‘moon, month’, OCS me ˇ se fi cı ˘ ‘moon, month’, Alb muaj ‘month’, Grk me ¯ ´ n ‘month’, Arm amis ‘month’, Av ma ˚ ‘moon, month’, Skt ma ¯ s- ‘moon, month’, Toch B men ˜ e ‘moon, month’). The other widely found noun, *(s)kand- (Alb he ¨ ne ¨ ‘moon’, Skt ca ´ ndra- ‘moon’), derives from the verb *(s)kand- ‘shine’. The word for ‘star’, *h 2 ste ¯ ´ r (e.g. MIr ser ‘star’, Lat ste ¯ lla ‘star’, NE star, Grk aste ¯ ´ r ‘star’, Arm astł ‘star’, Hit hasterza ‘star’, Skt ta ¯ ras ‘stars’), has long been the subject of debate as to whether it was borrowed from a Semitic source (see Section 6.3.1). Such an origin seems doubtful as one might oVer a purely Indo- European etymology for the word and derive it from *h 2 eh x -s- ‘burn’ (i.e. PIE *h 2 (h x )-s-te ´ r- ‘ember’, with a semantic development like that of Alb yll ‘star’ when compared to OE ysle ‘glowing ash’; both words are from PIE *h 1 usli-, a derivative of *h 1 eus- ‘burn’). Words such as *ne ´ bhos refer primarily to clouds but have often developed secondary meanings of ‘sky’ (e.g. OIr nem ‘heaven’, Lat nebula ‘mist, fog’, OE nifol ‘dark’, Lith debesı ` s ‘cloud’, OCS nebo ‘sky’, Grk ne ´ phos ‘sky’, Skt na ´ bhas- ‘mist, cloud; sky’, Hit ne ¯ pis- ‘sky’) while *h 3 meigh-, originally ‘drizzle’, comes to mean ‘cloud’ in some languages (e.g. NE mist, Lith migla ` ‘mist’, Rus mgla ‘mist, darkness’, Grk omı ´ khle ¯ ‘cloud’, Skt megha ´ - ‘cloud’) as does the more weakly attested *sneudh- with NWels nudd ‘mist’, Lat nu ¯ be ¯ s ‘cloud, mist’, and Av snaoäa- cloud’. Slightly diVerent semantically is the word for ‘steam, vapour’ (*wa ´ po ¯ s) seen at opposite ends of the Indo-European world in Lat vapor ‘vapour, steam’ and Skt va ¯ s _ pa ´ - $ ba ¯ s _ pa ´ -(<*va ¯ ps _ a ´ -) ‘vapour, steam; tears’. The atmosphere was not all doom and gloom as derivatives of the verbal root *dei- ‘to shine’ were also employed to indicate both ‘day’ (Chapter 18) and ‘sky’ as well as a sky deity (Chapter 23); in the speciWc meaning of ‘sky’ (but with diVerent extensions) we have Lat dı ¯ um ‘sky’, and Skt dya ´ us _ ‘sky’. The words for ‘wind’, *h 2 weh 1 -yu ´ s (Lith ve_ ´ jas ‘wind’ and Skt va ¯ yu ´ - wind’) and *h 2 weh 1 -nt- (e.g. NWels gwynt, Lat ventus,NEwind,Avva ¯ ´ ta-, Skt va ¯ ta-, Toch B yente, Hit huwant-, all ‘wind’), both derive from the verb ‘to blow’. A verbal root ‘to groan, to thunder’ is *(s)tenh x - (e.g. Lat tona ¯ re ‘to thunder’, OE þunor ‘thunder’ (> NE thunder), OCS steno˛ ‘groan’, Grk ste ´ no ¯ ‘thunder’, Skt stana ´ yati ‘thun- ders’). The regional words include the following: North-Western *louksneh a - ‘moon’ (Lat lu ¯ na, OCS luna ‘moon’, OPrus lauxnos ‘stars’); *meldh- ‘lightning’; West Central *(s)k ˆ eh 1 w(e)r- ‘north wind’ (NE shower, Lat caurus ‘north wind’, Lith s ˇ ia ´ ure ‘north wind’, s ˇ iu ¯ ´ ras ‘cold, northern’, OCS se ˘ veru ˘ ‘north’, Arm c‘urt ‘cold; shower’); *ghromos ‘thunder’ (possibly an independent formation in those languages where it occurs, OCS gromu ˘ ‘noise’, vu ˘ z-grı ˘ me ˇ ti ‘to thunder’, Grk khro ´ mos ‘noise’, from the verb *ghrem- ‘groan’). 8. THE PHYSICAL WORLD 129 8.5 The Physical Landscape of the Proto-Indo-Europeans The picture provided by the reconstructed lexicon is not very informative concerning the physical environment of the speakers of the ancestral language, although there have been scholars enough who have tried to press the slender evidence into revealing the precise location (or type of location) inhabited by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. That they had words for hills, mountains, or swift rivers may suggest a broken topography but hardly indicates, as has been suggested, that the Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves must have lived atop high mountains. The diYculties inherent in recovering a certain meaning for *mo ´ ri- ‘sea’ or ‘lake’ have been often rehearsed and consensus is probably still in support of projecting an original meaning of ‘inland body of water’ that was changed to ‘salt water sea’ in some language groups, e.g. Celtic, Italic, and Slavic. In our earliest attested languages we either Wnd a potential cognate in Hit marmar(r)a- which refers to a body of shallow standing water or, in the case of the Greeks and Indo-Aryans, they borrowed words for ‘sea’ from non-Indo- European sources which has suggested that the Proto-Indo-Europeans did not originally know or have a word for ‘sea’. As for the rivers, there is a vast literature on the river names of Europe and Asia that has attempted to discern both a system of river names and, often, their origin. Much of modern discussion takes Hans Krahe’s ‘Alteuropa ¨ isch’ as its point of departure. Krahe envisaged a hydronymic system that embraced the linguistic ancestor of what we might term the North-West Indo-European languages coupled with Messapic and Venetic. This system was extended back to Proto-Indo-European by W. P. Schmid, while more recently much of the same hydronymic system has been ascribed to Basque by Theo Venneman. All these systems are comprised of a wide variety of river names that are generally derived from exceedingly small bases (conjectural roots such as *el-, *al-, *er-, *or-, etc.) that may belong to any number of diVerent languages or language families and whose underlying meaning simply cannot be veriWed to any conW- dent degree. The actual number of river names that can be reasonably recon- structed to Proto-Indo-European, as we have seen above, is extremely few. The terms associated with weather attest a basic range of atmospheric phe- nomena but nothing decisive as to where precisely the Proto-Indo-Europeans lived. One might compare the fairly basic lexicon associated with cold weather in Indo-European with that of the Indo-Europeans’ northern neighbours who spoke Proto-Uralic and from whose reconstructed lexicon we can recover words for ‘thin ice’ (*c ´ aka), ‘hard snow’ (*c ´ a ¨ ke), ‘thin snow’ (*kum3), ‘Wne snow’ (*kura), and other terms that are clearly associated with a colder envir- onment than one commonly reconstructs for the Proto-Indo-Europeans. But 130 8. THE PHYSICAL WORLD generally, those concerned with locating the Indo-European homeland through its lexicon tend to employ the evidence of its reconstructed fauna (Chapter 9) and Xora (Chapter 10). Finally, the astral vocabulary of the Indo-Europeans disappoints in its meagreness. While the night sky may alter gradually through time one might have hoped that the Indo-Europeans would have retained their names for stars and constellations reasonably well compared with, for example, terms for Xora and fauna that might alter over the course of their migrations into diVerent environments. This does not seem to be so, and whatever the original Proto- Indo-European view of the heavens was, it seems largely beyond recovery. Such potentially major sources of astral knowledge as Greek seem to have been remodelled on the basis of Babylonian astronomy. The most solidly ‘recon- structed’ Indo-European constellation is Ursa Major, which is designated as ‘The Bear’ (Chapter 9) in Greek and Sanskrit (Latin may be a borrowing here), although even the latter identiWcation has been challenged. Eric Hamp has suggested that we can also reconstruct a second constellation, a ‘Triangle’ (and not the constellation Triangulum). This is suggested by Av tis ˇ triya- ‘three-star’ that may be cognate with Grk Seı ´ rios ‘Sirius, the dog-star’ thus suggesting a ‘three-star’ constellation involving Sirius. Hamp proposes a constellation that would embrace bright stars in Orion (Betelgeuse), Canis Major (Sirius), and Canis Minor (Procyon)(hence we may have a celestial ‘Dog’ contrasted with a ‘Bear’; neither of these is in the Babylonian zodiac where we Wnd instead animals such as the lion, bull, and scorpion). Further Reading All natural phenomena are handled in the basic IE handbooks, e.g. Schrader–Nehring (1917–28), Gamkrelidze–Ivanov (1995), Mallory–Adams (1997). For individual topics see the following: earth (Schindler 1967, Hamp 1990a), stone (Maher 1973), mountain (Hamp 1967), water (Watkins 1972b), rain (Bonfante 1989), snow (Benveniste 1956b, Gonda 1955a,HoVman 1965), sun (Beekes 1984, Huld 1986, Hamp 1990b), moon (Beekes 1982, Hamp 1983), and star (Scherer 1953, Watkins 1974, Parvulescu 1977, Bomhard 1986, D’iakonov 1985 [against Semitic borrowing]); the fullest description of the Indo-European night sky is to be found in Scherer (1953); see also Hamp (1972a) for an additional constellation and Parvulescu (1988a: against Ursa Major in Vedic). For the vast topic of river names see Krahe (1964b), Kuhn (1967), Schmid (1968, 1972), Georgiev (1966), Blok (1971), and Vennemann (1994). 8. THE PHYSICAL WORLD 131 9 Indo-European Fauna 9.1 Reconstructing Environments Many attempts to Wx the location of the Proto-Indo-European world have depended heavily on the reconstructed vocabulary that pertains to the envir- onment, both Xoral and faunal. It is often reasoned that if the reconstructed environment is speciWc enough, it can either indicate where the Proto- Indo-Europeans once dwelled or at least exclude territories that are incompat- ible with the reconstructed vocabulary. The problem with utilizing such data is logically self-evident. If an item is severely restricted in space, for example, the camel, then any Indo-European group who moved beyond the natural territory of the camel might do one of three things with their original word ‘camel’: 1. They might simply abandon the word altogether as they and their linguistic descendants were not likely to encounter a camel for the next several thousand years. 2. They might use the name ‘camel’ when they came across another animal that they were unfamiliar with but which bore some similarity in appearance or function. From the perspective of the historical linguist, we might then have to confront a situation where the original meaning ‘camel’ was (or was not) retained in those groups who lived where camels have always dwelled while other languages developed a totally diVerent meaning for this word. The other 9.1 Reconstructing Environments 132 9.2 Mammals 134 9.3 Birds 143 9.4 Fish, Reptiles, and Amphibians 146 9.5 Insects, Worms, and ShellWsh 148 9.6 Indo-European Fauna 151 languages might well outnumber those who retained the original meaning or, worse, no language might retain the original meaning. 3. The population might retain the name and the meaning of ‘camel’ for thousands of years as a gesture of benevolence to future historical linguists. Now, put so baldly, a scenario such as number three is impossible. However, it is certainly not the case that an animal or plant has to be native to the area where a particular language is spoken for the speakers of that language to have or retain a name for it. The lion has been extinct in Europe since classical times (and before then was, in any case, restricted to the Balkans) and the elephant and leopard have never shared Europe with modern humans. Nevertheless all medieval European languages had words for all three and at least the lion and the leopard played important roles in medieval and modern heraldry. Similarly, although snakes have always been absent from Ireland (even before St Patrick!), the Irish retained two inherited Indo-European names for the snake. Illustrative of both points two and three is the history of English elk. When the Angles and Saxons invaded Britain from their continental homes, they were familiar with both Alces alces (the ‘elk’ of European English and the ‘moose’ of North American English) and Cervus elaphus (the ‘red deer’ of European English and the ‘elk’ of North American English) and applied those designa- tions to members of the same two species which were also present in Great Britain. By about ad 900 Alces alces was extinct in Great Britain but the loss of local referents did not mean that the word ‘elk’ disappeared since the species was still familiar to some speakers because of its continued existence on the Continent (e.g. Scandinavia, Germany). However, for most speakers the refer- ent was pretty vague, something like ‘large deer’ or the like. By 1600 or so the inherited designation for Cervus elaphus had been replaced by the innovative and descriptive red deer and by about the same time or so the species itself had disappeared from most of southern Britain except for a small number kept for the chase. At that point for most speakers of southern British English there were two terms for large deer, ‘elk’, and ‘red deer’, without well-known referents. When some of these southern British English speakers emigrated to New England at the beginning of the seventeenth century they came to live in an environment again with both Alces alces and Cervus elaphus and they needed names for both. ‘Red deer’ was not suitable for either since neither Alces alces nor the North American variety of Cervus elaphus was noticeably red. How- ever, ‘elk’ was available and was assigned to the commonest large deer in the new environment, Cervus elaphus, while a borrowing from the local Algon- quian language, ‘moose’, was pressed into service for Alces alces. 9. INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA 133 In terms of Indo-European as a whole this case is probably not the only one whereby a word, relegated to the periphery of the lexicon and to a vague referent by environmental change, was reassigned to a new referent by yet another environmental change. In any case all three of our options pose real problems in recovering really speciWc evidence for the one and only Proto- Indo-European world. 9.2 Mammals As a semantic class, the names for animals, at least mammals, are fairly abundant in the reconstructed lexicon. In reviewing the names associated with mammals, it is not always certain whether one is dealing with a domestic or a wild animal and hence all the words associated with mammals are treated together in Table 9.1. Table 9.1. Mammals *k w etwor-pod- ‘animal’ Lat quadrupe ¯ s, Grk tetra ´ pous, Skt ca ´ tus _ pad- *g ˆ hwe ¯ r ‘wild animal’ Lat fera, Grk the ¯ ´ r *pe ´ k ˆ u ‘livestock’ Lat pecu,NEfee, Skt pa ´ s ´ u- *(s)teuros ‘large (domestic) animal’ NE steer *wre ¯ tos ‘Xock, herd’ Skt vra ¯ ´ ta- *demh a - ‘tame, subdue’ Lat domo ¯ ,NEtame, Grk da ´ mne ¯ mi, Skt da ¯ ma ´ yati *g w ye ´ h 3 wyom ‘animal’ Grk zo ¯ ´ on *h 2/3 we ´ dr8 ‘creatures, (wild) animals’ *le ´ uh x o ¯ n ‘animal’ Grk le ´ o ¯ n *we ´ telos ‘yearling’ Lat vitulus, Grk e ´ telon, Skt sa-va ¯ ta ´ ra- ?*per-‘oVspring (of an animal)’ Grk po ´ r(t)is, Skt pr8thuka- *k ˆ oph 2 o ´ s ‘hoof’ NE hoof, Skt s ´ a ´ pha- *k ˆ r8nom ‘horn’ Lat cornum,NEhorn *k ˆ e ´ rh8 2 s ‘horn’ Grk ke ´ ras *k ˆ e ´ rh8 2 sr8 ‘horn’ Lat cra ¯ bro ¯ *k ˆ o ´ ru ‘horn’ Lat cervus,NEhart, Grk ko ´ rudos *k ˆ em- ‘hornless’ NE hind, Grk kema ´ s, Skt. s ´ a ´ ma- *h 1 eg ˆ his ‘hedgehog’ Grk ekhı u nos *k ˆ asos ‘hare’ NE hare, Lat ca ¯ nus *werwer- ‘squirrel’ Lat vı ¯ verra *bhe ´ bhrus ‘beaver’ Lat Wber,NEbeaver *mu ¯ s ‘mouse’ Lat mu ¯ s,NEmouse, Grk mu 7 s, Skt mu ¯ ´ s _ - (Cont’d.) 134 9. INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA Table 9.1. (Cont’d) *pe ´ lh x us ‘mouse’ *gl8h 1 ı ´ s ‘dormouse?’ Lat glı ¯ s, Grk gale ´ e ¯ , Skt girı ´ - *wl(o)p- ‘(red)fox’ Lat volpe ¯ s, Grk alo ¯ po ´ s *wl8k w os ‘wolf’ Lat lupus,NEwolf, Grk lu ´ kos, Skt vr ´ 8ka- *wl8k w ı ´ h a - ‘she-wolf’ Skt vr8kı ¯ ´ - *h 2 r ´ 8tk ˆ os ‘bear’ Lat ursus, Grk a ´ rktos, Skt r ´ 8ks _ a- *k ˆ (u)wo ¯ n ‘dog’ Lat canis,NEhound, Grk ku ´ o ¯ n, Skt s ´ va ¯ *udro ´ s ‘otter’ Lat lutra,NEotter, Grk e ´ nudris, Skt udra ´ - *kek ˆ - ‘polecat’ Skt ka ´ s ´ a- ?*lo ¯ k ˆ - ‘weasel’ ?*bhel-‘+ marten; wildcat’ Lat fe ¯ lis, Skt bharuja- *h 1 e ´ k ˆ wos ‘horse’ Lat equus, Grk hı ´ ppos, Skt a ´ s ´ va- *h 1 e ´ k ˆ weh a - ‘mare’ Lat equa, Skt a ´ s ´ va ¯ - ??*os(o)nos ‘ass’ Lat asinus, Grk o ´ nas *su ¯ s ‘pig (wild or domesticated)’ Lat su ¯ s,NEsow, Grk hu ˆ s $ su ¯ ´ s, Skr su ¯ kara ´ - *po ´ rk ˆ os ‘young pig, piglet’ Lat porcus,NEfarrow ?*twork ˆ o ´ s ‘boar’ *h 1 elh 1 e ¯ n ‘red deer’ Grk e ´ laphos *h x o ´ lk ˆ is ‘elk/American moose’ Lat alce ¯ s,NEelk, Skt r ´ 8s ´ ya- *g w o ¯ ´ us ‘cow’ Lat bo ¯ s,NEcow, Grk bou 7 s, Skt ga ´ u- *h 1 eg ˆ h- ‘cow’ Skt ahı ¯ - *wok ˆ e ´ h a - ‘cow’ Lat vacca, Skt vas ´ a ¯ ´ - *uk (w) se ¯ n- ‘ox’ NE ox, Skt uka ´ n- ?*domh a yos ‘one to be tamed, young bull’ Skt damya- *tauros ‘aurochs; bull’ Lat taurus, Grk tau 7 ros ?*usr- ‘aurochs’ Skt usra ´ - *h 2 o ´ wis ‘sheep’ Lat ovis,NEewe, Grk o ´ is, Skt a ´ vi- *h 2 owike ´ h a - ‘ewe’ Skt avika ¯ ´ - *wr8h 1 e ¯ ´ n ‘lamb’ Grk are ¯ ´ n, Skt ura ´ n- *moiso ´ s ‘ram, sheep; Xeece, skin’ Skt mes _ a ´ - ?*(s)k ˆ egos ‘sheep/goat’ NE sheep, Skt cha ¯ ´ ga- *h 1 eri- ‘sheep/goat’ Lat arie ¯ s, Grk e ´ riphos, Skt a ¯ reya- *dı ´ ks ‘goat’ *h a eig ˆ s ‘goat’ Grk aı ´ ks *bhug ˆ os ‘buck, he-goat’ NE buck, Skt bukka- *h a eg ˆ o ´ s ‘he-goat’ Skt aja ´ - *ka ´ pros ‘he-goat’ Lat caper *h 4 eli- ‘he-goat’ ??*(y)ebh- ‘elephant’ ??*lebh- ‘ivory’ 9. INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA 135 Terms for mammals, both wild and domesticated, are relatively abundant compared with many other semantic categories. There are a number of basic terms for animals that focus on diVerent aspects. For example, *k w etwor-pod- ‘animal’ is transparently a ‘four-footer’ and the word is attested in six diVerent groups (Lat quadrupe ¯ s, Lith keturko ˜ jis, Alb shtaze ¨ , Grk tetra ´ pous, Skt ca ´ tus _ pad-, Toch B s ´ twerpew). The word *g ˆ hwe ¯ r ‘wild animal’ (e.g. Lat fera ‘wild animal’, Lith z ˇ ve_rı ` s ‘wild animal’, OCS zve ˇ rı ˘ ‘wild animal’, Grk the ¯ ´ r ‘wild animal’; cf. the derived verb in Toch B s ´ eritsi ‘to hunt’ [wild animals]’) contrasts in meaning with *pe ´ k ˆ u ‘livestock’ which exclusively denotes domestic animals or possessions (e.g. Lat pecu $ pecus ‘cattle, livestock’, OE feoh ‘livestock, property, money’ [> NE fee], Lith pe~kus ‘cattle’, Av pasu ‘cattle’, Skt pa ´ s ´ u- ‘cattle’). The *(s)teuros ‘large (domestic) animal’ is attested in Ger- manic (e.g. NE steer), Iranian (e.g. Av staora- ‘large [domestic] animal [i.e. horse, cow, camel]’), and Alb ter ‘bullock’ (in meaning this word has been drawn to the phonetically similar *tauros ‘aurochs, bull’). The term for an animal collective may have been *wre ¯ tos ‘Xock, herd’ although cognates are limited to Germanic (e.g. OE wræ ¯ þ ‘herd of swine’) and Skt vra ¯ ´ ta-‘Xock, swarm’ which may have been formed on the verbal root *wer- ‘bind’. The nuanced meaning of *demh a - ‘tame, subdue’ is of considerable interest and diYculty. The word is supported by cognates in seven groups: Celtic (OIr damnaid ‘binds, breaks [a horse’]), Lat domo ¯ ‘break, tame’, Germanic (e.g. NE tame), Grk da ´ mne ¯ mi ‘break’, Hit damaszi ‘presses, pushes’, NPers da ¯ m ‘tamed animal’, Skt da ¯ ma ´ yati ‘subdues’. There are speciWc associations with horse-breaking in Celtic, Latin, Greek, and Indic, e.g. the Sanskrit agent noun damita ´ r- ‘(horse) breaker’. But the meanings also extend to other animals, e.g. OIr dam ‘ox’, and frequently refer to the subduing of human opponents in Greek and other groups; also the Hittite cognate does not have a speciWc association with the maintenance of animals. This word has variously been seen to be an independent root or an o-stem derivative of *dem(h a )- ‘build (a house)’ on the argument that the act of taming is literally ‘domestication’. PIE *g w ye ´ h 3 wyom ‘animal’ (Grk zo ¯ ´ on ‘animal’, Toch B s ´ aiyye ‘sheep/goat’) is built on the root *g w yeh 3 ->*g w eih 3 - ‘to live’ and hence relates to living beings while the poorly attested (in ON vitnir ‘animal, wolf’ and Hit huetar ‘creatures, [wild] animals, wolfpack’ only) *h 2/3 we ´ d- ‘creatures, (wild) animals, wolves’ also seems to derive from an unattested verb ‘to live’, *h 2/3 wed-; it is a hetero- clitic r/n-stem which argues for antiquity and it has some possible Slavic cognates associated with ‘werewolves’ (e.g. Slov vedevec ‘werewolf’). Proto- Indo-European *le ´ uh x o ¯ n ‘animal’ rests only on Greek (le ´ o ¯ n ‘lion’) and Toch- arian (e.g. Toch B luwo ‘animal’) evidence and gives us ultimately through a series of loans (Greek > Latin > English) our NE word lion. A yearling, *we ´ telos, is attested in three stocks (e.g. Lat vitulus ‘calf, yearling’, Grk e ´ telon 136 9. INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA ‘yearling’, Skt sa-va ¯ ta ´ ra- ‘having the same calf’) and gives us, among other words, the name of Italy, i.e. ‘land of young cattle’; a related formation gives NE wether. The status of *per-‘oVspring (of an animal)’ is doubted because a number of groups may have created nouns from the verbal root *per- ‘appear, bring forth’ independently (e.g. OE fearr ‘bullock, steer’, Grk po ´ ris $ po ´ rtis ‘calf, heifer’, Skt pr8thuka- ‘child, young of an animal’). A number of anatomical terms apply speciWcally to animals. The word for ‘hoof’, *k ˆ oph 2 o ´ s, is attested in Germanic (e.g. NE hoof), Slavic (e.g. Rus kopy ´ to ‘hoof’), and Indo-Iranian (e.g. Av safa- ‘hoof’, Skt s ´ a ´ pha- ‘hoof, claw’). There are a number of words for ‘horn’ but all built out of the same basic root, *k ˆ er- ‘horn’, i.e. *k ˆ r8nom (e.g. Lat cornum,NEhorn), *k ˆ e ´ rh8 2 (s) (e.g. Grk ke ´ ras, Toch B karse ‘stag’ [< *‘horned one’]), *k ˆ e ´ rh8 2 sr8 (e.g. Lat cra ¯ bro ¯ ‘hornet’, Lith s ˇ irs ˇ uo ˜ ‘hornet’, Toch B krorı ¯ ya ‘horn’), and *k ˆ o ´ ru ‘horn’ (e.g. Lat cervus ‘stag’, Lith ka ´ rve_ ‘cow’, Rus koro ´ va ‘cow’, Grk ko ´ rudos ‘crested lark’, koruphe ¯ ´ ‘crest [of mountain or horse]’, Av srva- ‘horn; claw, talon’). There is a wide range of animals designated *k ˆ em- ‘hornless’ (Skt s ´ a ´ ma- hornless’), e.g. ‘hind’ in English and Greek (kema ´ s ‘young deer’), ‘sheep’ in Old Prussian (camstian), and ‘horse’ in Russian (konı ˘ ) and Old Prussian (camnet). The hornless sheep in Old Prussian and the ‘hornless’ horses of Russian and Old Prussian are both presumably in contrast to the other major domesticated animal, horned cattle. The number of wild mammals’ names attributable to Proto-Indo-European is reasonably extensive. If we work our way systematically beginning with the insectivores, we have only the ‘hedgehog’, *h 1 eg ˆ his, whose name survives in Germanic (e.g., OE igil ), Baltic (e.g. Lith ez ˇ y ˜ s), Slavic (e.g. Rus ez ˇ ), Grk ekhı u nos, Arm ozni, Phrygian ezis, and Iranian (Oss wyzyn). The sole lagomorph is the *k ˆ asos ‘hare’ (e.g. NE hare, OPrus sasins, Skt s ´ as ´ a ´ -), whose name derives from the adjective ‘grey’ (or,justpossibly,theadjective‘grey’ was originally ‘hare-coloured’ or the like)—compare Lat ca ¯ nus (< *k ˆ asnos) ‘grey’. Several rodents are known and these comprise the ‘squirrel’, *werwer-, attested in six groups, e.g. ScotsGael feo ` rag, Lat vı ¯ verra,OEa ¯ c-weorna (<*‘oak-squirrel’), Lith ve_verı ` s, Rus ve ´ verica, and OPers varvarah; the ‘beaver’, *bhe ´ bhrus (e.g. Gaul bebru-, Lat Wber,NEbeaver, Lith bebru ` s, Rus bobr,Av bawra-), which also exhibits a derivative *bhebhrinos ‘pertaining to beavers’. (India lacked the beaver and there we Wnd a babhru ´ - ‘mongoose’.) There are three words for the mouse, i.e. the ubiquitous (nine groups) *mu ¯ s ‘mouse’ (e.g. Lat mu ¯ s,NEmouse, OCS mys ˇ ı ˘ , Alb mi , Grk mu 7 s, Arm mukn, NPers mu ¯ s, Skt mu ¯ ´ s _ -, all ‘mouse’, and Toch B mas ´ cı ¯ tsi ‘mice, rats’) that derives from the verb *meus- ‘steal’; *pe ´ lh x us, another name presumably derived from the adjective ‘grey’ (e.g. OIr luch, Rus polokho ´ k, Shughni [an Iranian language of the Pamirs] pu ¯ rg); and *gl8h 1 ı ´ s (Lat glı ¯ s ‘dormouse’, Grk gale ´ e ¯ ‘weasel’ [< *‘mouser’], 9. INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA 137 [...]... *gheluhxs tortoise is found in Slavic (e.g OCS zely) and Grk khelus If we were able securely to reconstruct the tortoise to Proto-Indo-European, we would have another marker for the Proto-Indo-European homeland, in that the tortoise is not found further north than southern Scandinavia and central Russia However, there are abundant reasons otherwise for not assuming a far northern homeland for the Proto-Indo-Europeans... mobility In addition to the pig, ovicaprids, the sheep and goats, are also of special interest because these were not native (in their wild state) to much of the later Indo-European world prior to the expansion of the Neolithic economy from 154 9 INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA South-West Asia The route by which sheep spread into Europe certainly included the Balkans and probably also the Caucasus (to the steppelands);... which the concept of a domestic horse appears to be embedded in Indo-European culture, e.g in rituals, personal names In terms of the prehistoric exploitation of the horse, the major centre would appear to be across the steppe and foreststeppe from the Dnieper east to the Ural and somewhat beyond, and this is generally the region where most would place the earliest domestication of the horse in the Wfth... explained as a nominalization of the unattested adjective dangerous (*wl wo-) or derived from a verbal root *wel- tear In 8k either case, the diVerent semantic speciWcations of the dangerous one or the tearer in Anatolian and the rest of Indo-European may suggest semantic shift as one (the Anatolians) or the other (residual Indo-Europeans) moved into a new territory (as Greece and the Balkans also possessed... respective economies The Proto-Indo-Europeans possessed a Neolithic economy with extensive references to domestic livestock Table 9.5 Animal names in Proto-Indo-European and Uralic PIE Mammals Birds Fish Reptiles/amphibians Insects etc Total % Uralic % 42 17 6 1 9 75 56 23 8 1 12 15 20 9 2 14 60 25 33 15 3 22 152 9 INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA (cattle, sheep, goat, pig; possibly horse) while the Proto-Uralics were... proto-language Certain species are found so widely over Eurasia that they should have been familiar to the Proto-Indo-Europeans irrespective of where their homeland lay These would include the mole, bat, a variety of rodents (voles, mole rats, etc.), the badger, and the wild cat The twenty or so bird names (compare this with the fact that the ancient Greeks knew over 500 bird names!) comprise those that... average of 435 names of animals per language Be that as it may, ProtoUralic also has a sizeable number with about sixty names altogether It is instructive then to compare the structure of the two reconstructed lexicons in terms of the major orders of animals identiWed (excluding general names) (Table 9.5) The diVerences between the two reconstructed lexicons derive primarily from the diVerence in the respective... domestic animals, the main focus of debate has often been the status of *h1ekwos horse That some form of horse can be ascribed to the earliest Proto-Indo-Europeans (and with Anatolian cognates in Hieroglyphic Luvian azu(wa)- and Lycian esbe- we may include the concept of Indo-Hittite) seems secure Also secure is the importance of the horse in the cultures of the earliest IE groups and their mythologies... spoken The only reasonable hypothesis is that the word meant crayWsh in Proto-Indo-European, and in both Germanic and Greek, as these groups adopted a maritime orientation, the word was transferred to the larger, and more important, lobster A reconstructed *kark- crab is based on Lat cancer (< *karkro-?), Grk karknos, and Skt karkat a- (< *karkr 8to- ) and kark _ cancer (as a sign of the zodiac) Another... INDO-EUROPEAN FAUNA 1 53 along with animals On the other hand, it does encompass a series of oppositions or polarities that may have formed either covert or lexicalized slots in 8 Proto-Indo-European, e.g *kerh2s and related words for horn vs *kemhornless As for the wild mammalian fauna, our ability to reconstruct words hardly recovers all the animals likely to have been distinguished in the proto-language . vu ˘ z-grı ˘ me ˇ ti to thunder’, Grk khro ´ mos ‘noise’, from the verb *ghrem- ‘groan’). 8. THE PHYSICAL WORLD 129 8.5 The Physical Landscape of the Proto-Indo-Europeans The picture provided by the reconstructed. camel, then any Indo-European group who moved beyond the natural territory of the camel might do one of three things with their original word ‘camel’: 1. They might simply abandon the word altogether. as they and their linguistic descendants were not likely to encounter a camel for the next several thousand years. 2. They might use the name ‘camel’ when they came across another animal that they