Search Results
Altindoarischen I–III . Heidelberg : Winter . KEWA = Mayrhofer , Manfred 1956–1978 . Kurzgefaβtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. A Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary . Heidelberg : Winter . LIV 2 = Rix , Helmut (ed.) 2001 2
. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 2 ( 1863 ): 338 – 361 . DERKSEN 2008 DERKSEN Rick : Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon
Language, which is the main carrier of culture, and culture are two things that complement each other. The language of an individual is shaped under the influence of the society and community the person lives in as a part of it. The feelings and mentality of people of former periods have left their imprint on and are reflected in the language. Bearing this in mind, in the present study an attempt is made to explain and elucidate the etymology of the Old Turkic word yutuz ‘wife, woman’.
Abstract
The Hungarian words komor ‘gloomy’ and komoly ‘serious’ are of unknown origin. The present paper aims to elucidate this question from various angles: it gives an overview of what the Hungarian etymological dictionaries say on this topic, shows that komoly is a relatively late development out of komor, spread by the language reformers (especially by Ferenc Kazinczy) at the end of the 18th century, and presents the attempts to prove the Turkic origin of komor. Finally, it offers a Slavic etymology based on the Slavic stem *chmur-, demonstrates that semantically the two words match perfectly, and dissolves the phonological doubts that may arise at first sight.
This article offers an etymological discussion of the relationship of the Hungarian word tábor ‘(military) camp’ and its cognates, present in a wide range of European and Asian languages, to Turkic (above all Chagatai and Ottoman) dapkur ~ tapkur ‘1. troop; 2. saddle girth; etc.’. The main reason as well as aim for revisiting the etymology of Hung. tábor is to prove that the claim that the first written occurrence of the Hung. word in appellative meaning dates back to 1383, is erroneous. In the present paper attempt is made to refute the latter assertion by thorough philological argumentation. This circumstance invalidates the arguments formerly put forward to weaken the word’s Czech etymology (< Cz. Tábor ‘Mount Tabor’).
The paper addresses meanings and etymologies of several problematic Sogdian lexemes. Sogd. ’ps’ynk- ‘motley’ is compared with Ved. piśánga- ‘red, red-brown’, Sogd. ’pt’r- ‘to pluck’ is analysed as a derivative of Ir. *dar ‘to tear’, ’rw’št(’)k ‘fixed, established’ is argued to represent an etymological participle of IE *(∂ 1)werĝ ‘to lock∝, Sogd. ’rwynt- is assigned the meaning ‘to massage’ and linked to Av. var∂duua- ‘soft’, Sogd. (’)sty(y)w ‘although, even (if)’ is traced back to the phrase *’sty yw, approximately ‘be it (that)’, Sogd. ’ynδ(’y) is assigned a general meaning ‘female attendant’ and reconstructed as Ir. *yaunī dāhī ‘young female slave’. Sogd. βrk’yr- ‘to neglect’ is compared with YAv. kāraiia- ‘to celebrate, praise’, on the assumption that the semantic pejoration in the Sogdian lexeme is due to the prefix *fra-. The proposed original meaning of Sogd. ptfr’w- ‘to float up in memory’ is argued to point to its connection with Ir. *fraw ‘to swim, float’. Sogd. θrβ- ‘to tremble’ is analysed as an irregular derivative of *θrap/tarp ‘to be unsteady, to move unsteadily’.
.] Paris: Cybele. Albright, William Foxwell 1918. ‘Notes on Egypto-Semitic Etymology. II.’ American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 34/4: 215
In this article a new etymology is presented for an important cultural “Wanderwort”, “garlic”. The author uses the earlier elaborated etymologies of Turkic, Mongolic and Indo-European languages by explaining the well-known Turkic sarmysak 'garlic' as an Indo-European loan word. This explanation is based on Iranian data which were not used by the linguists before.
1958 Benkő, Loránd (ed.). 1967. A magyar nyelv történetietimologiai szótára I. A-Gy [Etymological-historical dictionary of the Hungarian language 1. A
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.
