----- "R A Brown" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> Philip Newton wrote: 
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 15:16, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> >> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote: 
> >>> On 30 March 2010 23:03, Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

> >>>>> It's interesting that I saw a lizard, monitor in form, but with a tongue 
> >>>> like a chameleon. 

> >>>> Me, I saw Greeks and/or Turks, which I suppose could be expanded to 
> >>>> "foreigner", "alien", "outsider", "barbarian"? 
> >>> While I can understand Turkish, and the Basque idea made sense, I can't 
> >>> understand thinking it could be Greek. 
> >> Nor could I. 

> > I interpreted Kou's comment as "When I saw the word 'egorigok', I 
> > thought it might mean 'Greeks' and/or 'Turks'" -- not that he thought 
> > it was a Greek or Turkish word. 

> Yes, on reflexion, I think you're probably right. My 
> apologies to Kou. 

> > And I can see how you could get from "egorigok" to "Greek" -- the 
> > consonants are all there. (I don't know how you would get "Turk" from 
> > it, though.) 

> I can't see the Turks either. It's interesting that Kou saw 
> Greek_s_ or Turk_s_, i.e. he felt the word to be plural. 
> Thinks: isn't -k a plural marker in Hungarian? Or have I 
> misremembered? 

I'm no whiz at Hungarian, and certainly not Turkish, but the Hungarian words for "Greek" and "Turk" are "görög" and "török" which I assume as plurals become "görögök" and "törökök" (maybe "görögek" and "törökek", but I doubt it, ask a native). We were asked what we saw; that's what I saw.