k-l/r/y-k for boat

< Previous | Next >

CyrusSH

Banned
Persian - Iran
Just in English, there are Latin-origin word carrack, Turkic-origin word caique, Greenland Eskimo origin word kayak, Celtic origin word coracle and Germanic origin word keel.

In Persian we have kalak/kilek which is probably from Akkadian kalakku and karaki/karaji which seem to have Iranian origin.

Are there relations between them?
 
Last edited:
  • Treaty

    Senior Member
    Persian
    The Greenlandic word seems to a development from *qan-yaq while the Turkish one is from kay-guk/kay-gik <*kadi~. So, at least, these two are not related with each other and with other words listed.
     

    Penyafort

    Senior Member
    Catalan (Catalonia), Spanish (Spain)
    The English word comes from the Romance languages. Italian caracca, French car(r)aque, Catalan carraca and Spanish carraca are already attested in the 13th or early 14th centuries, and the texts were usually related to Arabic ships.The likeliest origin for them seems to be the Arabic qarāqir, plural of qurqur 'merchant ship'. If so, I guess there might be some relation between that q-r-q and the k-l-k / k-r-k you mention, although some sources also point at a loanword from Greek or Latin.
     

    CyrusSH

    Banned
    Persian - Iran
    Considering Indo-European languages, I think there is a relation between vessel (container) and boat (like in the word vessel itself):

    English crock, Sanskrit karaka, Latin calix (kaliks), ...

    A possible relation between boat and bottle can be also interesting!
     

    CyrusSH

    Banned
    Persian - Iran
    Persian kerav also means "boat", it is similar to Arabic kurab/qarib, English corvet, Russian korablʹĭ, Latin Latin corbita, Greek kárabos, ... which seems to be also originally a kind of container.
     
    Last edited:

    inquisitiveness1

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    Persian kerav also means "boat", it is similar to Arabic kurab/qarib, English corvet, Russian korablʹĭ, Latin Latin corbita, Greek kárabos, ... which seems to be also originally a kind of container.
    Is the Arabic word قارب qārib "boat" actually considered related to those? I had thought it was a native development from the q-r-b root (not the most obvious connection to the root meaning, but it didn't seem too crazy to see a word that theoretically meant "approacher" be used for a boat - although I acknowledge that it isn't at all an obvious connection semantically, and it is unusual to see an active participle form from a stative verb like qrb "to be near")
     

    garipx

    Member
    turkish
    The Greenlandic word seems to a development from *qan-yaq while the Turkish one is from kay-guk/kay-gik <*kadi~. So, at least, these two are not related with each other and with other words listed.
    I read this academic paper in the link you gave. Even though I am not a linguist, I can see some "non-integrity" in that paper which is mostly based on "recorded references."

    Author of the paper has "conclusion" part in his paper of course, but, he never says "definitely" that there is no connection between "qayak" of Eskimos and "kayık" in Turkic. In his paper, he just lists "probabilities", so, your this post saying "these two are not related to each other" is just one of probabilities in that paper which was written mostly based on "recorded" references, that's, "desk research". It is okay, but, when there are false info in references, then, error accumulate. For ex, in one of article references he says, "highlighted" is : /kay/ in Turkic is "bent/turn"... Never heard this. If there are any word related to bent/turn, their roots are "/eğ/dön", not "/kay" at all.

    No need to make things unnecessarily complicated, the root "kay" or "qay" in Turkic is simple, means, "ski", "slip", etc. And, if you look at "kar" (snow), there is a meaningful similarity between snow (kar), ski/slip (kay) where "kay" is a verb root, and making nouns from it such as "kayak/kayık/kayguk/etc" is a thing even a totally illiterate Turkic person does.

    And, his last sentence in the conclusion of his paper again referencing to another article is: "... West Greenlandic qayak and (Modern) Turkish kayïk are just another example of <chance similarity>..."

    Why didn't he use the word "Turkic" here, but, "(Modern) Turkish"? Probably, it was easier for him to get a support when he used Modern Turkish. If he used "Turkic", <chance similarity> would have been much less and his articles would probably have got more objections.

    As for my own opinion on Eskimo's "qayak" and Turkic's "kayık": No need to speculate a lot. Simple word, it was a technique of an old day with a name derived from "kay" and a similar version of this name was also used by Eskimos who were also nomadics in old days like all people were.
    Kayik/qayak/etc is definitely not a similarity chance words, tells about same item, it is like the word "television" (televizyon/televiziya/etc) being used in Turkics today.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top