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.