Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁éḱwos. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁éḱwos, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁éḱwos in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁éḱwos you have here. The definition of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁éḱwos will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofReconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁éḱwos, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Usually explained as a derivation of the adjective *h₁éḱus(“quick, swift”), also seen in e.g. Ancient Greek ὠκύς(ōkús), Latin ōcior(“faster”) and Sanskrit आशु(āśú, “fast, quick”) (all < PIE *h₁oh₁ḱus(“swift”)). The thematic derivation would express association with a root noun *h₁eḱ-(“swiftness, celerity”), thus denoting “that which has swiftness” or “the swift one”. The adjective would have to be derived from the root by reduplication, which is unusual in PIE nominal word formation. Many linguists therefore reject it as popular etymology and suggest other sources:
Kulanda 2008 argues that the PIE word is borrowed from North Caucasian; compare Kabardianшы(šə), Abkhazаҽы(aĉə), Avarчу(ču), Karataичва(ičʷa, “mare”), Lezgiшив(šiv, “horse”) etc. (NCED 520). This etymology has been criticized by Matasović 2012:291 who argues that the direction of borrowing is probably from PIE into North Caucasian: steppe horses were probably traded for Mesopotamian imports on the North Caucasus in the Eneolithic period. The fact that we find fricatives and affricates in the Caucasian reflexes of this word indicates that the source could have been an IE dialect of the satem type.
The original thematic form is also disputed. According to Kloekhorst (2008), the original derivation was a u-stem, to which Anatolian reflexes point particularly, which presume a Proto-Anatolian u-stem *h₁éḱu-, as opposed to the thematic (o-stem) derivation in all the other PIE branches. There is no known phonological development through which PIE *h₁eḱwo- could yield PAnat. *h₁eḱu-, and in view of the productivity of the o-stem inflection in Anatolian it is unlikely that PIE *h₁eḱwo- would have yielded PAnat. *h₁éḱu- through secondary developments. We therefore must conclude that the Proto-Anatolian u-stem *h₁éḱu- reflects the original state of affairs and that the thematicization as visible in the non-Anatolian IE languages (which would be a trivial development) must be regarded as a common innovation of them. In other words, this is a piece of evidence supportive of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. In that case, the original paradigm would have been *h₁éḱ-u-s, *h₁éḱ-u-m, *h₁ḱ-u-és, from the stem *h₁eḱ-u-(“swift”).
^ De Vaan, Michiel (2008) “equus”, in Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, pages 192-193
Sergei Kulanda (2008), Лошадь в праиндоевропейском, - Orientalia et Classica XIX: Аспекты компаративистики 3. Москва, pages 669-678.
Ranko Matasović (2012), Areal Typology of Proto-Indo-European: The Case for Caucasian Connections. Transactions of the Philological Society, Volume 110, Issue 2, pages 283–310