Keskustelu:Hungarian Historical Phonology gyak

What is the "problem with *j > gy" in UEW's other etymology? It has no *j; *ď > gy would be regular. I do not see major issues in vocalism either. *o-a > Komi u would be regular, *o > Mari *o, Hung. a are not the only attested reflexes but are both at least decently paralleled. Only Udmurt is a problem, and removing it, the etymology looks tolerable to me. (I wonder if ľek-al- could have been contaminated with *lükkä- 'to push'; something like pre-Permic *ľuka- × *lükä- → *ľükä-, then > *ľikä- > ľek-? Cf. *ďü- > ľe- also in ľem 'glue', I think likewise by coloring *ľü > *ľi and then normal lowering *i-ä > *e.)

My formulation regarding the other etymology was incorrectly formulated, thank you for pointing that out, I will correct that to the text. --Sampsa Holopainen (keskustelu) 27. huhtikuuta 2023 kello 14.43 (EEST)

Another alternative could be to look for a relationship with the West European 'dagger' wanderwort, e.g. German Degen, French dague, Italian daga, all supposedly < Vulgar Latin *daka. But these are newish words, attested only since the middle ages and of uncertain origin — actually maybe even borrowing from medieval Hungarian is within possibility, since in the other direction I don't see a way to explain why the Hungarian word should be gyak rather than **dak.

For the record, Mansi jē̮k°- does not require PU *e̮, it probably comes from earlier *jōk- (if native then < PU *jakka or *jokka) by a shift of labialization to *-k-. Not that that compares well with Khanty either however. --J. Pystynen (lähetä viesti) 27. huhtikuuta 2023 kello 14.38 (EEST)