Reconstruction talk:Proto-Turkic/ōt

For those with in-depth knowledge on Turkic, is there any potential that this term could be an early borrowing from ? I'm not very familiar how Indo-Iranian loanwords may appear in Turkic, but these terms look peculiarly similar. The vowel quality is different, so the two lemmas can easily be "false friends", yet I find it worth asking.

PS Any research on borrowings in Turkic will be appreciated, even if it does not concern in particular. Bezimenen (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not possible due to vowel harmony. Furthermore, Chuvash vut contradicts Indo-Iranian *āt-. There could be a conntection with Albanian votër (“fireplace”) however, from Proto-Albanian ōtar, this would be in agreement with the vowel harmony of Turkic. But I don't believe in borrowing, since genetics already proved that, both, Iranians and Turkic stem from the same ANE-ancestor. So my guess would be Nostratic, but that's doesn't seem to be supported here. The same can be said for Turkic at-mak ("to throw, shoot, fire"). Khalaj initial *h makes it even more complicated, when compared with English "hot". Also compare Proto-Dravidion *od- ("to burn"), Proto-Eskimo ūt- ("to boil, cook"), Proto-Amerindian *(ʔ)oti ("fire, burn"), Proto-Austroasiatic *kat ("to burn"), Proto-Yenisseian *χɔʔt ("to burn, fire"), Proto-Sino-Tibetan *Qʷit ("hearth, cooking place"), Proto-Kiranti *hát ("burn"), Proto-Afro-Asiatic *hVwat- ("fire"). So, not even Nostratic, but Borean root word. These are natural Nostratic leftovers, considering that fire has been invented in Africa some 1 mil. years ago :) Keep in mind that Turkic ōt has substantial Altaic cognates, which makes it methodically impossible to be a borrowing from any language. --Altuunay (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)