An interesting resemblance with the Turkish sentence:

Londra'ya vardım.
https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/1224323

Was "értem" borrowed from Turkish or are "vardim" and "értem" cognates?

The past tense is to build in a similar way and also the conjugation in the first person singular (-m) These are some similarities.

Thank you.

And was Hun a Turkic language in this case or was did it borrow "van" from a Turkic language?

@Amastan

I've noticed that 'sus' (which means 'to shut up' or 'to be quiet' in Turkish) has a similar meaning in Berber and Turkish.

#7971816
#2190760
#1755406
#7332320
#7591502

I wonder if it is just a coincidence or if there's some etymological connection or borrowing. According to this etymological dictionary, the Turkish word is relatively new and it doesn't exist in other Turkic languages.

https://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=susmak

The Berber word is "susem", it's pan-Berber or pan-Amazigh (which means, it is common to all Berber dialects or the main ones in every area of North Africa).

Pan-Amazigh words or lexical roots trace back their origins to proto-Amazigh/proto-Berber. It's like a lexical root or word that would trace back its origins to proto-Turkic.

The lexical root is SSM, not SS. This means that the [m] is an integral part of the original lexical root. The proof is the derivatives like

"tasusmi" (silence)
https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentenc...&sort_reverse=



and

"asusam" (silent)"
https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentenc...rom=ber&to=und

Is [m] an integral part of the lexical root "susmak"?

> Is [m] an integral part of the lexical root "susmak"?

No, it's a part of the infinitive suffix. (sus-mak)


> The lexical root is SSM, not SS. This means that the [m] is an integral part of the original lexical root.

Thanks for clarifying. The phonetic similarity seems to be coincidental.

Exactly. When I read Turkish and Hungarian, I'd often spot some words that are similar to Berber words in form and meaning. However, when I ask native speakers to give me the basic forms of those words, they'd often show me that those words are in fact composed of lexical and grammatical elements that would make, when taken separately, completely different from the Amazigh lexical root they resemble to.

In order for two languages to be considered members of the same family, lexical resemblance needs to be recurrent and regular. In case it's a borrowing (for example, Turkish taken a word from Berber), the Berber lexical root should be kept complete and still identifiable in Turkish. That's the case with many Turkish words borrowed from Arabic (araba, zaman, etc.).

You're right. Thanks. :-)

You're most welcome, brother.