This study presents a critical analysis of the hypothesis of M. M. Tatár on the origin of the Turkic word sarmysak, “garlic”. Taken by itself, Tatár's hypothesis looks plausible, but much more Indo-European evidence is needed in order to decide whether it is valid or not. During the investigation based on recent achievements of Indo-European linguistics, a more exact form of Proto-Indo-European lexeme “(wild) garlic”will be reconstructed; both more precise and new etymologies will be offered to New Persian, Khotanese, Sanskrit, Greek, Serbo-Croatian, and Hungarian words. The context of the assumed borrowings into Turkic and Mongolian languages will be drawn more exactly.
In this paper the author clarifies the so far uncertain etymology of Latin niger, nigra, nigrum, Greek ανιγρός, he offers a more precise etymology for Latin vafer-bafer-vabrum and suggests a working hypothesis for the origin of Latin pulcher. All of these explanations are based on a new rule of suffixation elaborated by the author.
The paper critically discusses the devices used for locating the Proto-Indo-European homeland in order to distinguish between reliable and unreliable methods and to set up an agenda for the future studies. A special section is devoted to linguistic palaeontology and to its contemporary criticism.
According to the communis opinio, Lat. leuga was a Gaulish loanword, survived in the Romance languages and was borrowed into Old English. However, this scenario faces three unsolved problems: the non–Celtic diphthong –eu–, the Proto–Romance form *legua and the fact that the Old English word cannot continue the Latin form on phonological grounds. This paper argues that all these problems can regularly be solved by the reconstructed West Germanic and Gothic cognates of the Old English word borrowed into Gaulish and early Romance dialects, respectively.