The Proto-Indo-European term for 'horse' shows only that horses were known (nobody doubts this); it does not mean that horses were already domesticated.

To use a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse...

"Suppose my child ask me what the fairytale means, what am I to say?" If you do not know what it means, what is easier than to say so? If you do see a meaning in it, there it is for you to give him. A genuine work of art must mean many things; the truer its art, the more things it will mean. If my drawing, on the other hand, is so far from being a work of art that it needs THIS IS A HORSE written under it, what can it matter that neither you nor your child should know what it means? It is there not so much to convey a meaning as to wake a meaning. If it do not even wake an interest, throw it aside. A meaning may be there, but it is not for you. If, again, you do not know a horse when you see it, the name written under it will not serve you much.

The significance attached to the fact that the Indogermans were acquainted with the horse . . . may have been exaggerated. We do not know the precise meaning of the Indogermanic words in question; we do not know whether they mean the domesticated or the wild animals." ... "it is difficult to see how these names can be safely used for determining the original home of the Indogermans".

The horse is a stubborn, dirty, stupid animal that reminds me of a sheep. Its only use is to embody the wings a man feels within him, and to do this it lathers and sweats, defecates and steps in badger holes.

Sanskrit has many words for the horse: aśva, arvant or arvvā, haya, vājin, sapti, turanga, kilvī, pracelaka and gho ṭ aka, to name the most prominent among them. And yet, the Dravidian languages show no trace of having borrowed any of these words; they have their own words kudirai, parī and mā [...] The Santali and Mundari languages, however, have preserved the original Kol- Munda word sādom. Not only has no linguist ever claimed that the Dravidian and Kol-Munda words for ̳horse‘ are borrowed from 'Aryan‘ words, but in fact some linguists have even sought to establish that Sanskrit gho ṭ aka, from which all modern Indo-Aryan words are derived, is borrowed from the Kol-Munda languages.

When I hear somebody talk about a horse or cow being stupid; I figure it's a sure sign that the animal has somehow outfoxed them

What's your horse's name? Horse. Sophia waited for the joke, but it didn't come. You call your horse 'Horse'? He doesn't mind. You should give him a noble name. Like Prince or Chief or something. It might confuse him now. Trust me. Anything is better than Horse. It's like naming a dog Dog. I have a dog named Dog. Australian Cattle Dog. He turned, his expression utterly matter-of-fact. Great herder. And your mom didn't complain? My mom named him.

...this bull is a bull and this horse is a horse... If you give a meaning to certain things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to give this meaning. What ideas and conclusions you have got I obtained too, but instinctively, unconsciously. I make the painting for the painting. I paint the objects for what they are.

An example of why semantics matter: Delhi Riots were decisively planned and executed by Islamists against Hindus. But guess how the Left defined it? They called it an “anti Muslim POGROM”. Not genocide. Not riot. A “POGROM”. A “POGROM” has a very distinct feature internationally. It essentially connects to genocide particularly of Jews. Left wanted to equate Islamists to Jews in order to internationalise the issue (works as they can compare Hindus to Nazis). They lied. But the lie was well thought
The first step is to define our problems better. It is time that we start playing the game slightly more intelligently. Slightly more mindfully. Our civilisation is at stake. They use clever words to sell a lie. Let’s try and do the same to explain our truth, at least

Burrow (1972) notes the existence of a word for the horse which is found only in Tamil and Brahui (DED 500: Tamil ivuli, Brahui (h)ullī, and which therefore must have existed in the earliest Dravidian [...] McAlpin suggests that this early Dravidian word probably referred to the Asian wild ass, Equus Hemionus, which is native to South Asia, rather than to the domesticated horse, Equus Caballus.

If you'd called me an ox, I'd have said I was an ox; if you'd called me a horse, I'd have said I was a horse. If the reality is there and you refuse to accept the name men give it, you'll only lay yourself open to double harassment.

Indeed Ivanov (1999), who has undertaken by far the most comprehensive study of the cognate terms for horse in Indo-European as well as the adjacent languages of Northern Caucasian and Hurrian, points out that "the Indo-European homeland need not be identical to the area of horse domestication, but should be connected to it. The ways in which names and technical knowledge . . . spread should be explored".

Zimmer (1990a) points out that the inference that the horse was known to the Indo-Europeans is primarily based on such poetic formulas as 'swift horse', 'horses of the sun', 'characterized by good horses', and so on. He feels that "the formulas tell us nothing specific about the use of horses, but archaeology and history supply the necessary information".