linguistic Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences
Sevortyan E.V., 1974, (EDTL), Etymological Dictionary of Türkic languages, Science, Moscow. 1974-2003
Shuke G., 2010, Were the Latvians Türks? Phenomenon of Türkic substrate's presence in Baltic Languages, Daugavpils, 2010, ISBN 978-9984-49-046-5
Smirnitsky, A., 1998, Lectures in the history of the English Language (the Middle and the New. English Periods), Dobrosvet, Moscow
Steinbauer D. H., 1999, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen, St. Katharinen
Stetsyuk V., 2003, Research on Prehistoric Ethnogenetic Processes in Eastern Europe, Lvov
Sturluson Snorri, 1842, The Younger Edda, Transl. G. W. Dasent, London, William Pickering
Terentiev V.A. The oldest Turkic borrowings in the languages of Europe // Soviet Soviet Turkology, 1990, No. 4, pp. 69-73 (Терентьев В.А. Древнейшие тюркские заимствования в языках Европы // Советская тюркология, 1990, № 4, с. 69-73
Trubetzkoy N., 1923, Der Turm von Babel und die Zusammenführung von Sprache (The tower of Babel and the merging of languages)//Eurasian Chronicle, Berlin, Bk. 3, pp. 107–124, Reprinted in Trubetzkoy 1995, pp. 327–338)
Trubetzkoy N., 1928, Proposition 16. Actes de 1er Congrès international de linguistes, 17–18, Leiden, A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgevermaatschappij.
Trubetzkoy N., 1995, History. Culture. Language (Istorija. Kul’tura. Jazyk). Moscow: Progress, Univers.
Uhlenbeck C.C., 1957, The indogermanic mother language and mother tribes complex // American Anthropologist, Philadelphia, v. 39, no. 3, 385-393
Vasmer, Max, 1953-55, Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg
Velden, Von den, F., 1912, Über Ursprung und Herkunft der indogermanischen Sprachen und anarische Sprachreste in Westeuropa. Bonn
Velden, Von den, F., 1917, Neue Wege zur Ursprache der alten Welt. Bonn, Georgi http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101073641712;view=1up;seq=5

Velden, Von den, F., 1920, Der Ursprung der nichtgemein-indogermanischen Bestandteile der germanischen Sprachen//Anthropos 14/15, 1919/20, pp. 788-792
Vennemann T., 2003, Languages in prehistoric Europe north of the Alps//Languages in Prehistoric Europe, eds. Alfred Bammesberger & Theo Vennemann, Heidelberg, C. Winter
Vorontsov V.A., 2009, “Song of Igor's Campaign” In the light of true historicism, Kazan, Intelpress
Watts V.E., Gelling M., Insley J., 2004 Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names (CDEPN), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521362092
Wiik K., 2008, Where did European men come from?//J. Genetic Genealogy, 4, pp. 35 - 85
Yablonsky L.T., Pejemsky D.V., Suvorova A.N., 2010, Paleoanthropology of Southern Urals population in Late Sarmat time (Pokrovka-10 burials)//Establishment and development of Late Sarmat culture (from archeological and natural sciences materials), Proceedings, Center for Study of Sarmatian History and Culture, No. 13, Volgograd, pp. 143-183
Zarathustra, 2002, Zarathustra. The doctrine of fire. Ghathas and prayers, Moscow, Eksmo-Press
Zuev Yu. A., 1960, Ethnic History Of Usuns, Kazakh Academy of Sciences, Alma-Ata, v. 8, 12