Reconstruction talk:Proto-Kartvelian/naʒw-

For Proto-entries it is very desirable to list the souces of reconstruction in a ===References=== section. --Vahag (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

*naʒw- or *naʓw-?

Klimov uses ʓ for ძ. IIRC, Klimov was the first one who actually defined these things by non-Georgian symbols. Shouldn't we take his version over that of Fahnrich? Simboyd (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Vogt

@Vahagn_Petrosyan: there's something related to my recent edits in Vogt:1938 p 335, but I don't have access to it კვარია (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@კვარია: here is that page as reprinted in {{R:xcl:Vogt:1988}}. The 1938 edition is not with me right now. Vahag (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

So according to him the source of Armenian նոճ (noč) is the "supposed" Mingrelian ნოჯი (noǯi), which according to Pipia does/did exist. This seemingly happens with Iranian borrowings, but does Armenian borrow Kartvelian ჯ (ǯ) as ճ (č)?

Also ნაჟვი (nažvi) documented by Saba is left unexplained (a reborrowing from Iranian perhaps?) კვარია (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, only a ნიჭ- would give նոճ (noč). This č ~ ǰ ~ z alternation is characteristic of Iranian. So all the Caucasian forms could be borrowed from various stages of Iranian. Vahag (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vahagn_Petrosyan I see, thank you. So that form is confirmed. This is a little bit icky because all the words, with the exception of ნაჟვი (nažvi), behave as you'd expect from Kartvelian languages. Klimov supposed that this root could represent a very ancient borrowing from Iranian. In Klimov-Xalilov this is considered Proto-Karto-Zan only too, in contrast with Klimov 1998 where it's considered Proto-Kartvelian, though I don't know when work on Klimov-Xalilov started... Anyhow Proto-Georgian-Zan *naʒ₁w-, itself from Iranian, must be correct. კვარია (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The situation could be the same as for პილენძი (ṗilenʒi), which I am certain is ultimately of Iranian origin even if Proto-Georgian-Zan is reconstructible: see Blažek, Václav, Schwarz, Michal (1999) The early Indo-Europeans in Central Asia and China: Cultural relations as reflected in language (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft; 13)‎^[1], Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, page 107. What is the chronology of Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Georgian-Zan? Vahag (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"Using the methods of glottochronology as introduced by Morris Swadesh, the absolute time of separate development can be fixed for these languages at approximately 2,600 and 4,200 years, respectively. In other words, the Georgian-Zan complex should have begun to disintegrate at the beginning of the first millennium B.C., while the differentiation of Georgian-Zan and Svan should date from a period not later than the last centuries of the third millennium B.C." - Klimov.

Thanks, I'll check it out. :) კვარია (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As the Medes are known in north-western Iran already since the 11th century BC, an Iranian borrowing into late Proto-Georgian-Zan is possible. The Iranians must have penetrated quite deep into Eastern Armenia and Georgia for the rivers Երասխ (Erasx) and არაგვი (aragvi) to be of Iranian origin. Vahag (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is fine and I don't doubt ancient borrowings from early Iranian languages. Proto-Karto-Zan even has Indo-Aryan borrowings: cf., Proto-Georgian-Zan *s₁uš-, *šuš- (“to dry up, bake”). კვარია (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)