# Russian: кутëнок - cognates in other languages



## rusita preciosa

Moved from here.

What a great thread!

I wonder if Russian word *кутëнок *[kutionok], a regional/colloquial (probably archaic) word meaning a very young dog pup, has the same root as these:
Slovene kuža
Bulgarian куче
Serbo-Croatian kučka, kuče
Macedonian куче, кучка


----------



## vianie

Hm. Until now I do not know Magyar word for dog "kutya" ("kuťa" in C/S spelling) has Slavic origin.


----------



## WannaBeMe

rusita preciosa said:


> What a great thread!
> 
> I wonder if Russian word *кутëнок *[kutionok], a regional/colloquial (probably archaic) word meaning a very young dog pup, has the same root as these:
> Slovene kuža
> Bulgarian куче
> Serbo-Croatian kučka, kuče
> Macedonian куче, кучка



Yes, it has the same root.


----------



## nose_bleed

The normal Russian, щенок, is cognate as well.

Dog terms are notorious Wanderwoerter.

Was this originally a loan from the Turkic languages?

Modern Turkish: köpek
Uzbek: kuchuk

I think "собака" was a Turkic loanword too. (I can't remember if it was from Turkic or Indo-Iranian.) It replaced the native Slavic form пес, which is now used to express the narrow meaning of "cur".

Anyone know about if "курок" is connected?

How about "cachorro"-Portugese: dog, Spanish: puppy?


----------



## Lugubert

nose_bleed said:


> Dog terms are notorious Wanderwoerter.


Chinese 犬 quan3 is supposed to be an Indo-European loan (cf. French _chien_).


----------



## Awwal12

> Chinese 犬 quan3 is supposed to be an Indo-European loan (cf. French chien)


I would rather succesfully compare it with the Latin "canis" and Greek "κῠνός".  French phonetics has gone very far away from original one.


> I think "собака" was a Turkic loanword too. (I can't remember if it was from Turkic or Indo-Iranian.)


Most likely Indo-Iranian, in which languages it often sounds similar. Otherwise I personally cannot get how the phonetical transition [k]->[s] in the very beginning of the word happened.


> It replaced the native Slavic form пес, which is now used to express the narrow meaning of "cur".


"A cur" is rather "дворняга", "дворняжка" in Russian. "Пёс" can be pure-bred. This word is synonymous to "собака", but is used usually towards big male dogs (since the word "собака" is of feminine gender, and although it can be used towards any dog without specification, it means a bitch {"сука"} by default).


----------



## Maroseika

According to Trubachev собака < Turc köbäk (dog).


----------



## Awwal12

Maroseika said:


> According to Trubachev собака < Turc köbäk (dog).


Vasmer tends to explain it as derivation from Middle Iranian "*sabѓka", which seems to be more believeable. Trubachov doesn't explain why he consider Iranian origin as "hardly probable".


----------



## nose_bleed

Awwal12 said:


> "A cur" is rather "дворняга", "дворняжка" in Russian. "Пёс" can be pure-bred. This word is synonymous to "собака", but is used usually towards big male dogs (since the word "собака" is of feminine gender, and although it can be used towards any dog without specification, it means a bitch {"сука"} by default).




Thanks Awwal! Is "дворняга" ever used as an insult? In English if you call someone a cur it's theoretically quite insulting, although nowadays it just sounds funny--a exceedingly gentlemanly, upper-class kind of insult.


----------



## Kanes

The Russian word is not clearly related to the other examples stated. Similar names formed the basis of the echoic kuč-/guč- found in other languages: Slavic, Romance, Baltic, Turkic, Mongolian: cf. sup. dog kuchak, Slovenia. kučak, sex. kucziuk, Latvia. kuce "bitch", kucis "dog" staroit. sussio, Sicily. guttsu, Friuli. kutsu, IT. cucciolo, TAT. көчек, KAZ. күшік, tour. kuçu, küçük "puppy, puppy"; kirg. күчүк "puppy, cub, Tigger, Mongo. Gichin "bitch." Yuzhnoslav. forms (* kučyka) are probably derived of Bulgar güčük. BG form  kučę,-ta VM.  kučyka (but cf. kuchkar < kučykary) is a generalization of flexion type, agnę, detę, porsę for names of animals. Only possible relation to the russian кутёнок or Iranian kuti.


----------



## Awwal12

nose_bleed said:


> Thanks Awwal! Is "дворняга" ever used as an insult? In English if you call someone a cur it's theoretically quite insulting, although nowadays it just sounds funny--a exceedingly gentlemanly, upper-class kind of insult.


Well, I hardly can imagine "дворняга" used as an insult. Looks like in Russian this word doesn't have such a negative connotation as the English "cur". Bur the word "пёс" doesn't have it as well. "Собака", "сука", "кобель" can be used as insults in some context. "Сука" ("bitch") is more or less general insult (taking into account that in criminal slang it also means a squeaker, an informer), whereas "собака" used as an insult sounds either too literate or archaic. "Кобель" ("a male dog") is more or less equal to English "bedhopper".


----------



## Maroseika

Awwal12 said:


> Vasmer tends to explain it as derivation from Middle Iranian "*sabѓka", which seems to be more believeable. Trubachov doesn't explain why he consider Iranian origin as "hardly probable".


His main argument is that the word is known only in Northern-Great-Russian dialects (from which has penetrated later in other Slavic), but all the Iranian "cognats" are from the South and Middle Iranian languages, never contacting with the Slavs directly. On the other hand, in the languages of the Northern Iranians (Sarmats, Skythians) this word looks quite different - _spaka_ - that could never develop in собака. Therefore there is no reasonable explanation how South Iranian stem could penetrate so far in the North thru the Northeern Iranian - and without leaving any trace of it there (cf. Ossetyan kuz - dog).
As for the Turc hypothesis of Trubachev, he doesn't insist on it definately but reckons to be the most feasible due to 2 factors:
1. This word - köbäk - existed exactly in those Turc languages contacting with Slavs since very ancient times and .
2. köbäk > собака (or better say Turc k-b-k > Slav s-b-k) is quite well explicable basing on what's known about these languages (cf. Turc käräkä / Mari karaka > карась).


----------



## Maroseika

Kanes said:


> The Russian word is not clearly related to the other examples stated. Similar names formed the basis of the echoic kuč-/guč- found in other languages: Slavic, Romance, Baltic, Turkic, Mongolian: cf. sup. dog kuchak, Slovenia. kučak, sex. kucziuk, Latvia. kuce "bitch", kucis "dog" staroit. sussio, Sicily. guttsu, Friuli. kutsu, IT. cucciolo, TAT. көчек, KAZ. күшік, tour. kuçu, küçük "puppy, puppy"; kirg. күчүк "puppy, cub, Tigger, Mongo. Gichin "bitch." Yuzhnoslav. forms (* kučyka) are probably derived of Bulgar güčük. BG form  kučę,-ta VM.  kučyka (but cf. kuchkar < kučykary) is a generalization of flexion type, agnę, detę, porsę for names of animals. Only possible relation to the russian кутёнок or Iranian kuti.


All this words Trubachev also considers to be of the onomathopoetic nature (cf. calling the dog Russian куть-куть! цу-цу!, Polish kiciu-kiciu!, Polish dog nickname Kucziuk).


----------



## Awwal12

> köbäk > собака (or better say Turc k-b-k > Slav s-b-k) is quite well explicable basing on what's known about these languages (cf. Turc käräkä / Mari karaka > карась


In word endings such changes are very understandable (since there is a diminutive suffix -ка in Russian; compare Dutch "zondek" and Russian "зонт", for example, where the ending was just taken away). But I personally still find this change in the beginning of the Turkic loanword hardly probable.


----------



## Maroseika

This change has nothing to do with the diminutives. Actually, the main phonetic problem, according to Trubachev, is the very transfer Turc s > Slav k, and this problem doesn't depend on the sound place in the word. He explains this effect with "depalatalization" of the Turk consonant (kä > sa) and dissimilation k - k>s - s in the epoch when palatalized k was still alien to Slavs. Example with *karas is representative because there also were two k in the Turc or Ugric source, dissimilated in the Slavic word.


----------



## Awwal12

Well, so why not "сарась"?  


> e explains this effect with "depalatalization" of the Turk consonant (kä > sa) and dissimilation k - k>s - s in the epoch when palatalized k was still alien to Slavs.


Even in this case, I would expect "чабака", but not "собака". Very strange.


> This change has nothing to do with the diminutives.


It MAY have nothing to do with diminutives (in the word карась)... but only if Trubach*yov* is right here.


----------



## Rajki

As for kutionok, see the root *kutta at the thread dog, gos, perro ...

In my opinion, sobaka is an old Russian invention of obscure origin. Why would the old Russians have borrowed such a common word from the Turks or the Iranians?


----------



## Maroseika

Rajki said:


> In my opinion, sobaka is an old Russian invention of obscure origin. Why would the old Russians have borrowed such a common word from the Turks or the Iranians?


Maybe because they lacked a word meaning "a dog as it is", i.e. generalized term, in addition to other terms mostly specialised according to the dog colour or application, such as:
муругий < *morogъ - striped
пес < *pьstrъ - spotty (cf. Avestian раēsа- leper < spotty, ποικίλος - varicoloured)
кобель < *ko-bel - of light colour
огаръ - trackhound (cf. Hungarian _agar_)
выжлец - trackhound (cf. Hung. _vizsla _- swift)
хорт < *srtъ (yellowy) - trackhound, courser 

Among this multitude only собака means any dog.

One more example of the same substitution is лошадь - Turkic loan in Russian for a "horse", generalized term for any horse.


----------



## Maroseika

Awwal12 said:


> Well, so why not "сарась"?


Obviously, because for the aim of the dissimilation one k > s was quite sufficient.




> Even in this case, I would expect "чабака", but not "собака". Very strange.


Why do you think "чабака" is more natural? All Russian ч?б- I could check are of the Turc origin but borrowed already with the initial "ч".


----------



## Awwal12

> All Russian ч?б- I could check are of the Turc origin but borrowed already with the initial "ч".


Of course, but it may signify only that such a "depalatalization" in Turkic loanwords never took place. Also take into account that even if "собака" is a Turkic loanword, this loan took place very long ago, and we have really few Turkic loanwords from that age.


> Why do you think "чабака" is more natural?


Because "ч" is the most ancient palatalized form of "к" in Slavic languages, of course. Another theoretically possible variant would give us "цабак(а)" (but not "собака" again).


> Obviously, because for the aim of the dissimilation one k > s was quite sufficient.


But why only one? ) The closest phonetical surrounding of first [k] sounds in words "*k*äräkä" and "*k*äbäk" is identical - the both sounds are first in the words and followed by near-open front vowel. If the depalatalization of "käbäk" really took place, it should influence all the sounds in these positions. So, "карась" is at least not a suitable example, it rather disproves this theory than proves it. Also note that the last consonant in the word "карась" is palatalized; if it hypothetically originated in the same way as "c" in "собака", this entire word would sound as "карас" (in ancient Russian - "карасъ").

Actually, as far as I know, only Trubachyov insists that "собака" is a Turkic loanword.


----------



## Maroseika

Awwal12 said:


> Also take into account that even if "собака" is a Turkic loanword, this loan took place very long ago, and we have really few Turkic loanwords from that age.


Sure; but still have!



> Because "ч" is the most ancient palatalized form of "к" in Slavic languages, of course. Another theoretically possible variant would give us "цабак(а)" (but not "собака" again).


We should not mix up two quite different processes: regular phonetical process and adjusting a borrowed word to the phonetic model of the language; the former took centuries, while the latter should have been quite instant - new word was to be adjusted immediately, just the first time of being used.
However, in fact *k' > s (and *g > z) was quite an ancient process, cf. cordis - сръдьце, granum - зрьно (Slavic languages belong to the satem group).




> But why only one? ) The closest phonetical surrounding of first [k] sounds in words "*k*äräkä" and "*k*äbäk" is identical - the both sounds are first in the words and followed by near-open front vowel. If the depalatalization of "käbäk" really took place, it should influence all the sounds in these positions.


We should not forget about the priority need in dissimilation letting to avoid Turkic sinharmonism; dissimiliation presumes the change of only one sound; the second one can be just depalatalized



> So, "карась" is at least not a suitable example, it rather disproves this theory than proves it. Also note that the last consonant in the word "карась" is palatalized; if it hypothetically originated in the same way as "c" in "собака", this entire word would sound as "карас" (in ancient Russian - "карасъ").


Sorry, I don't see any contradiction: you state the last consonant should have been hard, and it was hard in Ancient Russian: карасъ.



> Actually, as far as I know, only Trubachyov insists that "собака" is a Turkic loanword.


Trubachev doesn't insist on the Turkic origin, he just reckons this etymology to be the most consistent.
As for the impossibility of the Iranian origin, his argument seems to me unshakable: how could Southern-Iranian word penetrate into the Slavic languages with which it has never contacted directly, and leaving no trace in the intermediate, Northen-Iranian languages?


----------



## Awwal12

> However, in fact *k' > s (and *g > z) was quite an ancient process, cf. cordis - сръдьце, granum - зрьно


Yes... Even more ancient than the Slavic languages are. ) And if some phonetical change took place once, it still doesn't mean that similar change in some other words could "accidentally" appear later.


> Sorry, I don't see any contradiction: you state the last consonant should have been hard, and it was hard in Ancient Russian: карасъ.


The ancient Russian form already had a palatalized letter. "*karas" is a Proto-Slavic variant, according to Vasmer's dictionary. But now I see the reason. )


----------



## Maroseika

Awwal12 said:


> The ancient Russian form already had a palatalized letter. "*karas" is a Proto-Slavic variant, according to Vasmer's dictionary. But now I see the reason. )


Sorry, but Vasmer doesn't mention anything Proto-Slavic, he denies Baltic connections and calls the word "obscure", while Trubachev in his comment refers to the works of some etymologists linking  *karas- with Mari karaka, Udmurt karaka and Tatar käräkä.
By the way, from here we can see there might be no need in the direct loan from Turkic, but Ural mediator could be involved.
Besides, Chernykh mentions Ancient-Russian карасъ and this mean there was a vowel in the end.


----------



## Not.A.Linguist

vianie said:


> Hm. Until now I do not know Magyar word for dog "kutya" ("kuťa" in C/S spelling) has Slavic origin.



That word sounds familiar to me.

Kuttaa - is the word for "Dog" in Hindi
Pillaa - is the word for a "young dog" a "pup" in Hindi

The origin of Hindi word "Kuttaa" seems to be from "Kukur" of Sanskrit. But it's interesting to know in Slavic there is a word like "kuťa". Sounds very familiar.


----------



## Favara

Maybe an IE cognate in Catalan _cadell_ (/ka'deʎ/), meaning a puppy? It's apparently from Latin _catulus_.


----------

