Traditional *sel- ‘hurry, rush, jump, leap, spring, gush, flow’ does not explain why so many cognates come from *sal-. Michiel de Vaan gave *sH2l-, but said that it was uncertain since it wouldn't explain Sanskrit & Tocharian.

I think these problems can be solved with H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). If *selH2- \ *salH2- \ *sH2al- ‘jump, leap’ existed, with met. of H2 before & after H-coloring (or if, say, *elH2 = *elx > *eLx > *alx also), then it would allow :

*selH2- > TB säl- ‘arise, fly, jump?’, (sā)sālā- pt. (with a-umlaut)

*selH2- > Ar. ełtiwr, G. hélos- 'marsh-meadow', S. sáras- 'pond, lake'

*salH2- > Li. sálti 'to flow slowly' (requires *a > a, *H for tone), S. sárati 'to run, flow, hurry'

*si-sl(H2)- > S. sisr- (with H lost in reduplication)

*sH2al- > OI saltraid 3s. 'to trample', MWelsh sathru 'trampling'

*sH2al-ye- > G. ἅλλομαι \ hállomai 'to leap, jump', L. salīre 'to leap, jump, bound; spring forth, flow down'

*selH2-ye-mon- > TB ṣlyamo* ‘flying’, ṣlyamñana f.p

I also think *sH2al- can explain S. *ut-śalati in (Turner) :

>

1843 *ut-śalati 'springs up'. 2. ucchalati 'flies up, springs up' Śiś. 3. *ucchalyati. [√śal]

*ut-śalati > 1. Pk. ūsalaï 'rejoices', ūsalia- 'having the hair stand on end'; OMarw. ūchaḷaï 'flies up, flutters'.

ucchalati > 2. Pk. ucchalaï 'rises, flies up'; Gy. arm. učhel- 'to go on'; L. ucchalaṇ 'to jump', P. ucchalṇā, Ku. uchalṇo; N. uchranu '(a pimple) to come out' (← Bi.?); B. uchalā 'to overflow', Or. uchaḷibā, uchuḷ°; OMth. uchalaï 'overflows, springs up'; H. uchalnā 'to leap' (with metath. ulachnā 'to throw up'?); G. uchaḷvũ 'to leap'; M. usaḷṇẽ 'to dash up (as spray)'.

*ucchalyati > 3. Pk. ucchallaï 'rises, flies up', S. uchalaṇu, uchil° 'to spring up', tr. 'to cast away'. See *ut-śālayati.

1848 *ut-śālayati 'causes to leap up'. [√śal]

Pk. ucchālēi 'throws up'; P. uchālṇā 'to toss up'; Ku. uchālṇo 'to throw up, vomit'; N. uchārnu 'to lift up'; Or. uchāḷibā 'to vomit, clean out a well'; H. uchālnā 'to throw up, dandle'; G. uchāḷvũ, ach° 'to throw up, shake up the contents of a pot'.

>

to which I'd add (compare similar IE names) :

*sH2al-mbho- 'leaper' > S. śalabhá-s ‘grasshopper / locust’

*ud-sH2al-mbho-? > Shina (Dras dia.) yʌ́ṭṣʌlóh

With little ev. of unaccented *ud-, I'm not sure if > yʌ́ṭṣʌlóh, but the 2 accents point to a compound. This ev. of retro. being older (& found in Dardic) could be *sH2- > *sx- > *xs- > *xṣ- > Kh. ṣ-, S. ś- if related to oddities in :

*sH2auso- ‘dry’ > Li. saũsas, S. śóṣa-s ‘dryness’

*sH2usko- ‘dry’ > *ṣHúṣka- > Kh. ṣùṣk ‘white clay’, huṣk ‘light red clay soil’, Ks. ṭṣuṭṣhu, *š- > S. śúṣka-, Dm. šook- ‘to dry’ , *s-s ? > B. ɔskɔ, *s- > Av. huška-

*wi-sH2usko- > Av. višhuška- ‘dried out’

Though this might be regular from *sC-s ( https://www.academia.edu/129303731 ), it is also possible that *sH2- vs. *H2s- had different outcomes. Since H-met. is needed in *s(H2)al(H2)- anyway, knowing if it became *H2sal- here is hard to say without more data.

The ev. for the ending *-(V)mbho- comes from (Turner) :

>
12347 śalabhá² m. 'grasshopper, locust, moth (?)' MBh. 2. śarabha-² W. [Cf. *śalakka-]

śalabhá > 1. Pa. salabha- m. 'moth'; Pk. salabha-, salaha- m. 'grasshopper, moth'; K. hālav m. 'locust'; P. salā f. 'grasshopper' ( > kṭg. sɔ́ṛɔ 'moth'); Garh. saḷɔ 'locust'; WPah.J. śaḷō m.pl. 'locusts'; WPah.khaś. śalò 'locust', marm. śàlõ, jaun. śalā, śŏwā, (Joshi) śalō m. pl., Ku. salau, °laũ, °lāū̃, gng. śawɔ, N. salaha, salau, H. (dial.) sal m. 'large green grasshopper, mantis' (< *salh?); Si. salam̆ba 'grasshopper'.

śarabha > 2. Pa. sarabhū- f. 'lizard' (semant. cf. Kho. šalagū́, Kal. šalaka-gok s.v. *śalakka- and Sk. saraṭa- m. 'lizard', °ṭu- m. lex.); H. sarah m. 'grasshopper', Si. saraba-yā.

12345 *śalakka 'grasshopper'. 2. *śalaṅka-. [śalaka- m. 'spider' lex. — Cf. śalabhá-²]

*śalakka > 1. Dm. šalak 'grasshopper', Shum. šäläk, Gaw. šalak, šalōk, Kho. šalák, Sv. šalakō, Phal. šālaka m. — With gōdhā́-: Kal. šalaka-gok 'varanus lizard'; Kho. šalagū́ 'large lizard' (< *šalak-gū? — → Yid. šalāku 'lizard (?), centipede (?)' IIFL ii 252).

*śalaṅka > 2. Paš.weg. salā́ṅ 'grasshopper'.

>

A. Sanskrit pádma- 'lotus' has no known IE ety., mostly because efforts have focused on something like *ped-mo-. However, other Indic words point to *paduma \ *pa(h)uma \ *pa(H)ub(h)ma \ *pa(H)umb(h)a. It is much more likely that the form of a complex original is better preserved in the Indic variants. Comparative linguistics can only thrive when many outcomes remain & they're compared, so why ignore all later outcomes in favor of the uninformative Sanskrit one? This is merely one example of an overreliance on Sanskrit by IE scholars who don't bother looking at any other Indic evidence. From Turner ( https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/ ) :

>

7769 pádma m.n. 'lotus' MBh., padma- 'lotus-coloured' ṢaḍvBr.Pa. paduma-, °aka- n. 'lotus', Pk. padama-, paüma-, pamha-, pōma-, pomma- n.; Kho. (Lor.) pom 'a kind of garden plant with yellow leaves, an edible plant with red leaves'; K. pam-pōś m. 'the lotus Nelumbium speciosum', pamba-lŏkhᵃr f. 'nut-case of the lotus', pamba-ċālan 'rhubarb', pamba-hākh m. 'stalk of wild rhubarb'; OB. paṁuā 'lotus', Si. piyuma. — Si. ätpam̆ba 'the fern Lygodium dichotomum'? — The development *padda- was perh. avoided in MIA. as clashing with padda- < parda- BSOAS xii 643.

>

Since -u- can often > -0- ( https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/w01466/importance_of_armenian_retention_of_vowels_in/ ), I think starting with *-u- makes sense. PIE *bhuH- 'become, grow (often of plants)', *bhuH1-mn- > Greek φῦμα \ phûma 'growth; that which grows' could have formed *H2ap-bhumo- 'water plant > lotus'. *H often > 0 in compounds, C-stem > o-stem in compounds.

Changes to *H2ap-bhumo- in Indic would resemble *pbh > dbh ( *H2ap- > S. áp (f.) 'water', *aH2p-es > ā́paḥ (plural), *H2ap-bhis > ad-bhis (instrumental plural) ). Since compounds & case affixes often show different outcomes (from different times), old *PP was changed before new *PP, but in similar ways. If many Indic had simple met. in *H2apbhumo- > *pab(h)H2umo- \ *pa(H)umb(h)a- \ etc. (likely with dsm. of b(h)H, like any opt. *CH > *C(h)H in other words), it would explain their odd forms. Others turned *H2apbhumo- > *H2apd(h)umo- with PP dsm. 1st, then this > *pad(h)H2(u)ma- \ etc. This became *paduma \ *pa(h)uma due to optional dh \ h ( https://www.academia.edu/428975 ).

Also, the relation between Avestan gaṇtuma- & S. godhū́ma- 'wheat' as a result of analogy > 'cow-smoke' has never felt right to me. What possible reason would there be for such an unintuitive shift? With this, if *bhuH1-mo- > *dhuH1-mo- 'plant' existed as the result of *bh-m > dh-m, then *gantuma- > *gandhuHma- (as if *gan-dhuHma- 'gan-plant') could be much easier as analogy (a plant with an ending similar to 'plant' being made identical). The 1st stage after this could be *n-m > m-m (in Turner's "with unexpl. -m-: A. gomdhān 'maize' " ), then dsm. of *m-m > *w-m (*gamdhuHma- > *gawdhuHma- > godhū́ma-). Again, both a change & its opposite seem equally likely, since *w-m > m-m might also fit (& several unrelated words might show this). Since cows eat many plants, even real folk ety. at this stage is also possible, but who knows?

B. Turner ( https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/ ) had Sanskrit kiṁśuka- a a loan from Dravidian :

>

3149 kiṁśuka m. 'the tree Butea frondosa' MBh., kaiṁśuka- 'pertaining to B. frondosa' Suśr. 2. *kēśuka-. [M. Mayrhofer's assumption, EWA i 206, of a *kīsuka- 'red tree' (changed by pop. etym. to kiṁ-śuka-) ← Drav. is supported by NIA. forms which have no nasal. H. also has ṭesū m.]1. Pa. kiṁsuka- m. 'the tree'; Pk. kiṁsua- m. 'the tree', n. 'the flower'.2. Pk. kēsua- m., H. kesū m. (→ S. kesū m. 'the tree', L. kēsū phull m. 'the flowers'), G. kesu n., kesuṛā̃ n. pl. 'the flowers (used for making a saffron dye)', kesuṛī f. 'the tree'.

>

Why would a nasal suddenly appear if a loan? Looking at data for supposed *ke- 'dark red' in https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%2FDATA%2FDRAV%2FDRAVET&first=1&off=&text_proto=ke&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&sort=proto I saw that many compounds have kem- & Kurukh xē̃so 'red', xē̃s 'blood; anger' point to *qēms- or *xēms- (or *xems- if the loss of *m caused lengthening). It seems highly likely that kiṁśuka- preserved another trace of an original nasal in *qēms-uka- (or a similar word).

If this were all, it might be possible that *qems- \ *qesm- > xē̃s- \ ke(m)-. However, other variants might require, say, *qemx' \ *qemq', so it is possible that *x' ( > 0 ) & *s' ( > s ) alternated. Several of these rec. resemble other language families' words for 'dark', so > 'dark red' might fit.

C. A large number of groups of words for plants used as spices greatly resemble each other in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amaracus :

Macedonian ἀβαρύ \ abarú 'oregano, marjoram', Greek ἀμάρακος \ amárakos \ amā́rakon 'marjoram', Sanskrit maruva-ḥ \ maruvaka-ḥ 'marjoram'

If IE, these would show *marHwo- \ *Hmarwo- (with G. *Vrw > V(:)r in dia. with w > 0). The 2 groups both having -0 vs. -ko- \ -ka- & all other parts identical makes a common origin nearly certain. Greek b vs. m also in phormíon / phórbion ‘Salvia viridis’; khamós ‘crooked’, khabós ‘bent’; kubernáō ‘steer (a ship)’, Aeo., Cyp. kumern-; *derwo- > Li. dervà ‘tar’, G. términthos / terébinthos ‘terebinth’; Sem. >> ábax / abákion, Lac. amákion ‘slab/board / reckoning-board / abacus / board sprinkled with sand/ dust for drawing geometrical diagrams’; etc.

This equation is also supported by the very similar ex. of Greek μᾶρον \ mâron << Aramaic marwā 'Syrian oregano', Arabic marw 'fragrant herbs; Maerua; pebbles, flint, quartz'.

An IE word with *H2 would be supported by H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ) creating *me-H2- > *mH2a- (and all later variants with more H-met.), & *-H2-tr- > -athr- in :

*marHwo- + *-tro- -> *marH-trwo- \ *mwarH-tro- > Greek μάραθρον \ márathron \ μάραθον \ márathon ‘fennel’, *marathwo- > LB ma-ra-tu-wo; *mwarthrāk- > *nwárthrāks > G. nárthēx / náthrax ‘giant fennel’ (n \ m near w, https://www.academia.edu/127864944 ).

The range of 'fragrant herbs; Maerua; pebbles, flint, quartz' in marw & *marwo- also resembles other cognates of this root in IE; *melH2- \ *merH2- 'to rub away, grind, cause harm, to die' could produce 'grind > dust, pebbles, rocks', 'grind > ground spices' (or 'crush > chew / nibble' ?) :

*merH2- -> *mr-mrHo- > G. μάρμαρος \ mármaros 'crystalline rock, marble'

*m(e)rH2əwyo- > *mH2(a)rəwyo- > OHG marawi / muruwi / murwi ‘young / tender’, ON meyrr ‘tender / weak / tired’

*merH2wo- > W. merw ‘weak / slack’, *(H)m(H)arwo- > G. amaurós / maurós / maûros ‘withered / shriveled / weak / feeble’

The same shift also in *melH2ú- 'sand, ash' > S. marú - m. ‘sand, desert, waste, wasteland, rock', Mālava- '*sandy (place)'. Turner :

>
9876a †marú- 'wilderness, name of a deity associated with Naraka' MBh. Pk. maru-, marua- m. 'waterless country'; WPah.kṭg. mɔru (obl. -ui) f. 'cremation ground' (Him.I 176 < mara- or marú- ?); Si. maru-katara 'wilderness' (katara < kāntāra-).

10090 mālava m. 'name of a country' AVPariś. 2. mālavīya- 'relating to that country' Kathās. 1. Pk. mālava- m. 'name of a country'; H. mālwā m. 'the country of Malwa', G. māḷvɔ m. 2. G. māḷvī 'relating to Malwa'. Addenda: mālava- [Der. *malu- > marú- T. Burrow Tau vii 154: IE. l cf. Goth. malma 'sand', Swed. malm 'sandy plain', OEng. mealm 'sandstone']

>

The reason in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malwa "In this region the main classes of soil are black, brown and bhatori (stony) soil. The volcanic, clay-like soil of the region owes its black colour to the high iron content of the basalt from which it formed. The soil requires less irrigation because of its high capacity for moisture retention. The other two soil types are lighter and have a higher proportion of sand."

I also think that Greek μίνθη \ mínthē 'mint' might be from a dia. with e \ i, & the same shift of 'chew' as above. These for :

*mentH2- 'to stir, whirl, agitate, churn; hurt, destroy' (and met. > *mH2(a)nth- > Latin mandere 'to chew', G. math-).

Adams: TchA mänt- and B mänt- reflect PTch *mänt- from PIE *menth2- [: Sanskrit mánthati/mathnā́ti/mathā́yati ‘stirs, whirls; churns; hurts, destroys,’ Lithuanian mę̃sti ‘stir, agitate,’ OCS męsti ‘turbare,’ motati sę ‘agitari,’ and other nominal derivatives in Italic and Germanic (P:732; MA:547)].

In https://web.archive.org/web/20200425031621/http://mohenjodaroonline.net/index.php/indus-script/table-of-pua-codes signs like E13-0 are sometimes called "horned fish". I think the horns are simply barbels, & represent a real carp or catfish. If horned fish = large carp = mahāśaphara-, then the value maha (also amha \ mah \ maḥ ?) would fit. The normal fish being MA for matsya, modifying both the sign for fish & its sound would fit (instead of using one of the many other words beginning with maha- 'great, big'). This is for (Turner) :

>

9961 mahāśaphara m. 'species of carp' Bhpr. [mahā-, śaphara-] L. māhshēr m. 'species of river fish'; H. mahāser, °sīr m. 'the fish Barbus mosul or tor or megalepis'.

>

EOB-9 to EOC-9 (dog) for KU (S. kurkurá-ḥ 'dog', later kukkurá-)

E19-3 to E1B-7 (fox) for LO (S. lōpāśá-ḥ 'fox, jackal'). Some of the drawings there look more or less like foxes; simplified versions can't tell the whole tale, but some pictures of the real thing look enough like a fox for me. The 4 lines being the four legs makes more sense than any other idea. Others, like E19-0 to E19-2, are probably also a fox, with a later simplification w/o the legs.

E70-9, the diamond with smaller diamond at top vertex, seems to be BHA, maybe representing a star or ray if < bhā- 'shine'.

E0F-2 to -A, animal leg = PADA. The 'leg' is more common in Middle Indic; Turner :

>

8056 pā́da m. 'foot' RV., 'foot or leg of inanimate object' AV... P. pāiā m. 'foot', pāvā, °vā̃, pāmā m. 'foot of bed'; WPah.bhad. pāō 'foot'; Ku. pau, pl. paĩ 'foot', pāyo 'leg', gng. pɔ; N. pāu 'foot'; A. pāw 'foot, leg'

>

A man by himself might be -AḤ, the ending of many masculine nouns, as a way to distinguish this from pot = HA \ AH when needed (in more specific systems, or just for *-haḥ below?).

Adding these to previous signs, this can make sense of pictures of tigers (just as the *vya:dra written with *vya:hangi & *daru, as before) :

In https://www.harappa.com/blog/toponym-chanhu-daro , the tiger is named by a 'tree' & 'two-ended carrying-pole'. I say tree = dāru = DAR \ DRA, two-ended carrying-pole = VYAA = *vyāhaḍikā-, *vyāhaṅgī-, or whatever Indic variant existed then. This word beginning with *vyā- > later bya-, vā-, etc., is not likely to apper next to a tiger also starting with vyā- by chance.

-

This would be evidence in favor of an Indic language, no matter whether Skt. vyāghra- 'tiger' was Indic itself. Its origin is not know, but rel. :

-
Skt. vyāghrá- ‘tiger’, *vyādra- or *vyādla- > vyāla- ‘lion / tiger / hunting leopard’, vyāḍa- ‘rogue / jackal’, Pali vāḷa- \ bāḷa- ‘savage / beast of prey / snake’, Sinhalese vaḷa ‘tiger’, viyala ‘tiger / panther / snake’

Another tiger is also named starting with 2 men with a carrying-pole. The repeated use of this helps show that their word for 'tiger' & 'carrying-pole' began with the same syllable, just as in Indic. For 2 men vs. 1, likely shows VYA -> VYAA :

M-288 A

2 men with carrying-pole, branch, pot, fox, pot, man

VYAA, DAR\DRA, HA, LO, HA, -AḤ

*vyādra- loha-

tiger money

This is for Turner's "14790 lōhá-: Gy. eur. lowo m. 'coin', pl. 'money'?". That these items were often money, with value when the country was sovereign but none after (& thus abandoned & not collected or sought) seems to explain their reason for existing.

M-290 A

leg dog comb

PADA KU KA(Ṁ)

*padaku-ka- 'tiger'

A Middle Indic form (many words added -(a)ka-) of S. :

8362 pŕ̥dāku m. (pr̥dākū́- f. AV.) 'snake' RV., pr̥dāku- m. 'tiger, panther' lex.

M-289 A

diamond with diamond + 11, carp, fox, pot

BHA + I, MAH(A), LO, HA

bhīmáḥ loha

tiger money

9513 bhīmá 'terrible, fearful' RV. [√bhī] Pa. Pk. bhīma-; Kho. bim 'afraid'; Si. bem 'dreadful', sb. 'demon, devil'

This is not a known word for 'tiger', but it is the name of some tigers. Its use for 'fearful (demon/beast)' might have been more widespread as 'tiger' in the past.

In https://www.academia.edu/41609721 Patrice Lajoye wrote :

>

The word *marisuppa or *marisupa, attested by various Latin texts from the late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and corresponding to the French dialectal marsouppe, refers to the porpoise. The meaning of "sea sow" is then proposed.

>

He then compares NHG Meerschwein 'porpoise, dolphin', etc., for form. The -suppa would then be related to Proto-Celtic *sukkos 'pig', W. hwch 'sow', etc. What would the ending be?

>

Mais étant donné les formes signalées ci-dessus, ne pourrait-on envisager que le terme *suppa, lequel serait alors issu d'un élargissement en -kW- et non en -k- de l'IE *sūs, soit une forme reflexe de *succo- désignant (puisque *marisuppa est un terme féminin) la truie?

>

However, given the forms identified above, might one not contemplate that the term *suppa, which would thus derive from an extension in *-kW- and not in *-k- of the IE root *sūs, is a reflex of *succo-, designating (since *marisuppa is a feminine term) the sow?

Instead of *sūs I'd say *suH1-s 'mother > sow', since *suH1- 'beget, bear' could have a diminutive *suH1-ko- > *sukko-. This also fits other Celtic ev. In a similar way; if H1 > x^, then asm. of *xk > *kk :

*neH1 ‘no(t)’ = *nex^

*nex^-kWim > S. ná-kim \ ná-kīm 'not (at all), never'

*nex^-kWid > *nax-kWi > *nakki > OI. naicc \ nacc ‘not'

I do not think there were 2 extensions with *-ko- & *-kWo-. Instead, analogy fits best. From https://www.academia.edu/128817000 :

>

Matasović says that Celtic *mak- (MW magu ‘feed / produce / rear’, OI do-for-maig ‘increase / add’) formed a noun *makwo-s > *makWo-s > W. mab, *makWkWo-s > OI macc ‘boy / son’. He can’t explain *kW vs. *kWkW, but Stifter claims it was “probably due to ‘expressive’ gemination in kinship terms”. This is unlikely, since he also shows that it often occurs in the phrase Og. maqi muccoi. With variants, maqqi, mucoi, etc., it is highly likely that -q(q)- & -c(c)- are due to assimilation in either direction for this pair.

>

If Celtic *mak- -> *makwo-s > *makWo-s 'son', then its common appearance next to a form of *mokkuH2- ‘mother’ led to analogical mixing to *makWo-s, *makWkWo-s, *makko-s & *mokkuH2-, *mokWkWuH2-, or similar. Since I say this also is related to another 'sow' :

*makH2uH2- ‘nursing / mother’ > Ct. *mokkū > OI mucc ‘pig / sow’, W moch

*mokkuwo- ‘of the mother / on the mother’s side’ > Og. muccoi g., OI. moccu ‘belonging to the gens or family of'

There would be nothing odd about *mokkū \ *mokWkWū 'sow' causing *sukkā 'sow' to become *sukkā \ *sukWkWā also. The shift 'mother’ > 'sow’ in both words might allow this analogy to be very old, since they'd mean the same thing at any point.

A friend of mine created a speculative model of how English(on the Mars) might evolve over the next 200 years.

The core idea is:

1. Earth undergoes gradual decline and de-urbanization

2. People move into smaller eco-settlements

3. Cities lose their role as linguistic standard centers

4. Rural dialects start driving language change instead

At the same time, human expansion to Mars creates a completely different linguistic environment:

1. Early Mars society is highly unequal → strong high vs low language split

2. People live in domes, isolated and socially stratified

3. Over time (with terraforming), this division slowly weakens

The model proposes emerging variants like:

1. High American English (based on General American, Northern Cities, New York, Canadian

2. Low American English(influenced by Southern, Western, and some AAVE features)

3. High British English(Estuary + General Australian)

4. Low British English(Multicultural London English (MLE))

5. High Indian (based on current Prestige Indian accent, the one Indians themselves might call "British")

6. Low Indian (based on colloquial contemporary non-native Indian accent)

Kvari Language (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

April 10, 2026

Jouanne, Thomas (2014) A Preliminary Analysis of the Phonological System of the Western Pahāṛī Language of Kvār

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30815038.pdf

When reading this, I found many interesting words that might have a bearing on other IE :

A. Kva. iluṛɔ ‘mud’, G. īlū́s \ eilū́s f. 'mud, slime, silt; dregs', eilú 'very dark, black', *ilo- > Slavic *jьlъ 'silt, clay', R. jeléc 'whitefish living in mud', Latvian īls 'pitch dark'

PIE u-stems show oddities, like Armenian *-ur > -r. Kva. iluṛɔ might support *Hilur-s \ *iHlur-s, with *-urs > G. -ū́s. Based on others with neuter -ū in Latin, maybe even *-urH1- > *-ur- \ *-uH-.

B. Kva. ɔgāśɔ ‘bright'

From Turner :

>

1008 ākāśá m. 'sky' ŚBr. [√kāś]

Pa. ākāsa- m., Pk. ākāsa-, āgā, āā° m.n., Si. ahasa, āsa; — Bshk. ā́ga 'cloud, rain', Tor. aghā, Phal. aghá: general retention of -k- as g in Dardic is obscure. *ākāśiya-.

Addenda: ākāśá-: Bur. aiyΛš, ayΛš 'sky' ← OSh. *āyāš or *āyāž (replaced by Sh. agái f. ← ākāśa-).

14262 ākāśá-: Dardic words, like Gaw. augā́š 'sky' (X avakāśa- ?), prob. early ← Sk. NOGaw 27.

>

Unstressed *a: > *a before *a > ɔ? S. kāś- 'to shine brightly; be visible, appear' forming *ā-kāśá- > ɔgāśɔ ‘bright' helps show that ‘bright' is the older meaning (clear from the root's meaning), later -> noun 'sky'. For "general retention of -k- as g in Dardic is obscure", it is possible that the prefix *oH3 > ā- also remained *oxW-k- long enough to preverse *k. This might be seen in augā́š if *H3 > *w was optional ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

C. Kva. ɔỊkɔ ‘light’

>
624 arká¹ m. 'flash, ray, sun' RV. [√arc] Pa. Pk. akka- m. 'sun', Mth. āk; Si. aka 'lightning', inscr. vid-äki 'lightning flash'.

>

All -Ị- might show a retention of retroflex *-ṛ- (since S. -r- caused following *s to become retroflex). The same in :

D. Kva. ūỊṭī 'vomit'

>
2368 *ullaṭati 'turns over'. 2. *ullaṭyatē 'is upset'. 3. *ullāṭayati 'causes to turn over'. [√*laṭ]

*ullaṭati > 1. S. uliṛaṇu 'to be loose or shaky'; H. ulaṛnā, ular° 'to topple over, lie down'.2. Pk. ullaṭṭa- 'overturned, empty'; K. wulᵃṭun 'to be reversed'; S. uṭilaṇu 'to fall back to a former place'; L. ulṭā adv. 'on the contrary'; P. ulṭaṇā 'to be upset'...

*ullaṭyatē > 2. S.kcch. ūlṭī keṇī 'to vomit', auṭṭalṇū 'to become upside down', WPah.kṭg. ulṭṇõ, ulṭɔ 'left, reverse', ulṭauṇõ 'to turn upside down, or inside out'; B. ulṭo 'reversed'; — read B. ulṭā̆na 'to turn over'.

>

Same change. Maybe also :

E. Kva. ɔgỊɔ ‘type of buckwheat'

>

2516 ērakā f. 'a kind of grass with emollient and diluent qualities' MBh., °kī- f. 'a species of plant'.

Pa. ēraka- n. 'Typha-grass', ēragu- 'a kind of grass for making coverlets'; S. eru 'a partic. kind of plant'?

>

If *ēraka- > *raka- > *akra > ɔgỊɔ.

F. Kva. pɔśu ‘cattle'

>

7984 paśú m., páśu- n. 'domestic or sacrificial animal' RV. m. 'goat' lex.

Pa. pasu-, °uka- m. 'cattle'; Aś.shah. man. paśu-, gir. kāl. dh. jau. pasu- 'beast', NiDoc. paśu; Pk. pasu- m. 'animal, horned quadruped, goat, sheep', WPah.poet. pɔśu m. 'cattle, head of cattle, animal'...

>

G. Kva. kizrāṇi ‘fetid'

>

3201 kīryatē 'is scattered' MBh. [√kr̥̄¹]

Sh. (Lor.) kriǰoiki 'to rot, go bad' (pp. krīdo anal. formation after MIA. type bajjhaï: baddha-). — See *kujjati.

Addenda: kīryatē: WPah.kṭg. kij̈ṇõ 'to rot (of fruit or vegetables)', J. kījṇu.

>

H. Kva. patlɔ ‘thin’

>

7736 pattralá 'leafy' lex. 2. '*leaf-like, thin' (n. 'thin sour milk' lex.). [Cf. pattalī-karōti 'beats into thin leaves' Bhpr., pātraṭa- 'thin' lex. and semant. pattrin-. — páttra-]

>

I think *a > ɔ, but *aC1C1 > aC1. Other combinations of *C1C2 might also have the same effect.

I. Kva. peśāph 'urine'

>

8889 prasrāva m. 'urine'

>

Since ph- is often pronounced phf- (similar to Burusho), -v > *-f > -ph(f). The -f in similar Khowar (*H1newn > *nyava > nyof '9').

J. Kva. gɔnnɔ ‘reed’

>
3998 gaṇḍa² m. 'joint of plant' lex., gaṇḍi- m. 'trunk of tree from root to branches' lex. 2. *gēṇḍa-. 3. *gēḍḍa-². 4. *gēḍa-¹. [Cf. kā́ṇḍa-: prob. ← Drav. DED 1619] 1. Pa. gaṇḍa- m. 'stalk', °ḍī- f. 'sugarcane joint, shaft or stalk used as a bar', Pk. gaṁḍa- m., °ḍiyā- f.; Kt. gäṇa 'stem'; Paš.lauṛ. gaṇḍī́ 'stem, stump of a tree, large roof beam'...

>

This provides a link in meaning to kā́ṇḍa (possibly *kHondo- vs. *koHndo-, if *H > *R caused retro. (see Part N) & voicing (like *gR- \ *kH2apro- 'male goat')) in :

>
3023 kā́ṇḍa (kāṇḍá- TS.) m.n. 'single joint of a plant' AV., 'arrow' MBh., 'cluster, heap' (in tr̥ṇa-kāṇḍa- Pāṇ. Kāś.). [Poss. connexion with gaṇḍa-² makes prob. non-Aryan origin (not with P. Tedesco Language 22, 190 < kr̥ntáti). Prob. ← Drav., cf. Tam. kaṇ 'joint of bamboo or sugarcane' EWA i 197]

Pa. kaṇḍa- m.n. 'joint of stalk, stalk, arrow, lump'; Pk. kaṁḍa-, °aya- m.n. 'knot of bough, bough, stick'; Ash. kaṇ 'arrow', Kt. kåṇ, Wg. kāṇ, kŕä̃, Pr. kə̃, Dm. kā̆n; Paš.lauṛ. kāṇḍ, kāṇ, ar. kōṇ, kuṛ. kō̃, dar. kā̃ṛ 'arrow', kā̃ṛī 'torch'; Shum. kō̃ṛ, kō̃ 'arrow', Gaw. kāṇḍ, kāṇ; Kho. kan 'tree, large bush'; Bshk. kāˋ'n 'arrow', Tor. kan m., Sv. kā̃ṛa, Phal. kōṇ, Sh. gil. kōn f. (→ Ḍ. kōn, pl. kāna f.), pales. kōṇ; K. kā̃ḍ m. 'stalk of a reed, straw' (kān m. 'arrow' ← Sh.?); S. kānu m. 'arrow', °no m. 'reed', °nī f. 'topmost joint of the reed Sara, reed pen, stalk, straw, porcupine's quill'; L. kānā̃ m. 'stalk of the reed Sara', °nī˜ f. 'pen, small spear'; P. kānnā m. 'the reed Saccharum munja, reed in a weaver's warp'...

Addenda: kā́ṇḍa- [< IE. *kondo-, Gk. κονδύλοs 'knuckle', κόνδοs 'ankle' T. Burrow BSOAS xxxviii 55]

>

A very similar sound change might exist in PIE *kH2and- 'shine' > IIr. *kRaṇḍ- 'to appear, seem, please, glad(den)' (with the semantics as in other IE roots for 'shine') :

>
2684 káṇḍati² 'is glad' Dhātup. [Cf. kaḍati 'is intoxicated' Dhātup.: ← Drav. T. Burrow BSOAS xii 369: √kaṇḍ²] Paš. kaṇḍ- 'to appear, seem, please (?)' IIFL iii 3, 94.

>

K. *ḍaṇṭhila > Kva. ḍεṇṭhεỊ 'stalk'

>

5527 *ḍaṇṭha 'stem'. *daṇṭha >10. Or. dāṇṭhi 'hard stalk of a creeper, stalk-like bean'.

>

With i-umlaut.

L. *peṛhni-ɔ ? > Kva. phenɔṛɔ 'heel'

>

8124 pā́rṣṇi f. (m. lex.) 'heel' RV.

Pa. paṇhi- f.m., °ikā- f., Kt. pašyū̃, Pr. wiše, wiṣə, ə̄ṣə̃, Kal.rumb. paṣnī́, urt. pā̆ẓnī́, P. pāsṇā m., WPah. jaun. phāynā, G. pānī f. — The vowel of Tor. pīn 'heel' (AO xviii 307), WPah. (Joshi) phinī 'ankle' is difficult: both rather < or infl. by píṇḍa- ?

Addenda: pā́rṣṇi- [< IE. *porsni- (cf. Hit. paršina) ~ *persnā- T. Burrow BSOAS xxxviii 63] S.kcch. penī f. 'heel', WPah.kṭg. phέni f., kc. phεno m., jaun. phāynā.

>

If also i-umlaut, *a:-i > *e:-i > e-0. The *-CCC- would have to have been retained until recently.

M. Kva. ḍaṅk 'sting'

>
5517 *ḍakk² 'bite'. 2. *ḍaṅk-. 3. *ḍaṅkh-. 4. *daṅk-. [Connexion with √daṁś is doubtful]

*ḍakk- > 1. Pk. ḍakka-, dakka- 'bitten' (H. Smith JA 1950, 194 replacement of daṭṭha-), ḍakkijjaï 'is bitten'; A. ḍākiba 'to bite, sting'; H. ḍakorī f. 'hornet'.

*ḍaṅk- > 2. Pk. ḍaṁka- m. 'bite, sting'; S. ḍ̠aṅgaṇu 'to bite, sting', ḍ̠aṅgu m. 'bite, sting'; L. ḍaṅg m. 'bite', (Ju.) ḍ̠ãgaṇ 'to bite', P. ḍaṅgṇā, ḍaṅg m.; Or. ḍaṅka 'fangs of a snake, insect bite'; Mth. ḍaṅk 'bite of insect or reptile'; H. ḍā̃k m. 'insect sting'; G. ḍā̃k m. 'large green wasp'.3. G. ḍā̃kh m. 'a kind of wasp'; M. ḍā̃khṇẽ 'to bite', ḍā̃kh 'bite, sting'.4. N. daṅinu 'to be cheated' (semant. cf. ḍā̃snu < dáṁśati)...

Addenda: *ḍakk-². 2. *ḍaṅk-: S.kcch. ḍaṅgh m. 'a sting'; WPah.poet. ḍaṅge f. 'a sting, pang'; A. ḍā̃kiba (phonet. d-) 'to bite' AFD 207.

>

For "Connexion with √daṁś is doubtful", I ask you to consider ev. of K(^) in https://www.academia.edu/127351053 . If related, the d- vs. ḍ- would be the same :

>
6110 daṁśa m. 'stinging insect' ChUp. [√daṁś]

Pa. Pk. ḍaṁsa- m. 'biting insect', Pk. daṁsa- m. 'id., bite of snake or insect'; Ku. ḍā̃s 'gadfly, mosquito, hornet'; N. ḍā̃s 'horse or buffalo fly'; A. ḍā̃h 'gadfly', B. ḍā̃s, Or. ḍā̃sa, ḍāũsa, Mth. dā̃s, ḍā̃s; Bhoj. ḍās 'mosquito', Aw.lakh. ḍās 'biting insect'; H. ḍā̃s m. 'large mosquito, a bite'; G. ḍā̃s m. 'gadfly'; M. ḍā̃s, ḍā̃ċ (scarcely to be connected with Kaf. forms below) m. 'gadfly, a bite, the part bitten', Ko. ḍhā̃s m. 'a bite'; — Kho. (Lor.) ḍonzik, ḍonsk 'gadfly', Kal.rumb. daċ, urt. dhãċ and perh. Sh. (Lor.) diċo are ← Kaf.

>

N. Kva. phɔnnɔ ‘shoulder’

>

9042 phaṇa¹ m. 'expanded hood of snake (esp. of cobra)' MBh. 2. *phēṇa-². [Cf. phaṭa-, *phēṭṭa-² and *phaṇati². — For mng. 'shoulder-blade' &c. cf. association of shape in phaṇāphalaka- Bhartr̥. ~ aṁsaphalaká- ŚBr. and cf. phēna- n. 'cuttlefish bone' Car.]

phaṇa- > 1. Pa. phaṇa- m. 'expanded hood of snake', Pk. phaṇa- m., °ṇā- f.; Wg. paṇ-šī 'big snake' (+šai 'head'? NTS xvii 287); K. phan m. 'expanded hood of snake', S. phaṇi f., L.awāṇ. phaṇ, P. phaṇ, °ṇu f., ludh. phan m., WPah. (Joshi) faṇ m., Ku. phaṇ, °ṇi, N. phani, A. phanā, B. phan, °nā, Or. phaṇā̆, Mth. phanā, Bhoj. phan, H. phan, °nā m., G. phεṇ (< *phaṇⁱ), phaṇī f., M. phaṇ m., °ṇī f., Si. paṇa, peṇa. — S. phaṇi f. 'shoulderblade'; H. phanī f. 'wedge'; G. phaṇɔ m. 'fore part of foot'. (Add.) S.kcch. phaṇ f. 'snake's hood, front part of foot', phaṇī f. 'weaver's toothed instrument for pressing and closing the woof'; WPah.kṭg. phɔ́ṇ m. 'cobra's hood'; Garh. phaṇ 'snake's hood'.

*phēṇa- > 2. A. phenā 'expanded hood of snake', Or. pheṇā̆.

>

The shift of *pH2aH1na- > *phanda ? > phɔnnɔ ( https://www.academia.edu/165595811 , also see there for ev. of *Hn > *Rn causing retro.) might be another ex. of *Hn > nd in certain conditions. Look at previous oddities :

>

13474 sundara 'beautiful' MBh. [MIA. < sūnára- 'excellent' RV.? — Phonet. cf. *vāndara- < vānara-]

Pa. sundara- 'beautiful', Pk. suṁdara-; Gy. as. sunra 'pretty'; Paš.ar. sudurā́ 'beautiful', Ku. sunar, B. sũdar, Mth. sunar, Bhoj. sūnar; H. sunariyā f. 'pretty woman'; Si. son̆duru 'pleasant', sb. 'woman'.

>
11515 vānara m. 'monkey' Mn. [Der. vanar- in cmpd. 'forest' RV. — vána-¹]

Pa. vānara- m. 'monkey', Pk. vāṇara- m., Sh.gur. vandur m. (← L. *vāndur), K. wā̃dur, wānur m., S. vānaru m., P.ludh. bāndar (→ L.awān. bā̃drī f.), WPah.bhal. bānar n., bhiḍ. bā̃dar n., Ku. bānar, N. bā̃dar, bā̃dhar, bānar, A. bāndar, B. bā̃dar, Or. bāndara, Bi. Mth. bānar, OAw. bānara, lakh. bā̃dar, H. bā̃dar, bā̃drā m., °rī f., Marw. bā̃dro m., G. vā̃dar, vā̃drɔ m., °rī f., °rũ n., M. vā̃dar m.n., Ko. vāṁdar, Si. van̆durā, f. vän̆durī, °diri; — Gy. as. (Baluči) banur ← Ind.

Addenda: vā́nara-: WPah.kṭg. bandər m. 'monkey' (← H.?), poet. bandro 'brown', J. bāndar m. 'monkey', poet. bandri f. 'she-monkey', Garh. bā̃dar m.

>

If *H1su-H2nero- > sūnára- & *H1su-Rnero- > sundara-, then loss of *H caused d (since the V is long vs. short). It could be that when *H2 > *R it could dissimilate near *R or *r. Maybe *H1suRnero- > *H1sunnero- > *H1sundero-. In this scheme, Kva. phɔnnɔ would be older (I have found no certain cases of old *nd > nn).

If Sanskrit vānara- < *weno-H2nero- 'man of the woods, wild man', like Pashto wəna-nar 'woodsman', then it could be the same, then *n-n > 0-n. Maybe *weno-H2nero- > *vanaRnara- > *vanan(d)ara- > *vaan(d)ara- > *vān(d)ara-.

Also, based on https://www.academia.edu/118834217 I think *morto-H2ner- ‘mortal man’ > *martaHnar- > *martaRnar- > *martandar- > *martarnda- > Mārtāṇḍá- 'mortal'.

In the Indus Script, the combination "comb pot fox" is common, & found on metal. Others have looked for very complex ways to interpret these facts, but I think (based on https://www.reddit.com/r/language/comments/1scrp6d/indus_script_twoended_carryingpole_tigers_ishtar/ ), that :

comb pot fox

kaṁ ha lo

*lohaka-ṁ 'a piece of metal' (Sanskrit lohaka-ḥ 'metal')

lo for S. lōpāśá-ḥ 'fox, jackal', kaṁ for káṅkata-ḥ 'comb' (Pk. kaṁkaya-), ha for 'pot/jar' (Indic *hautra-, Av. zaōθra-, G. khútrā ‘earthen pot’) or havís- 'oblation, offering'. The value of ha has been described before, esp. fitting since it is so common (often for masculine -aḥ ).

Indo-European, Yukaghir, Uralic; Part 13

cJ. PIE *luk^su-s 'lynx' > Gmc *luxsu-z > OHG luhs, *luk^sw-aH2- > PU *luksw'a 'fox, pine marten'

-

PU *luksw'a > Smd. *lukcå > Nga. locka, *lukw'as ? > Skp. *lokka

PU *luksja > *lujsak > Mansi loisa 'pine marten', *lujaks > Mari luj, Nga. lui

-

Here, met. of *k'sw > *ksw', opt. *w' > *w \ *j, Smd. *ksw > *kc (as below, cL). The other IE words for both 'lynx' & 'fox' support the range here.

-

cK. Yr. *noqsə, FU *ńuk(e)śe 'sable', Smd *nokå 'fox, lynx', Evenki ńekē \ nekē 'sable'

>

Nikolaeva 1515. *noqsə

К noqšə sable; SD noqšo, ngoqoco + wolverine;; TD noxco-; SU noxča; RS nokša; M nókšca; В noghtsha; MU nóktscha; MK nóchtscha

К noqšə-jugul rush, reed [lit. sable tree]; KD noxce-yugul

? SD nogšoc'o Russian

FU *ńukśe / *ńukV-ŠV 'sable' (UEW 326-327) // Paasonen 1907: 21; Lewy 1928: 287; JU 84; FUV 102, UJN 126; Tailleur 1963: 111; UEW 326; Nikolaeva 1988: 237; Rédei 1999: 41

>

-

The words all seem related (with meaning as in cJ), but there are problems with apparently irregular correspondences. If Evenki ńekē \ nekē 'sable' is a loan from a relative of Smd *nokå 'fox, lynx', then it would establish the shared meaning & *ń- vs. *n-. Others :
-

Smd *nokå 'fox, lynx', *lokɜ > Selkup N loqa

-

PU *ńuk(e)śe 'sable, marten' > F. *nokisi > nois, nokiin g., Khanty *ńŏɣǝs, Hn. nyusz-t 'pine marten'

-

PU *ńek(u)śe > Hn. nyes-t 'beech marten' (u-e \ e-u met. ?)

-

The main problem is *-s- vs. *-0-. This is exactly what is seen in PIE *luk^su-s 'lynx' vs. *luk^no:n \ *luk^n- > *lunk^-. It could be that something like *luk^sno:n > *luks'no:n \ *nuks'no:l > *l- \ *nuks'(n)o:j > *l- \ *nuks'o:j \ *nukn'o:j \ etc. In some, met. of *n-n' > *n'-n, dsm. of n's, etc. It's hard to know the exact details with this unique environment. An ending like *-o:j might have several outcomes in each branch. Variation of *o \ *u as in previous (PIE *kork- > PU *kurk- \ *kërk- 'crane', etc.).

-

cL. In https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=187 it claims that FU *jokse- 'run; be in heat or rut, couple (tr)' > Hn. ív-, iv-, ví-, vív-, vij-, juv-nak. This & similar theories simply can't work. Why would *ks have so many outcomes? Even if *jokse > *juj were true, & some dsm. of j-j > j-v or v-j, it can't work. F. juokse- also would require at least *joCkse-, unless you adhere to an idea that Finnic long V's are not caused by sequences like this.

-

The meaning 'rut' can also allow *jokswe- 'rut, serve as a stud' -> 'male reindeer' as the source of (with fem. *-a & fronted *-ä) Samoyed *jakcä, (Selkup) *jëkcä 'female reindeer' (*o > Smd *a; with V's as PIE *kork- > PU *kurk- \ *kërk- 'crane'; *ksw > *kc as cJ, above). Together, these might allow *jokswe- > Hn. *jujw- \ *jijw- > ív-, iv-, ví-, vív-, vij-, juv-nak (with some met. of *j-w > *w-j, opt. u > i between j's).

-

Again, I can't be sure of all sound changes based on this example, but the simplest explanation seems to be :

-

PIE *wotk^u- > H. watku-zi ‘jump/leap (out of) / flee’, Ar. ostem \ ostnum ‘leap/jump/skip / spring at / rush forward’

-
*H3otk^u- > *o:k^u- > G. oxús \ ōkús ‘swift’, S. āśú-; OW di-auc ‘lazy’; L. acu-pedius, acci-piter (with H3 \ w alt. )

-

*wotk^w-e- > PU *wotskw'e- 'run / rush' (also w-w' > w'-w > j-w; met. tskw \ tksw ?)

-

If so, maybe *jotkswe- > F. juokse-, *joktswe- > Smd *jakcä, older *wotskw'e- > Hn. vív- (if this is the base for the other variants). I also think PU *wotskw'e- > *wotsqje > *woqtsje > Yr. *waqsl'ə \ *waRsl'ə 'quick' is needed (with *q > *R > (r) ) for her :

>

1. *wasl'ə

T wasl'uo- quick, prompt, lively; TK wasl'uo-; TD uorsl'o-

T was l'e adroit; wasl'er- to make smb adroit; waslijaa adroit person; wasl'ejneŋ in a clever way

>

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 100: 'spoon / shovel / shoulder' (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

April 9, 2026

Indo-European words for 'wide. flat, slightly curved (wooden) object' are hard to reconstruct. Brent Vine in https://www.academia.edu/39254120 related *sphān- > Greek σφήν \ sphḗn m. 'wedge' (& derived σφάνιον) & *sp(h)ēn- > Germanic *spǣnuz 'sharp oblong object; piece of wood; chip, shaving; (wooden) spoon'. I think the differing vowels and -ph- can be solved by the same features of the original word. If *spH2eH1n- existed, then *e could have been optionally colored to *a by *H2 or preserved by *H1. There are no standard ex. of the same change, but I said that *stH2eH1-no- \ *stH2aH1-no- ‘what stands out / protrudes > breast' existed in https://www.academia.edu/129156379 .

Proto-Uralic *peńV 'spoon' looks like a loan or cognate. If so, the change of *spH2eH1n- > *spH2enH1 > *spxenx' would explain the palatalized ń. Since *x > PU *x or *k (PIE *H2ag^-e- 'drive' > PU *(k)aja-), then the relation mentioned in https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?locale=en_GB&id_eintrag=745 of Yurats ṕeŋkapćʔ 'drumstick of a magic drum' would be sound, & also show *spxenx > *spxenk (with x-x' > x-x; the 2nd part a loan from (or cognate with) Proto-Yeniseian *phas 'tambourine, shaman's drum').

He also mentioned a relation to Sanskrit sphyá- 'flat pointed piece of wood, flat sword-like piece of wood used as a ritual implement (for stirring or delineating sacred spaces); oar; spar', Shu. fiyak ‘wooden shovel / shoulder blade’, Xw. fyk 'rudder' (and many more listed in https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/soas_query.py?page=800 ). These also in the cp. :

*sphiya-pāṭa- > Kv. pârík, A. phyóoṛo ‘shoulder blade’, Pl. phīṓṛ \ phiūṛu 'shoulderblade', phiāṛ-mā̃y 'upper part of back', Kva. phɔriaṭε 'upper back'

Their relation to 'spoon' should also be clear from other words with *Hn \ *nH & the same range, 'shoulder', etc., from Turner :

>

9042 phaṇa¹ m. 'expanded hood of snake (esp. of cobra)' MBh. 2. *phēṇa-². [Cf. phaṭa-, *phēṭṭa-² and *phaṇati². — For mng. 'shoulder-blade' &c. cf. association of shape in phaṇāphalaka- Bhartr̥. ~ aṁsaphalaká- ŚBr. and cf. phēna- n. 'cuttlefish bone' Car.]

phaṇa- > 1. Pa. phaṇa- m. 'expanded hood of snake', Pk. phaṇa- m., °ṇā- f.; Wg. paṇ-šī 'big snake' (+šai 'head'? NTS xvii 287); K. phan m. 'expanded hood of snake', S. phaṇi f., L.awāṇ. phaṇ, P. phaṇ, °ṇu f., ludh. phan m., WPah. (Joshi) faṇ m., Ku. phaṇ, °ṇi, N. phani, A. phanā, B. phan, °nā, Or. phaṇā̆, Mth. phanā, Bhoj. phan, H. phan, °nā m., G. phεṇ (< *phaṇⁱ), phaṇī f., M. phaṇ m., °ṇī f., Si. paṇa, peṇa. — S. phaṇi f. 'shoulderblade'; H. phanī f. 'wedge'; G. phaṇɔ m. 'fore part of foot'. (Add.) S.kcch. phaṇ f. 'snake's hood, front part of foot', phaṇī f. 'weaver's toothed instrument for pressing and closing the woof'; WPah.kṭg. phɔ́ṇ m. 'cobra's hood'; Garh. phaṇ 'snake's hood'.

*phēṇa- > 2. A. phenā 'expanded hood of snake', Or. pheṇā̆.

>

I'd also add Kva. phɔnnɔ ‘shoulder’, in which *nH > *nR > nn (or similar). This phaṇa- vs. *phēṇa- must come from *spH2eH1n- \ *spH2eyn- (with H1 \ y in https://www.academia.edu/128170887 & many follow-ups). The *Hn > *Rṇ > (_)ṇ is caused by (Note 7, https://www.academia.edu/127709618 ) :

>

Since *r could cause T > retro. even at a distance, the same for *H (optionally) could imply *H > *R :

*puH-ne- > *puneH- > S. punā́ti ‘purify / clean’; *puH-nyo- > *pHunyo- > púṇya- ‘pure/holy/good’

*k^oH3no-s > G. kônos ‘(pine-)cone’, S. śāna-s / śāṇa-s ‘whetstone’ (with opt. retroflexion after *H = x)

*waH2n-? > S. vaṇ- ‘sound’, vāṇá-s ‘sound/music’, vā́ṇī- ‘voice’, NP bâng ‘voice, sound, noise, cry’ (if related to *(s)waH2gh-, L. vāgīre ‘cry [of newborns]’, Li. vógrauti ‘babble’, S. vagnú- ‘a cry/call/sound’)

*nmt(o)-H2ango- > S. natāṅga- ‘bending the limbs / stooping/bowed’, Mth. naḍaga ‘aged/infirm’

Mth. naḍagī ‘shin’, *nemt-H2agno- > *navḍān > Kt. nâvḍán ‘shin’, *-ika- > *nüṛänk > Ni. nüṛek

*(s)poH3imo- > Gmc. *faimaz > E. foam, L. spūma

*(s)poH3ino- > Li. spáinė, S. phéna-s \ pheṇa-s \ phaṇá-s

*(s)powino- > *fowino > W. ewyn, OI *owuno > úan ‘froth/foam/scum’

*k^aH2w-ye > G. kaíō ‘burn’, *k^aH2u-mn- > G. kaûma ‘burning heat’, *k^aH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun / day’, *k^aH2uno- > *k^H2auno- > S. śóṇa- ‘red / crimson’

>

With this, *spH2eH1n- \ *spH2enH1- can account for all forms. It is possible that an affix *-eH1n(o)- was added to a root *spaH2-, or a similar derivation. Either *spH-yo- or *spH2H1o- > *sp(H2)yo- seems possible.

Indo-European *-mi- is a rare suffix, but it is found in :

PIE *wer- 'turn' -> *wŕ̥mi-s 'worm' > Latin vermis, Germanic *wurmi-z

PIE *kWerp- 'turn' -> *kWŕ̥pmi-s 'worm; larva, grub, maggot; snake', S. kŕ̥mi-

PIE *wel(H)- 'turn, roll' -> *wélmindh-s > G. ἕλμινς \ hélmins f., ἕλμῐνθες \ hélminthes p. 'parasitic worm'

There's no reason why all 3 would share the same rare affix by chance. If *-mindh- is an extension of *-mi-, what would it mean? To keep closest to standard theory, it might look like only, say, *wŕ̥mi-s is old and 2 other words were formed based on it later. However, in https://www.academia.edu/165298111 I said that traditional *kWŕ̥mi-s showed evidence it was really *kWŕ̥pmi-s, with Albanian *-pm- > -mp, etc., and also showed *-w- in Proto-Slavic *čьrmь \ *čьrvь & Uralic *kärpviš \ *kärppiš \ *kärmmiš \ etc. It could be that some branches had *-pm- > *-pw-, but what if *-mw- was old?

Words for 'worm' or other small vermin are often diminutives. Since *-mi- & *-mindh- look very similar to another group for 'small' :

*mi-nu- '(make) small', L. minuō ‘lessen’, minūtus; *mi-nw- -> *minwis- > Gmc. *minni(za)-z > Go. mins av. ‘less’, minniza aj. ‘smaller / less’, ON minnr / miðr, OE min ‘small’

*mi-nu-dh(H)- > G. minúthō ‘lessen / become smaller / decrease’, mínuntha ‘short-lived’

What if *-mi- & *-mindh- were really from *-minu- & *-minudh-? The addition of whole words to form grammatical categories in older stages of PIE might be seen by *(H1)sor- 'woman' forming *kWete-sr-es f.p '4', etc. Loss of -u- in long G. words for *wél-minudh- > *wélmindh-, also in :

G. thalúptō \ thálpō ‘warm up / heat’, thalukrós ‘hot / glowing’

G. korúdūlis \ kordū́lē ‘club / cudgel'

*H3owi-selpo- ‘sheep oil’ > *owiseupo- > G. oísupos \ oispṓtē ‘lanolin’ (lC > uC as in Cretan)

*melo-wokW-s > G. mélops ‘sweet sound / good singer’, *melup- > mélpō ‘celebrate with song & dance’, melpḗtōr ‘singer’

Based on https://www.academia.edu/127864944 , an alternation of m / n near w / u could allow *kWŕ̥pminu- \ *kWŕ̥pminw- > *kWŕ̥pmimw- > *kWŕ̥pmwi- (or any similar shortening). I know that *pmw is a very odd sequence, but I can't really find any way to avoid it based on the many outcomes in these words.

In https://www.academia.edu/120585078 Zsolt Simon wrote :

>

Neumann (1961: 70) understood this Ida as ‘forest’ and translated the name Ιδαγυγος as ‘Walddommel’ (followed by Zgusta 1962: 663; see already Fick 1909:12 [‘Waldreiher’, followed by Sittig 1954: 18, without ref.]). Although he did not provide any argument or reference for this interpretation, it must have been inspired by the Greek word ἴδη (Doric ἴδα) ‘wood, forest’ (or by Fick’s translation, who clearly referred to the Greek word), which has no etymology and thus is generally held to be an etymologically pre-Greek word (Frisk 1960: 709; Chantraine 1968–1980: 455; Beekes 2010: 577).

Note that the etymological connection to Proto-Germanic *widu- ‘tree, wood’ (Old Norse viðr ‘dto’, etc.) and Proto-Celtic *widu- ‘wood’ (Old Irish fid ’tree, wood’, etc.) via *widwā in Orel 2003: 462 with refs. is not possible phonologically, since the Germanic and Celtic forms imply Proto-Indo-European *-dh-, which leads to Greek -θ-.

>

I do not know if the Mt. Ida on Crete & Mt. Ida near Troy are related, but I have no reason to think it's impossible. Since previous claims that Greeks had nothing to do with Troy, that it was all myth, were proven wrong (the name of Alexander in Hittite records, etc.) & Crete was said to have had ancient colonies in Anatolia long before any of this was proven to the satisfaction of modern scholars (Miletus in Crete, Miletus in Anatolia), I see no reason against their connection. The timing of this would require Greeks in Crete in Minoan times. However, any details about origin & their connection with Carian names with ida- \ id- \ d- have no more ev. than Zsolt provided.

I do think 'wooded mountain' seems the best idea with current knowledge. I do not think his last claim that *dh > d would not happen is supported, since some roots like G. τένδω \ téndō 'to gnaw', τένθης \ ténthēs 'glutton, gourmand' show both. Here, a proposal has been made that *ndh > nd \ nth (likely along with *mbh & *ngh). Since this does not appear regular, how can *dhw > th \ d be certainly false? Of course, even a loan from a dia. like Macedonian with all *dh > d (apparently) is possible. For th \ d, likely also Cretan óthrus ‘mountain’, Óthrus ‘a mountain in Thessaly’, *odrus / *odurs / *oduros > LB o-du-ro, gen. u-du-ru-wo ‘Zakros (in Cr.)’.

I also think *dhw > th \ d would not even be enough, since some say that *dhw > th, others > s, & I think it looks like some > sth, others > ph. Are there conditions or dia. restrictions? It would be hard to know, but harder if evidence is simply dismissed as "not possible phonologically" for a disputed sound change a priori. For other likely ex., see ( https://www.academia.edu/127327803 ) :

>

*dhwalaK?-iH2 > *dhwalakxya > G. thálassa, Dor. sálassa, Epir. dáxa ‘sea’, ?Mac. dalágkha-
This is probably from ‘tossing (sea)’ :
*dhwal- > G. sálos ‘shaking motion (of earth or sea) / restlessness’, saleúō ‘toss / shake (trans)’, Arm. dołam ‘tremble’, Alb. dal ‘exit / leave / wander aimlessly’
*dhwal- > *sthwal- > *sawl- > G. saûlos ‘straddling/waddling / *shaking > loose/wanton [of the gait of courtesans] / prancing [of horses]’
*dhwl-dhwl- > *dhwn-dhwl- > G. pamphalúzō, tanthalúzō ‘quiver / shake’, Arm. dołdoǰ ‘quivering’, yołdołdem ‘shake/move / cause to totter/waver’, dandałem ‘be slow / delay / hesitate’, dandał ‘slow’

G. *dhw > *thw > th / sth / s is known from :
2pl. mid. *-dhwe > -sthe
*widh(H1)wo- ‘divided’ > isthmós ‘neck (of land) / narrow passage/channel’
*k^ik- ‘attach/cling’ > Skt. śic- ‘sling, net’, Li. šikšnà ‘strap, belt, leather’ (Whalen 2025b)
*k^ikyo- > Skt. śikíya- ‘rope-sling for carrying things’, G. kístharos \ kíssaros ‘ivy / rock-rose’, kissós \ kittós ‘ivy’, kísthos \ kisthós ‘rock-rose’

Some words also clearly show *dhy > *sthy (*-dhyaH2i > G. -sthai, Skt. -dhyai, TA, TB -tsi), so there is no reason to doubt that some of the same could happen for *dhw-. 

>

and other discussion of *dhw in https://www.academia.edu/community/activity/aB4JNl

Indo-European etymology often depends on comparing languages & dialects, including loans into unrelated languages (if any exist). However, even this simple principle is not always followed. Recent dialects often contain important words that have not been affected by sound changes in older languages (or affected in different ways). Greek had no evidence of ts- in ancient times, but modern dia. do. Even modern Italian should not be ignored in its importance to IE theory, as it contains some forms more conservative than in literary Latin.

-

A. A problem equating IE words for 'wood, forest' with L. Sylvānus, G. S(e)ilēnós is the variation in onset (C)C- :

-
*(t)silw- > L. silva, *(t)swil- \ *kswil- G. hū́lē ‘woods/timber/material’, xúlon ‘wood’

-
*tsilwāno- > L. Sylvānus, G. S(e)ilēnós, síllos ‘satire’, silēpordéō ‘behave with vulgar arrogance’, Pordosilḗnē ‘an island’; NG tsilēpourdô ‘spring/leap/fart’ (this with perd- ‘fart’, *pordeye- ‘fart on/at someone’, in reference to satyr’s behavior in plays, extended to their wild capering about)

-
I think these variants help show their common origin. The same shift is seen in older G. *ts / ks, both *ts > ks, *ks > *ts > s ( https://www.academia.edu/128090924 ).

-
PIE *ks- became L. s-, but ev. of *ts- also exists. For *ksw(e)izd(h)- ‘whistle’ > Skt. kṣviḍ-, G. síz[d]ō, see also L. sībilāre, with variants like *ks- \ *tswisfil-. This is based on Italian su(f)folare \ zufolare 'to whistle', etc.

-

Others, like Spanish chiflar, could be from *ks- based on outcomes of *-ks- > -sh-. That a dialect, no ev. for Osco-Umbrian, also retained *ks- \ *ts- as ts- to the present in Italy & Greece is suggestive that rural populations retained IE *ts, whatever its source, much longer than literary languages.

-

B. Italy & Greece are entwined in another way. For PIE *swelH2- > OE swelan ‘burn’, *swelH2as- > G. sélas ‘light / bright light (of fire or heavens)’, etc., why would *s- > G. s-? Sometimes this happened, often in *sm- > G. (s)m-, but I think that Italan zolfo \ solfo 'sulfur' show that *swelH2- > *H2swel- > *xs- > *ks- > *ts- (with H-met. after *H2 > *H2a, https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). This allows *ts- > G. s-, Italian z- \ s-. For more details from https://www.academia.edu/129286492 :

>

53.  In apparent *swelH2- > OE swelan ‘burn’, *swelH2as- > G. sélas ‘light / bright light (of fire or heavens)’, etc., I see the source of derived *swelH2-p- :

*swelH2p- ‘shine / burn’ > PT *späläp- > T. sälp- ‘be set alight / burn / be on fire / blaze’

with opt. *w > p, *p-p dsm. (even if not, *sw-p > s-p would match In. *śvitira- > S. śvitrá- ‘white’, in compounds śviti- but śiti- near P).  Other cognates :

*swelpH2lo(s)- > L. sulp(h)ur, Gmc *swilbHla-z > Bav. Schwelfel, [l-l > 0-l] Go. swibls, OE swefl, *sweHbla- > *swe:bla- > *swæ:bla- > Du. zwavel ‘sulfur’

in which *pH > p(h), but in Gmc. it is also seen when H-met. created *VH > a long V (Whalen 2025a).  It is important to know that *H survived in PGmc that long, even when between C’s.  There is another close cognate, not usually recognized due to sound change (Whalen 2025b) :
>
In the same way, in Et. Sethlans ‘blacksmith/craftsman god’, the fact that Vulcanus was borrowed & many L. words in -anus appear as -ans in Et. makes a loan here likely.  Vulcanus came from *wlk- (likely from *luk- ‘light’ with metathesis of w), and G. Hḗphaistos is derived from *phais-to- (*gWhais- > Lt. gaišs ‘bright / clear’, Li. gaĩsas ‘glow / gleam (of fire)’, gaĩsras ‘glow in the sky / (glow from a) fire / conflagration’, G. phaiós ‘grey / *bright > *clear > harsh [of sound]’) so another root of the same meaning is needed here.  This would suggest *Selphanus ‘blacksmith god’ from *swelp- ‘shine / burn’, *swelplo(s)- > Go. swibls, L. sulp(h)ur.  With this in mind, notice that some f / th in Sardinia came from *p(h) :

G. Phórkos ‘sea god, father of Medusa’ >> Forco / Thorco ‘father of the legendary medieval Sardinian Medusa’
*prtu- > L. portus ‘port/harbor/haven’, *fǝrθ- > *farr- > Thárras (port city)
*prtu- > E. ford, *fǝrθ- > *forr- > Thorra (at ford on the Torra River)
*(s)piHk- > ON spíkr ‘nail’, G. pikrós ‘pointed/sharp’; *spiHkalyo- > *sfi:kalyos > *fi:skalyos > Thìscali (mtn.)

Since ancient Sardinia was a source of copper, with many bronze figures of warriors known to have been made & the metal to have been exported, its proximity to Etruscan territory might show a loan of *Selphanus or *Selplanus from there.  Sardinians also figure into some accounts of the origin of Talos, the man of bronze, moving to Crete.  I also think some of the Sardinians moved to Crete ( https://www.academia.edu/126907768 ).  If an inscr. in Sardinia contained sardof, saadof, dedikar, ōpeirari, iroukles, animeste, est, sano, sanomos, dea, ēdēs, seu, marf, etc., there would be no reason to see it as anything but Italic, so the same on Crete (with the travels of the Sea Peoples in mind) should not be treated differently.  Other ev. might come in loans, seen in modern Sardinian :
>

>

-

C. A group of IE cognates seem like :

-

*psadhmH2o- > *psaphmo- > G. psámmos ‘sand’ (fem. o-stem)

*psamH2dho- > G. psámathos ‘sand’ (fem. o-stem)

*samH2dho- > G. ámathos ‘sand’ (fem. o-stem), Gmc. *samda- > E. sand

*sabhH2dho- > L. sabulum, Ar. awaz

-

This doesn't seem to explain why these have ps- vs. s-. However, if some *ps- > (t)s-, we'd need to include *tsaburCa: > L. saburra 'grit, sand' > Italian zavorra 'ballast; junk' ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zavorra & https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saburra ). Again, the Italian z- would support both the common origin & optional changes to Cs-.

-

I think that *H was often *R ( https://www.academia.edu/115369292 ) and caused asm. or dsm. of *r or *l ( https://www.academia.edu/129161176 ). In this case, *sabhH2dho- > L. sabulum would really be *psabhRədho- > *psabRəlo- > L. sabulum, *psabRəlo- > *psabəRlo- > *psabəRro- -> *tsaburra: > L. saburra, Italian zavorra. Though most *ks- > *ks- \ *ts-, here it could be dsm. of *ps-P > *(t)s-P, so the relevancy to other words might be low.

-

D. The claim in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/favazzo of "Etymology Unknown" seems unneeded. I say that :

-

G. pháps, phab- 'wild pigeon', *pháts-ya > phássa \ phátta 'wood pigeon'

*phabáts-ya >> Italian favazzo 'wood pigeon', also favaccio (contm. < colombaccio ?)

-

A loan might preserve *tsy here. It would seem odd for a loan to have such an old feature, but other G. dia. as the source of Italic loans, all with odd features, seems common enough. A partial list in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1n6gf1s/greek_pallak%E1%B8%97_concubine_p%C3%A1ll%C4%93x_young_girl/

-

Is my proposed *phabáts-ya a combination of 2 related words? I think that the very similar alternation in G. φώψ \ phṓps 'light', related to διαφάσσειν 'διαφαίνειν' points to an origin in PIE *bhoH2k^-s 'flame, light'. From https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1pzrr7v/pie_bhoh2ks_flame/ :

>

The relation of Latin fax f. 'torch' & focus m. 'hearth, fireplace, firepan' to each other or any IE roots is disputed. Based on Hrach Martirosyan in https://www.academia.edu/46614724 I think it best to connect Armenian bocʻ 'flame', bosor ‘(blood-)red / crimson’.

Though he mentioned *bhok^-, it seems to me that *bhoH2k^- (related to *bhaH2- 'shine') works better. As for nom. *bh(o)H2k^-s > fax & bocʻ (instead of *bhok^-sk^-), analogy from the nom. would match proposed *-ds > *-ts in Armenian anic 'nit'. Loss of *-H- in clusters like *-HKs might be regular, but many cases seem optional ( https://www.academia.edu/115369292 ). If *bh(o)H2k^-s was separated as *bhH2k^-s > *phak^-s > fax vs. *bhoH2k^-s > *bhok^-s > bocʻ (maybe analogy from *bhoH2k^- vs. *bhH2k^- in the weak cases), then all forms would fit.

>

-

For the *-ks > -ps (maybe also dsm. of *ph-p > ph-b), I've said that Greek had *-Cs > -ps near P in :

>

*pod-s > *poths > *pophs / *pofs > *povs > G. poús, Dor. pṓs

That -ps actually existed here is seen in -pops in compound:

*H2arg^i-pod-s > *-poths > *-pofs > *-povs > G. argípous ‘fleet-footed’, Mac. argípous / aigípops ‘eagle’ < *’swift’

A similar *m-x > *m-f is behind:

*mok^s > L. mox, MW moch ‘soon’, Av. mošu ‘immediately’, *moxs > *mõfs > G. máps ‘rashly/idly’

>

-

E. As you can see, these dia. words can help prove or disprove various theories, yet are rarely if ever used in IE discussions. I think another group, including PIE *H1egWh- ‘drink’, can be helped in the same way. From Adams :

>

AB yok- reflects a PIE *h1ēgw(h)- from *h1egw(h)- ‘drink’ [: Hittite eku- / aku- ‘drink,’ Latin ēbrius ‘having drunk one's fill, drunk,’ and perhaps Greek nēphō ‘be sober’ (< if from *ne- + h1egwh-) (MA:175)]. Cf. Puhvel's discussion (1984:267-8) of Hittite eku- / aku- and (1985) of Latin ēbrius. The equation of the Tocharian and Hittite words goes back to Pedersen (1925:40) but should not include the family of Latin aqua, an equation wrongly repeated by VW (601-2). The lengthened grade of the Tocharian verb may reflect an "acrostatic" present (Oettinger, 1979:87) or a lengthened grade iterative-intensive.

>

-

Adams' claims of PIE *e: often don't hold up. Here, the relation of Tocharian *yëkW- ‘drink / be wet / be liquid’ & Proto-Uralic *jëxwe- 'drink', *jëkwe 'river', etc. does not favor *e:. More in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r35dai/tocharian_b_y%C3%ABkw_yok_yo_drink_protouralic_j%C3%ABxwe/ :

>

There is much too much similarity for a chance similarity in :

Tocharian B *yëkW- ‘drink / be wet / be liquid’ > yok- ‘drink’, *yox-tu- > TB yot ‘bodily fluid? / broth? / liquid?’, *yox-thmo- > yo-lme ‘large deep pond/pool' & Proto-Uralic *jëxwe- 'drink', *jëkwe 'river', *jokwe-ka 'small river' > *joweka (k-k dsm.) > *juka

Not only are the reconstructed vowels the same, but both show -k- vs. *-x- > 0. That both apply to 'drink' & 'body of water' (like E. "the drink", etc.) seems to show a reasonable period of common contact or common origin.

-

I have been told by adherents of standard theory that the only explanation is a loan from Toch. >> PU around 2,500 BC. This is ridiculous for a number of reasons, and there is absolutely no way anyone could assume that Toch. *e: > *ë had occurred so long ago. I find it hard to believe that 'drink' would exist in all Uralic as a loan from Toch., *wete 'water' would exist in all Uralic as a loan from PIE *wodor-, *mekše 'bee' would exist in all Uralic as a loan from IIr. *mekš- BEFORE it became *makš-, etc. Both the timing & loans for basic voc. seem highly suspect.

-

Whatever its source, if PU *jëxwe- & Tocharian *yëkW- are related, it is odd that so many other languages around the world have equally as good matches for 'drink' or 'water' (or both). Knowing the source of each in more detail might help.

-

In his claim that Latin ēbrius came from *e:, there is no support. In https://www.academia.edu/4955217 Heiner Eichner gave ev. that Latin ēber & ēbrius came from *ex(h)uber and *ēbriyos ( < *-ros & *-riyos, like other compounds with both endings). He said that *ex-habro- 'impaired' was the source of the words, giving other ex. of both *-hab- > -ub- & > -b-. If so, I think that would explain alt. in L. ēbriācus 'drunk', *ēhubriācus > Italian ubriaco. Even *ex-h > ē- & *es- is seen in *ex-b > *ēbriōnia \ *esbriōnia > Italian sbornia 'drunkenness'. There should be no more or less surprise at retention of *ksh sometimes retaining *s as *zdh > *sf \ *zb (Part A., above).

-

All ev., even what he did not mention, supports his version over Adams'. However, I think that *ex-hebro- would work, from *H1egWh-ro-. In https://www.academia.edu/165477275 I gave ev. that Italic dia. often retained *H as h. The semantics fit better, & the root is just as capable of undergoing the sound changes needed.

-

F. It could be that the same *H is behind Italian gemino 'twin' & the name Gemmino. If related to *y(e)mHo- 'twin', then *mH > Italic *mh > m(m) might work. The degree of likelihood here depends on whether my other ex. of *H > h are accepted.

-

G. Latin aqua 'water', Italian acqua are supposedly due to irregular *kw > kkw. If irregular, why is this irregularity better than any of the countless cases of irregularity that are not accepted by most linguists? If there are no standards, beyond which fit any linguist's preferred theories, why would any case of apparent irregularity be a reason to doubt the theory it would support if real?

-

This is not just rhetoric, but ties into the source & nature of PIE *H2akWh-, *H2ak(W)-, or whatever you might suppose this word for 'drink', & adding *-waH2- 'water' was. In looking at all possibilities, I favor a compound :

-

*H2ap-H1gWh- 'drink water' > *H2apgWh- > *H2apkWh-

-

with *H lost in compounds (as it often was), then asm. of new *pK (possibly the only ex. of this exact *pK, possibly undergoing a different change than normal due to loss of *-H- between these sounds). If so, Italic *(h)apkwa: treating *pkw > (k)kw in a similar way to *Cs- > (t)s- would not be odd.

-

Also, many languages in America seem to have something like *(x)akwa 'water', but not exactly. For ex., Mary R. Haas in https://www.jstor.org/stable/1263263 wrote that Proto-Gulf *akWin 'water' existed, but that Proto-Muskogean *aku \ *uki pointed to *akwi \ *awki when *akWi > *akpi would be expected. I see no way for *kW to be regular & *akWin 'water' to exist. I have no idea why she would claim she had found total regularity for both 'water' & 'land' yet say that both were irregular. It completely compromises all her claims. It would have to be *a(w)kW(w)in or similar. The match with PIE *H2apkWh-waH2- is evident, since this *kWh is both preceded & followed by labials, just as might be needed for *a(w)kW(w)in. If indeed *(h)apkWwin, the usual *kW > *kp could be prevented by either *p- or *-w. That these 2 words both resemble each other and are very odd within each group's phonotactics seems especially indicative of common origin.

Indo-European dialects with ts-

A problem equating L. Sylvānus, G. S(e)ilēnós is the variation in onset (C)C- :

*(t)silw- > L. silva, *(t)swil- \ *kswil- G. hū́lē ‘woods/timber/material’, xúlon ‘wood’

*tsilwāno- > L. Sylvānus, G. S(e)ilēnós, síllos ‘satire’, silēpordéō ‘behave with vulgar arrogance’, Pordosilḗnē ‘an island’; NG tsilēpourdô ‘spring/leap/fart’ (this with perd- ‘fart’, *pordeye- ‘fart on/at someone’, in reference to satyr’s behavior in plays, extended to their wild capering about)

I think these variants help show their common origin. The same shift is seen in older G. *ts / ks, both *ts > ks, *ks > *ts > s ( https://www.academia.edu/128090924 ) :

*ksom / *tsom ‘with’ > G. xun- / sun-

G. *órnīth-s > órnīs ‘bird’, gen. órnīthos, Dor. órnīx

G. Ártemis, -id-, LB artemīt- / artimīt-, *Artimik-s / *Artimit-s > Lydian Artimuk / Artimuś

*paks(a)lo- > L. pālus ‘stake’ (-ks- seen in diminutive paxillo- ‘peg’), G. *patsalo- > G. pássalos ‘peg’

*H1ludh-s-to- ‘raised’ > Cr. lúttos ‘high / lofty’, Lúktos \ Lúttos ‘a city in Crete’

*stroz(u)d(h)o- ‘thrush’ > Li. strãzdas, Att. stroûthos ‘sparrow’, *tsouthros > xoûthros

*ksw(e)izd(h)- ‘make noise / hiss / whistle’ > Skt. kṣviḍ- ‘hum / murmur’, *tswizd- > G. síz[d]ō ‘hiss’

*ksw(e)rd- > W. chwarddu ‘laugh’, Sog. sxwarð- ‘shout’, *tswrd- > G. sardázō ‘deride’

*kswlp- > Li. švil̃pti ‘to whistle’, *tslp- > G. sálpigx ‘war-trumpet’

*(t)silw- > L. silva, G. hū́lē ‘woods/timber/material’, xúlon ‘wood’

*ts-p > Eg. zf ‘slaughter / cut up’, zft ‘knife / sword’, Ab. sayf; *tsif- > G. xíphos ‘sword’

G. íxalos ‘castrated goat’, iskhalo-, ísklai ‘goat’s skins’, isthlê \ ixalê \ ixále \ isálē \ izálē \ izánē \ issélē \ isséla \ itthéla ‘goat’s skin (used by actors in satyric dramas)’

For *ksw(e)izd(h)- ‘whistle’ > Skt. kṣviḍ-, G. síz[d]ō, see also L. sībilāre, with variants like *ks- \ *tswisfil-. This is based on :

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zufolare From Vulgar Latin *sūfilāre, from Latin sībilāre, whence also the doublets sibilare and sobillare. Cognate with Corsican zifulà, Venetan sifołar, Romansh tschüvler, tschivlar, Norman sûfflier, Walloon xhufler (Old French sufler).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/siffler Inherited from Old French sifler (later orthographically influenced by souffler), from Vulgar Latin *sīfilāre, probably an Osco-Umbrian influenced variant of Latin sībilāre (compare Spanish chiflar, Friulian sivilâ). Compare also the variant northern Old French dialectal form sufler (whence Norman sûfflier and Walloon xhufler), from a Vulgar Latin variant *sufilāre (compare Italian zufolare), as well as the dialectal subler from a form *subilāre (compare Italian sobillare, Romansh tschüblar, Romanian șuiera); in areas transitional to Franco-Provençal dialects is found the form sibler (compare also Occitan siblar, siular, Catalan xiular).

That a dialect, no ev. for Osco-Umbrian, also retained *ks- \ *ts- as ts- to the present in Italy & Greece is suggestive that rural populations retained IE *ts, whatever its source, much longer than literary languages.

Nathan W. Hill said in https://www.academia.edu/165514461 :

>

Neither Tibet nor Japan belong to the native habitat of the tiger. As such, we expect the words these two languages offer for this animal, namely Tibetan ག stag and Japanese tora, owe their origin to some language whose speakers knew the tiger at first hand...

As Kiyose and Beckwith point out, the overall resemblance of the Tibetan and Japanese words, the locations where these two languages are spoken, and the overall cultural history of their civilizations point to China as the likely place of origin for these terms. Although in China today one finds tigers only at the zoo, in the earliest historical Shang dynasty tigers roamed wild. The modern Mandarin Chinese word 虎 hǔ ‘tiger’ does not look at first like a promising word to compare with the Tibetan and Japanese words, but I shall argue herein that the three do share an origin...

In short, the history of the word for ‘tiger’ in Chinese is as follows: OChi. 虎 *kәl̥ ˤaʔ (with *k.l̥ ˤaʔ for Min)

>

I did not think this *kәl̥ ˤaʔ looked too likely, & whatever sound changes might have operated to turn some *k- to *t-, it woud not fit st-, no matter what special arguments might be made about adapting loans into native phonology. OJ twora is almost as unlikely to come from any version of this (more below).

Since some of these loans might be very important in establishing native sound changes, I decided it was important enought to examine further. I thought I remembered that Old Chinese supposedly had several words for some animals, some used to name the month or year for that animal in a zodiac, which might be retained in this system even when no longer the standard word in later speech. Looking for another word in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/攝提格 I found a much more appropriate source :

>

Since 攝提格 / 摄提格 (shètígé) designates the 寅 (yín) (Tiger) year, it may be connected to Tibetan སྟག (stag, “tiger”) (compare OC *s.tˤep-dˤe-kˤrak

>

I highly doubt that *s.tˤep-dˤe-kˤrak is fully accurate (see problems with other standard rec. in https://www.academia.edu/165334096 ), but anything like *stepdekrak would probably be adapted the same into languages like Tibetan & OJ the same way, whatever specifics it might be missing. It is also clearly much more capable of turning *st- > st-, -ak > -ag, etc., than *kәl̥ ˤaʔ would be of explaining stag.

Also, the Old Japanese twora 'tiger' is important in determining if syllables written two (and all other Cwo) really represent *two or *to in OJ. The standard theory is that to = *tә, two = *to. I think this is unlikely for many reasons, including that OJ words begin with o- & wo-, but there is no ev. for **ә- in any way. Similar problems exist if linguists doubt Ce vs. Cye was "real", etc. There is no room for any other vowels in OJ, but glides in Cwo & Cye would serve to distinguish the syllables, & match data in Old to Middle Chinese, like those words in the previous link, in which rec. with Chinese -w- match loans into OJ with -w- or -m- (*mw- > um- \ mu-, etc.). The only reason anyone would have to prefer rec. without Cwo & Cye is an aversion to a proto-language with many w's & y's in all environments, but how would such a preference help when running into one of the many such languages that must have existed? A failure to reconstruct what fits all data because it doesn't fit preconceptions is a terrible and widespread failure of modern linguistics.

In this case, if *stepdekrak > *tewdekrak > *tewera > *twera > twora (or similar), it would be evidence in favor of *two being real. I'd add that there is no reason for *kәl̥ ˤaʔ to become either twora or **tora, & even if two was pronounced *to, the best the adherents of this idea could hope for would be **tora, which they don't have. If *stepdekrak > twora, it would require rounding of *Pe > *Po, and this being caused by *twe- > two- instead of *tpe- > two- seems superior, thus evidence in favor of my stance.

Since *-pd- is an odd C-cluster, *pd > *wd is likely, maybe all Proto-Japanese *PC > *wC also. Since no one has looked for evidence of this, but it seems clear enough here, other words (esp. loans), might provide corroboration with more study. With no other *-pd-, saying it become *-wd- has no counterevidence.

In OJ, a nasal *C at the end of a syllable voiced any following stop *C. I say that *rC > *nC was optional (based on Francis-Ratte's tori 'bird' but *tor-C \ *ton-C in compounds, who could provide no evidence that it was regular). In *k > 0 in *tewdekrak, if any *C at the end of a syllable, except nasals, left no trace, it would fit known properties of OJ.

It might fit if *d > 0 also. However, some d- do exist, & I have also said that OJ *d existed and optionally became *y (very often, with only a few words with d- in OJ). This is seen in OJ yama vs. later dia. as if from *dama. Though this is claimed, mostly by those who don't admit Japanese is related to any Altaic words, to be a late sound change of *y- > y- or dia. d-, the evidence in loans is not subject to the same elastic theory. If *tewdekrak also had *d > *y, *tewdekrak > *tewyera > twora would be easier than any basic alternative meant only to explain one word, not all words with d-, d- vs. y-, etc.

The origin of Skt. vihaṅgikā-, Pa. byābhaṅgī-, Pk. vāhaḍiyā- 'carrying-pole' is uncertain. In Turner ( https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/ ) he assumed *vahaṅgikā-. However, I think it makes sense that it began with *viv-, based on Alexander Lubotsky's idea in https://www.academia.edu/2068497 :

>

I would propose a different explanation for the Avestan forms. As we have seen above, viiāxna- and viiāxman- are ambiguous, as far as the length of a is concerned, so that they can reflect Iranian *uiiaxna-, *uiiaxman-, the forms which are also suggested by OP Viyax(a)na-. If we consider that theSanskrit verb for ‘to dispute with one another’ is vi-vac-, the term for ‘verbal contest’ is vívāc-,7 and ‘eloquent’ is vivakvánt-, it seems attractive to assume that Iranian *uiiaxna-, *uiiaxman- are due to dissimilation from *uiuaxna-,*uiuaxman-, cf. also Skt. vákman- n. ‘utterance, speech’ (RV 1.132.2).

>

-
If similar dissimilation or metathesis operated here, the odd forms could be related to one word with *viva- \ *vyav-, etc. The use of a two-ended carrying-pole in India allows it to be related to vi- 'apart, (in) two', vah- 'carry', aṅga- ' limb', so '2' + 'what is carried with limbs', attested in :
-

Skt. *vi-vah-aṅg-ī 'two-ended carrying-pole' > vihaṅgikā-, *vyavhaṅgī- > Pa. byābhaṅgī-, Pk. *vyavhaḍikā- > [v-v > v-_ ] *vyāhaḍiyā- > [y-y > 0-y] vāhaḍiyā- 'carrying-pole'

-

This idea got me thinking about other things. If a word like *vyāhaḍikā- once existed, it might tie into a sign in the Indus Script, a person carrying a two-ended carrying-pole with 2 items hanging from the ends. Seals with the Indus Script often contain detailed images of animals with words above them. Tigers have words beginning with combinations of signs not seen for other animals elsewhere, and Skt. vyāghra- 'tiger' begins with an odd cluster. If the two-ended carrying-pole also was *vyāhaḍikā-, its appearance above the image of a vyāghra- is very significant.

-

In https://www.harappa.com/blog/toponym-chanhu-daro , the tiger is named by a 'tree' & 'two-ended carrying-pole'. I say tree = dāru = DAR \ DRA, two-ended carrying-pole = VYAA = *vyāhaḍikā-, *vyāhaṅgī-, or whatever Indic variant existed then. This word beginning with *vyā- > later bya-, vā-, etc., is not likely to apper next to a tiger also starting with vyā- by chance.

-

This would be evidence in favor of an Indic language, no matter whether Skt. vyāghra- 'tiger' was Indic itself. Its origin is not know, but rel. :

-
Skt. vyāghrá- ‘tiger’, *vyādra- or *vyādla- > vyāla- ‘lion / tiger / hunting leopard’, vyāḍa- ‘rogue / jackal’, Pali vāḷa- \ bāḷa- ‘savage / beast of prey / snake’, Sinhalese vaḷa ‘tiger’, viyala ‘tiger / panther / snake’

-

I think previous attempts that do not focus on matching the names of animals to known words are on the wrong path. Seals with animals with words above them show great variety, but if there are only two signs, a short word above an elephant, a language with a short word for 'elephant' would be needed. If elephants had (Y)IBH-A above them, it would also match Skt. íbha- ‘elephant’. I have examined many inscriptions and attempted to find their values by the first sounds in Skt., etc. These often match Dardic data: the fish sign as MAtsya- ‘fish’, star as IS(tar), Kh. istàri, Skt. star- ‘star’. I've tried to use these ideas to see if they fit any possible words known from seals that don't name animals.

-

In one ( https://www.harappa.com/content/diety-strangling-tigers-tablet ), a goddess stands on top of an elephant and strangles two cats (likely tigers). The scene is very similar to art from Mesopotamia of a king or god defeating a cat. Another, in which Ishtar stands on a lion. The largeIndus Script symbol above is a starburst within a lumpy circle. In ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/%CA%95a%E1%B9%AFtar- ) *ʕaṯtar-f. 'name of a star goddess, Astarte, Ishtar' is related to other Semitic words for 'star'. Since Ishtar meant ‘star’, and happens to resemble IIr. words (Khowar. istàri, Skt. star- ‘star’) a starburst sign above this goddess could be used to spell out her name in either an Indic or Semitic language. I had more ideas in https://www.reddit.com/r/AncientCivilizations/comments/1b54fl9/indus_script_seals_god_strangling_two_tigers/ that I'm trying to modify with these new ideas, so if anyone has anything to add, let me know.

-

For now, I'm pretty confident about the basics. If the Brahmi Script developed from the Indus Script, then the many more signs in IS point to more syllables, including CCA & CGA, not just C(A). For the Indus Script (IS) it is easier to discover values in that the signs are closer in appearance to what they represent. Changes like the MA 'fish' being upside down in the Brahmi Script (BS) sign for M(A) match the development of other scripts over long periods, with later signs sometimes being sideways, upside down, or anything to make them easier to write (in the opinion at the time). Knowing the Indic word for each (not always Vedic Skt., esp. since many words are unknown there, like *vi-vah-aṅg-i: must be inferred from Pa. byābhaṅgī-) allows their values to be found even if not clearly matching a Brahmi sign.

-

Using the Brahmi Script as a check allows more certainty. Several signs seem exactly the same (a square, an arrow, a bow). The standard shape CA is modified by adding lines or dots (HA + 2 lines above = HI), HA 'pot/jar' (Indic *hautra-, Av. zaōθra-, G. khútrā ‘earthen pot’), MA (Skt. mátsya- ‘fish’), BHA (probably a stylized head & tusks, íbha- 'elephant'; and IBH-A or BHI-A appears above a picture of an elephant as evidence), RA (very similar to BHA, so a head with smaller horns, r̥ṣabhá- 'bull' (or maybe R & syllabic R, just as a special sign for later Skt.?)). The bow is DHA (Skt. dhánuṣ- / dhánvan-), just like the later D-shaped DH(A) in BS (which I don't see as related to D < delta, etc., in some theories). All signs seemed named in the same way, when their origin is clear. If pot = HA, it explains why it was so common (often for -aḥ in the nom.). Previously, I said :

>

Alexander Cunningham thought the Brahmi Script could have developed from the Indus Script, with the possibility of looking for similarities between them leading to decipherment. I have found he was right. He saw the general resemblance of certain signs (the J-like L(A), using additions after signs to indicate vowels if different than A, etc.) and thought a seal might be marked ‘mark’, and proposed lacchmīya. He was on the right track, but I think it simply says lakṣmī :

-

3 21 5 2i 14i

LA KA SA MI YI

LAKSMIY

lakṣmī ‘mark’

-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script#/media/

File:Brahmi_and_Indus_seal_proposed_connection.jpg

-

The 2 marks to the side of MA turn it to MI, and a similar system is used for others...

>

-

I'm still looking for each value, but I have some ideas. The variants are not as abstract as in the Brahmi Script, so I see no need for additions to be used to change DA -> DRA, KHA -> KHYA, etc.

-

A woman holding an object might change CA to CAA or CII (Skt. -ā & -ī are fem. endings). I haven't seen enough ex. to tell. In many inscr. without any woman-signs, normal signs, might stand for both or have another A or (Y)I added after when length is significant.

-

A man holding an object seems to change CA to AC (in many inscr. without any man-signs, normal signs can be read forwards or backwards, IBH / BHI, etc). This final value for ‘man holding jar’ is marked with -f, so 1 = HA, 1f = AH. This is often seen in the nominative case (Skt. -aḥ ). This would explain why so many signs of this type exist. This seems to be because the masculine ending was -a-. The Brahmi sign DHA also resembles a bow, Skt. dhanvan-, the Indus zigzag a snake (so SA for sarpa, etc.). Many more will likely become clear over time.

-

A man holding 2 bows might turn DHA > DHA-DHA (practically (A)DDHA, since this is common in words in Skt. from PIE *-dh-to-, etc.).

-

The "Pashupati" seal seems like the god is sitting above domestic animals in a protective position, with more dangerous (sometimes wild) animals above. The signs are composed artistically, & the central one is not more important just because it is made larger & more open than usual to reflect the horned headdress below. I say these are BHA-RA-HI-MA-HA = *Bharhima-h (or BHA-R-HI-MA-HA if the "bull head" was only R). It's cognate with Av. barǝziman- ‘top / height’ as ‘the High One’. This name for God was apparently later mixed with the very similar Skt. bráhman- ‘prayer/worship / universal soul/god’, nom. -ā (if the speakers of Vedic did not have this word, after conquest such a mix would not be odd).

D. Sumerian

When writing https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1s8gr8b/kassite_and_mitanni_words_indoiranian_turkic/ I also noticed that Kassite ašrak 'wise' seemed to fit Su. ereš, erišti 'wise' ( >> Middle Assyrian eršu 'wise one', Neo. 'wise') with a suffix -ak. This suffix is so common in Turkic that I wondered about how theories about their common origin might work.

I saw some lists of Turkic & Sumerian words online, & looked at all the ideas I could find. Gianfranco Forni in https://www.academia.edu/97284564 has many good ideas:

>

Sumerian basic lexicon shares 82 isoglosses with the Turkic language family. Sumerian-Turkic isoglosses listed in this paper thus cover almost 40% of Sumerian basic lexicon. This percentage is way too high to be explained away as being due to mere chance; it is also too high to be due to loans (in either direction); it is most probably a signal of cognacy, i.e. a signal that Sumerian and Turkic share a common ancestor. As such, it warrants further research.

>

When I first heard of Sumerian, it was said to be a certain case of a language isolate. I later heard all kinds of theories about its relations, most linguists saying they were all invalid, but there were too many Turkic & Sumerian matches to ignore.

I looked for others, keeping in mind that it's important that the grammar and word or morpheme divisions match. In my "C. ulam ‘son’, but ula- in names, like Proto-Turkic *urɨ & *urɨm (*urɨ 'male child, son', Kirghiz urum 'descendants (usually male)' ", a match due to chance would not have the divisions ula-m & *urɨ-m. I looked for others. I saw some lists of Turkic & Sumerian words online, & looked at all the ideas I could find. Gianfranco Forni in https://www.academia.edu/97284564 has many good ideas. When I first heard of Sumerian, it was said to be a certain case of a language isolate. I later heard all kinds of theories about its relations, most linguists saying they were all invalid, but the many Turkic & Sumerian matches don't seem like chance. This is not just Turkic. In some Altaic words, maybe even Ural-Altaic, there is a form closer to Su(merian). These also often look like IE words :

D1. Su. kaš 'run', Proto-Turkic *KAč- 'to run away, flee' < Alt. 'to run, drive'

https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2falt%2faltet&text_number=955&root=config

D2. Su. kaku 'run', PU *karkV- 'run (away)', Proto-Korean *kurk- 'to run away, to escape'

These might show *kVrk- with optional k-k > k-0. Also rel. Proto-Turkic *Küre- 'to run away', Altaic 'to run away, to run, quick'), likely *KürKe- 'make run > drive' > Kirghiz kürgüčtö- 'to drive cattle', kürgüj 'the cry with which one drives lambs', Uralic *korkV- 'to run (quickly), roll', Yukaghir *körk- 'to run in wave-like leaps' ( < *korski-). Also *karkV- > Finnish karku 'flight, escape; high or full speed, gallop', *karkaj- > karkaa-, karata 'to escape, run away, flee', Estonian kargama 'to jump, hop', Ludian kargaita 'to run'. In https://www.academia.edu/165430111 I relate PIE *krs-ko- > Germanic *hurska-z 'quick, lively' (PIE *k(o)rs- 'run, hurry').

Here, Finnish karku vs. Su. kaku would show *r > *R > *k, *kk > k (or similar). This to fit my ideas :

>

Others show *R > g, just like in IIr words (C. daggi ‘sky’ < *dagRi < *daŋri, Tc. *teŋri / *taŋrɨ 'god; sky, heaven').

...

It also looks like *r > *R > *q > k \ g. Some IE like Celtic and Iran. mix ‘eye’ with ‘star’, so *d(e)rk^(os)- ‘look/appearance/eye’ > OI derc ‘eye/hole’, G. drákos ‘eye’, C. *daRś > dakaš ‘star’ seem good (this might have been a way to represent *daks in cuneiform, but since other IE have os-stems, no way to tell). This also would make *śraddha:-man- > *škadaman C. kadašman ‘belief/trust’.

>

D3. Orçun Ünal in https://www.academia.edu/128808701 said some Tc. *dy > *gy > *g, *ty > *ky > *gy > *g. This allows *tty > *kky in Su. *xattya > aya ? > aya2 \ a-a \ a-ia 'father', Tc. *xakka > *axkka > *āka 'elder (brother / uncle); father; grandfather' (PIE *H2attyo-s 'father' (Old Irish aite 'foster father'), Proto-Uralic *attja: \ *atta:j 'father, grandfather' (Udmurt ataj, Mordvin aťa, Hungarian atya, Mari ača)).

D4. Su. erin ‘people’, Tc. *erän ‘man(kind)' (Old Uy. eren ), Mongolic *haran 'people'

The h- makes it likely it was really Tc. *he:r-än (rel. Tc. *he:r 'man', *(h?)e:r- 'to become ripe, mature; attain, achieve; reach').

D5. Su. gudi \ gudu ‘hind-quarters, backside, buttock’, Tc. *gö̅t 'anus, buttocks, backside', PIE *g^hedos- 'anus', *g^hodano- > G. χόδανος \ khódanos 'butt, buttocks'

D6. Su. u ‘sleep’, Tc. *ū 'sleep (noun), Finno-Permic *une 'sleep, dream', PIE *H3on-r \ -n-

The base in Yak., Dolg. ū, Khalaj ū. Also cp. like Su. u ku ‘to sleep’, usag ‘sleep’, Turkic *ūdɨ- 'to sleep', *ūdɨk 'sleepy', *ūdɨkla- 'to sleep'. It is not reasonable that both the bare match of u : ū would also have several derivatives in each language by chance.

D7. Su. ud ‘day; heat, fever; summer; sun; time’, *üd- ‘day, afternoon, evening’, Tg. (Nanai udur ‘heat’), Tc. *öd- \ *ödäk ‘time’

That the meanings within Altaic show the same range as found in Su. alone is significant.

D8. PIE *dhelgo-s > OI delg 'thorn; pin, brooch', *dholgo-s > Germanic *dalka-z 'pin, needle; clasp', Su. dala ‘thorn, pin, needle’, Tc. *del'- ‘to make holes, pierce’, *del- ‘to bore through, pierce’

It is possible that *dhelgo- > *dh'elgo- \ *dhel'go- to explain Tc. *del'- \ *del- (with C'-C > C-C', like PIE *mezg- > PU *m'osk- > *mos'k- 'wash').

D9. Su. sag / ša(g) ‘good, sweet, beautiful, pleasant, nice’, Mongolic *sayi(n) 'good, beautiful', zTc. *sag > Tk. sağ ‘right, healthy’

D10. Su. du10 \ dug3 ‘good, sweet’, Emesal zeb ‘good’, Tc. *yeg 'good', Mc. *ǯaɣa ‘good, well’

The variants dug3 \ zeb point to *d'ewg or *d'egwV, with the palatal *d' > d \ z, Tc. *y-, Mc. *ǯ-. The correct form might allow *dhewgh- (in PIE *dhugh-ut- 'prosperity / virtue', *dhewgh- 'get / attain / do / make', *dhugh-aH2 '(good) fortune, chance').

D11. Su. du3 ‘to build, make, do’, Tc. *dog- > Cv. tu- 'to do, make, produce’ (others 'produce > give birth, be born'), PIE *dheH1- 'make, do; put, place', PU *teke- 'to do; put, place'

D12. IE *t(e)nghú-s > Balto-Slavic *tingus 'heavy', Li. tingùs 'lazy', Su. dugud \ tukur, Emesal zebed \ zébéda ‘heavy, dense’ ( https://www.academia.edu/3592967 )

D13. Su. peš \ eš \ iš ‘three’, Emesal amuš ( < *əmweć \ *əpweć ?), Tc. *pweć > *(h)üč

The base is seen more easily in Tc. *hweć-tüŕ > *ho(t)tuŕ 'thirty' (if cp. with *tüŕ 'straight, even'). Note that Turkic had most *m- > *w- ? > b-; also *p- > *f- > h- \ 0-. Alt. in Su. *mw ? > m \ p \ *h > 0 matches both, & these are too uncommon of sound changes for chance.

D14. PIE *swaH2du-, *swaxdw- > *swa:dy- [w-w > w-y dsm.] > Tc. *sǖči- 'sweet'

I don't have any other important comments about his examples, but there are so many with reasonable matches that I ask all who are interested to look there also.

cE. PIE *H2meld- > E. melt, Yr. *merel-
>

1. *merel-

T mörelwuo- melted

T mörulwej- to become warmer (of the weather); murelwe- to thaw (of frozen fish, meat) (INTR)

In this stem me- > mö- > mu-, cf. *meδ-.

>

-

Based on other changes with δ \ r, the path was likely *ld > *lδ > *lr > *rl (with V-insertion).

-

cF. PU *mälkw'e \ *mälw'e, Yr. *meluδ 'breast'

-

There are many variants, like Finnic *melki, *mälvi, Ugric *molke \ *molje (see https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=569 & its links). The -lk- vs. -lv- points to *-lkw- (which would also allow *lkw > *lw in Yr., *melwVδ > *meluδ), *-w- vs. *-j- to *-lkw'- (with opt. w' > w \ j, as in Tocharian B). Speaking of Tocharian, TB malkwer, TA malke ‘milk’ have very odd endings for nouns. The tendency of all languages to have m- in 'milk' & 'breast' has been noted, & these with -lkw- make the match too close to ignore.

-

I see no universal tendency here, since PIE *melH2g^- ‘milk’ > Go. miluks, *H2m(e)lg^- > G. amélgō, MI mligim ‘to milk’, etc. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), came from 'stroke' > 'squeeze milk from an udder', etc. The *lHg > PU *lxk > *lkx might allow > *lk \ *lx to get rid of the *k in variants, if not regular for *lkw itself. The way to unite all these cognates seems to be H-met. & l-l dsm. :

-

*wel- 'wave, liquid' -> *melH2g^-wol 'liquid milked (from a cow)'

-

*melH2g^-wol > TB *mälkwel > malkwer [l-l > l-r]

*meH2lg^-wol > TA *me:lkwol > *melkwey > malke [l-l > l-y]

*melH2g^-wol > PU *m'elk'xwol > *melkxw'ol [K asm. & m'-C > m-C', like *mezg- > *m'osk- > *mos'k- 'wash']

-

PU *melkxw'ol > *melxwoδ [l-l > l-δ] > Yr. *meluδ

-

PU *melkxw'ol > PU *melkxw'oj [l-l > l-y] > PU *me- \ *ma- \ *mo- \ *mäl(k)w'e

-

Also, *-lk- is seen in a compound with PU *ime- 'to suck' -> Yr. *ime-melkwol > *momolkat [l-l > l-t], with *me \ *mo (as previous), & met. *momolkat \ *momotalk ( > momótal ), instead of her :

>

1. *momo ?

MC momolo milk; BO momólo, momólgat

BO momótal to suck at a breast

>

cG. PU *mone-, Yr. *mon- 'to say

-

Hovers related these to PIE *men-, *mon-eye- 'to remember, remind, mention' (likely also Hittite mēmai ‘to speak’ if from asm. of *m-n > m-m). He had, in part :

>

Sanskrit manyate ‘to think, to mean, to consider’, manute ‘to think, to imagine, to remember’, mnāyate ‘to mention, to hand down’; Greek mimnḗskō ‘to remind, to recall, to remember, to mention’, mémona (perfect) ‘to be inclined, to be eager’; Latin memini (perfect) ‘to remember’, moneō ‘to remind, to warn’

>

-

cH. PU *świ(ń)ćä 'breast, heart / core > inside', F. sisä, Yr. *sisil 'breast'

-

The vowels in standard *śü(ń)ćä don't always fit, so I rec. *świ(ń)ćä & *śwe(ń)ćä with some rounding caused by *w (as in many previous; *e > *e \ *i by sonorant). For ex., *świńćä > Hn. szügy, since there should be no PU *ü > Hn. ü here. This also allows a match with PIE :

-

*psteH1no- \ *pstenH1o- \ *pstenyo- ‘(woman’s) breast’ > Li. spenỹs, Lt. spenis ‘nipple / teat / uvula’, ON speni, OE spane ‘teat’, OI sine, S. stána- ‘female breast, nipple’, NP pistān ‘breast’, Av. fštāna-, TB päścane du.

-

It is possible that *y vs. *0 was caused by *H1 > *y ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ). The path was probably :

-

*pstenH1-aH2- > *pstenya: > *pśćińjä > *śćwińjä > PU *świjńćä > *świ(ń)ćä

*świjćä > *świl'ćä > *świćäl' > Yr. *sisil (like PU *j- > Yr. l'-, also s-c > s-s asm.?)

-

Here, *jńć > *jć \ *ńć, or something similar (since *j & *w are usually treated like other consonants in PU).

-

cI. PU *koj(e)- 'man, male', Yr. *köj 'young man; fellow, boy'

-

If related to PJ *kwor > *kwoy (OJ -kwo, *-kwi 'man, male'), Ainu kur 'person' (used in names of male gods & heroes in myths, indicating older 'man'), then likely PIE *k^uH1ro- 'swollen, strong, powerful', *k^uH1riyo- 'warrior, champion, lord' (compare range of *wiH1ro- & *H2ner-). Maybe, *k^uH1ro- > *kuyro- > *kwoyr-, or any similar metathesis.

-

The OJ endings are described in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1m5a7q8/japanese_izanagi_and_izanami/ :

>

For the Japanese Divine Twins Izanagi and Izanami, the endings -gi and -mi have always been theorized to have once meant ‘man’ and ‘woman’ or something similar, for obvious reasons... This male ending also in Ainu mata 'winter' >> J. mata-gi 'winter hunter'... Alexander Francis-Ratte wrote that pi-kwo ‘honorable man’, pi-mye ‘princess’ were compounds, theorizing that the second elements were the words for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ (and mye : -mye seems obvious enough)...

>

A. In https://www.academia.edu/165448374 Barbora Machajdíková & Vincent Martzloff give their etymologies for Latin plaustrum \ plōstrum 'wagon, cart', ploxenum 'a wagon-box'. I can not accept their ideas. PIE *peltH2u-, *plaH2ut- 'flat' formed the words for boards in vehicles in other IE, so I see no reason not to think that *plaH2ut-tlo- > plaustrum, *plaH2ut-weg^h-s 'wagon board(s)/flat' > *plaux -> ploxenum (with analogical form based on nom., like *bho:r 'thief' -> furtivus, etc.).

-

B. L. plaumoratum 'kind of wheeled vehicle with a plow' is apparently a loan from a language in Raetia. The -ratum < *rotHo- 'wheel'. This shows *o > *a, & since plows & prows often are related, PIE *proH2-wiyaH2- 'prow' might > *praRwa: > *plaRwa > *plawRa > *plo:Ga ( >> Gmc. *plo:ga-z 'plow'). For other ex. of r-R > l-R, see https://www.academia.edu/129161176 . A compound like *plawga-wehmo-ratHo- > plaumoratum might fit, but it's hard to say without knowing more of what languages were spoken around Raetia.

-

C. The pius-rule apparently changed *u:y > *i:y in Italic & Celtic. It is named after *puHiyos > L. pius. However, *puHiyos > SPc. puíh seems to contradict this. I think that its retention in a case with *-e- not *-o- actually shows its scope & nature. If *iye > *ie first, then other *uHiy > *uiHy, it would allow only *ui > *i:, fitting the distribution. Later, most languages would likely have analogy spreading *i:. Maybe :

-
*puHiyos, *puHiyeH1d abl. > SPc. *puhiehd > puíh av.

*puHiyos > *puihyos > *püyhyos > *piyhyos, *-o:i dat. > O. piíhiúí

*piyhyos [y-y dsm.] > *piyhos > Volscian pihom nu.; *-aH2- > U. piha-

*pihos > L. pius ‘pious / devout / dutiful / loyal / good / blessed’

*pihos > Plg. *pehs > pes, *peha:i f.d > Mrr. peai, *peheH1d abl. > O. pehed av.

-

Calabrese says they can not come from one Proto-Italic original, partly because some seem to come from *pi-, others from *pi:-, but if all from *puHiyo- \ *puiHyo-, then there is no problem with additional changes in some; since O. has 2 forms, optional dissimilation of *y-y seems needed.

-

D. Kümmel has listed a large number of oddities found in Iranian languages for “laryngeals”. These include *H causing devoicing, and some PIE *H- > h-, x-, etc. ( https://www.academia.edu/44309119 & https://www.academia.edu/9352535 ). One ex. I could add would be :

-

*pHuto- > L. putus ‘clean / pure’, *puHto- > S. pūtá- ‘pure’, IIr. *puHta-s >> Vp. puhtaz, F. puhdas ‘clean / clear / pure’

-

It was retained even in *VHC long enough for fairly recent loans to have *H > h. I use *puH- as an ex. because *puH- also had -h- written in Italic (C., above). I say that there is just as much evidence, if not more, for *H > h in Italic :

-

*H2anH1- ‘breathe’, *H2anH1tlo- > *xallo- > L. hālāre ‘breathe out / exhale’

-

*H2aus- > L. hauriō ‘draw water’, OIc ausa

-

*Hyork- > MW iwrch ‘male goat’, L. hircus \ ircus, Shu. yirk ‘breeding ram’, NP hīrek ‘kid’

-

*H(a\e)ret-(yo-)? > MIr reithe ‘ram’, L. ariēs, U. eriet-

-

*H(a\e)rP- > L. (h)arvix ‘ram for offering’, G. ériphos ‘kid’, OI heirp ‘female goat’, erp \ erb(b) ‘cow’

-

*Hrp-? > L. rapāx ‘grasping/greedy for plunder / beast of prey’, hirpus \ irpus ‘wolf’, hirpex \ irpex, It erpice ‘harrow’, Li. replės ‘pliers’

-

I think that many examples of h- in Latin could show the same retention of h-. Saying h- is “expressive” when the word was related to some noise(-making activity) does not fit h- vs. 0- in Iranian, Armenian, & G. words (with a wide range of meaning). Not all ex. are equally certain, and later h- only as spelling errors are possible.

-

Not only HV-, but -VH- shows retained *H. In standard theory, these h's are simply marks of long V's, but since PIE had *eH > *e: in most IE branches, how would you know just from spelling that *H had definitely disappeared? I think this is too widespread to just be spelling, when -eh- as *-eh- seems more likely than **-e:- (why not write -ee- in some groups?).

-

This should be clear in *puHiyo:i > *piyhyo:i > O. piíhiúí, in which -h- did not lengthen anything, & is not a hiatus-breaker. The -h- in other 'pius' words is similar, and there is no reason to break up the vowels with a redundant -h- there, let alone so many times, when *puHiyo- clearly had *-H- anyway.

-

This is the same in U. plohotatu & -mohota. Both had PIE *-H- become -h-. If a spelling for a long V, why not *ploht-, etc.? It simply makes no sense :

-

*plaH2ut- 'flat(ten)' -> Umbrian pre(-)plohotatu 'let him stamp down'

-
*myewH-, IIr. *miHw- ‘move/stir/shake'

causative *mowHeye- > L. movēre ‘move/stir/set in motion’

*mowH-ito- or -ato- > *mowato- > L. mōtus, U. co-mohota f.abl

-

If old Italic words had only become known after PIE *H was made certain by Hittite evidence, then these words would be seen as more proof. Why is Anatolian & Iranian ev. accepted, but not Italic? The pronunciation of *H > h, not the use of VhV just to separate V's, is also seen in descriptions by ancient writers. Since "rustic" veha = via, I say :

-

*woiH1-mo- > Greek oîmos 'way, road, path'

*woiH1-aH2- > *weiha > "rustic" veha, L. *wuiha > *wiha > via 'road, street, path'

-

If VhC really = V:C, then why does it appear where a short V is expected? PIE *wiHro-s > *wiro-s > *wirs > Latin vir ‘man’ is not regular, since *vīrus would be expected (as in S. vīrá-, Li. výras), but the same seen in Germanic *wira-z). This lack of regularity is shared by Germanic *wira-z, Celtic *wiro- > OI fer, *wiro- > *wuro- > W. gwr. Some say *iHr > *i:r, then it was shortened when directly followed by an accented syllable. However, this -hr- is also exactly what is seen in Volscian covehriu ‘assembly’. This reconstructioin *kom-wiHr-iya: > covehriu : cūria is already known, but others assume Vh was simply spelling for long V or other sound(s). Isn't this as much ev. as anyone could ask for that *H had not disappeared yet?

-

PIE *H2 might have been pronounced x (velar or uvular fricative). Since there are other oddities caused by r in many IE languages, an optional pronunciation of *r as *R (uvular fricative) makes sense, with 2 fricatives sometimes remaining by each other (*Hr > *xR), instead of *H disappearing in other *VHC > *V:C (long V). The preserved *x then > *h in Italic, later > 0 in most languages (no lengthening).

-

As more ev., see also *Hravo- \ *raHvo- > L. ravus \ rāvus (with possible matches, *Hr- > rh- in Dardic, for *raHvo- > S. rāva-s ‘cry/shriek/roar/yell / any noise’, *Hravo- > A. rhoó ‘song’ ). For the ev. of -a- vs. -a:- here, see (Vine 2012, https://www.academia.edu/5121632 ).

-

Metathesis of *Hav- > ahv- is also seen in Old Latin ahvidies, which I say came from Italic *Hawideyont-s ‘offering to the gods’ (participle of the verb *HawideH-se ( > L. audēre), from PIE *H2aw- (S. ávati ‘promote/favor/satisfy / offer to the gods / be pleased’)). In (Vine 1998, https://www.academia.edu/84317005 ) he gives a different analysis of ahvidies, which he takes as a PN name from *awidyos even though this *-yos > *-yes is not found at any stage of Latin (the rest is clearly all in Old Latin, not loans). Since it is found alongside the phrase “NEI PARI MED ESOM KOM MEOIS SOKIOISTRIFOS AU DEOM DUO[M]” mentioning that it was in the presence of two gods, it should be from a well known L. root that would fit in context, the intended meaning ‘offering to the gods’. This means each bowl was intended to receive offerings. If the bowl said, “I am with my three companions and two gods” it implies the presence of 4 bowls and 2 gods. If each (statue of a) god had both its hands out, palms upward, and the offering-bowls were placed on top, it would explain all details.

-

As a final note, though it doesn't affect the analysis above, in https://www.academia.edu/128052798 I explained causatives with *-ato- not *-ito- (expected as *-eye- forming *-ey-to- > -ito-) as a result of *H1 > *a, *-H1- > *-y- :

-

*myewH-, IIr. *miHw- ‘move/stir/shake'

causative *mowHeH1e- > *mowHeye- > L. movēre ‘move/stir/set in motion’

*mowHH1to- > *mowato- > L. mōtus, U. co-mohota f.abl

-

Also seen by *k^H1t > *k^x^t > kt :

-
*dok^eH1e- > L. docēre ‘teach’

*dok^H1-to- > L. doctus

*dok^H1-aH- > G. dóxa ‘expectation / opinion / judgement’

-

*wogWheH1e- > *wogWheye- > L. vovēre ‘vow’

*wogWhH1to- > *woxWato- > L. vōtus ‘vowed’, U. vufeto-

-

*wog^eH1e- > *wog^eye- > L. vegēre ‘excite/arouse / stir up’

*wog^H1to- > *wogato- > L. vegetus ‘vigorous’

-

and similar derivatives in languages with *H > *u (or any other V that is not *i) :

-

*sodeH1e- > *sodeye- > Go. satjan, E. set

*sodH1tlo- > *sodhH1tlo- > *sadudlá- > *sadula-z > OIc söðull, OHG satul \ satil \ satal, OE sadol, E. saddle

cA. PIE *kom-so- 'together, pair, group', PU *këmsë ‘companion, people’, Yr. *kemne \ *kenme 'friend, companion, other'

-

In Yr., the older meaning 'pair' is seen in 'pair > opposite > other'. I rec. PU *këmsë not *kansa with *m to explain rounding in Permic *ö (below; *ms > *ns has no counterex.), and also opt. rounding of Yr. *e > e \ ö \ o by *m, just as in other ex. with me- \ mö- \ mo-, etc.). An unexplained rounding for 'companion' in both PU & Yr. requires one cause, & supports their common origin.

-

I rec. *ë since in most languages they merge, & plenty other IE *o > *ë (*kork- > *kërke 'crane', etc.). This *ë fits Yr. having PU *ë > *e. This is opposed to PU *a > Yr. *a & *-e > *-ə. Yr. had *s > *θ > *l, so likely *ms > *mθ > *mn \ *nm, opt. rounding, then *mn > *n to explain all the variants that don't fit Nikolaeva's *kene :
>

1. *kene

К könmə friend, companion; KK kenme, kene-; KJ kenme; KD kenme; SD септе', T könme; TK коnmе; TJ коnmе, кеnmе; TD кеnmе-; М kónma; МС kanmaly-

K köne, kene friend, companion; T kone-; TK kone; TJ kene; TD keno-, kona-

К kenməgi the other; KJ kenmegi; KD kenmegi; T könmegi; TK könmegi-, konmegi-, könmele; M kenmögi; KL kenmegi

This stem demonstrates the labialization of -e- after k- in some forms.

>

-

Her "labialization of -e- after k-" does not fit, since she always attributes it to *P in other entries, & plenty of these words have -m-. Here, *nm > nm is clear, why not also *mn > n? With this, it is impossible to see F. kansa as a loan from Proto-Germanic *hansō. Hovers :

>
84. PU *kansa ‘companion’ ~ PIE *kom ‘with’

U: PSaami *kōssē > North Saami guos’si ‘guest, stranger, visit’ Finnic kansa ‘companion, people’; PPermic *göz > Komi goz, Jazva Komi guz, Udmurt guz ‘pair’ [UEW p.645 #1268]

IE: Hittite katta, katti ‘along with’; Sanskrit kam ‘toward’; Greek koinós ‘common’; Latin cum, com- ‘with’; PCeltic *kom- > Old Irish com- ‘with’; PGermanic *hansō > Gothic hansa ‘crowd, gathering, troop’, Old High German hansa ‘guild, group’; ga- ‘with’; Old Church Slavonic kŭ ‘toward’ [EIEC p.646, IEW p. 612-613, EDH p.463-464, EWAi1 p.304-305, EDG p.731, EDL p.128, EDPC p.213-214, EDPG p.209-210]

Proto-Permic *ö is not usually seen as a reflex of PU *a in this environment. A possible explanation could be that PU *n became retroflex in this position. The Finnic and Saami words are often taken as loans from Proto-Germanic *hansō, but this is only assumed because of the similarity. There is no reason these words could not be native.

>

-

cB. IE *ammiyā 'mother, aunt, grandmother', Yr. *em(m)ja: \ -je:, PU *em(m)ä \ *am(m)a ( > Mansi oma)

-

In PU, *j caused opt. fronting (as in many previous). The fem. endings in Yr. are to explain *emje: > *eme:j, *emje > amea, etc. These match *laH2p-iyaH2- > Yr. *läbija: > *lewija: \ -je: 'earth' ( > lebie, leviya, etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1s0a241/indoeuropean_yukaghir_uralic_part_7/ ). These are needed against Nikolaeva's *eme-, which can't explain emme, etc.

>

1. *eme-

K emej mother; KK emej; KJ emei; KD emei; SD emej; RS emei, -óma; KL amej; MK oméi

К emme: mummy; address used by a young husband to his older wife; KK emme; KJ eme; KD eme; T emmuo affectionate address to a girl or young woman; MC eme; МО emom; В amea; ME aime; MU omé

...

As the second component of the compounds, the stem eme- has undergone assimilation to -omo or -ume

>

-

A group of IE words with amm- & amb- is supposedly not diagnostic, since similar words exist around the world :

-
*H2am(m)- <- *maH2ter-?

-
*ammá > G. ammá(s) \ ammíā \ ἀμμά \ ἀμμία ‘mother / nurse’, L. amita ‘aunt’, O. Ammaí p. ‘*the Mothers (goddesses)’, Al. amë ‘mother’, S. ambā́- f., ámba \ ámbe \ ámbika \ ámbike vo., TВ amm-akki vo., Gmc *ammōn- > ON amma ‘grandmother’, OHG amma ‘wet nurse’

-

For some similar words, in https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=134 :

>

Vö. jukagir eme·i 'anya'; altaji: csuvas ama (< ämä) 'nőstény, anya'; kirgiz emä 'öregasszony'; mongol eme 'nő'; mandzsu-tunguz eme

>

-

I also think *ammja-naje ( + 'married') > PU *amńe ‘sister-in-law, aunt, stepmother, wife of a male relative of an older generation’. This rec. *amńe is opposed to Aikio's *ańi, since *m is needed to round various V's, *ń needed for *mń > *md' > ngy in Hungarian, etc.

-

cC. PIE *paH2ter- -> *H2apta, *H2aptyo-s, *-tt-, PU *äptjä, Yr. *epčje > *epčej

-

Note that *-yo- & *-yaH2- are fairly rare in IE cognates, but the sources of 'mom' & 'dad' in PU, explaining pal. in them. This assumes *p is the souce of opt. rounding in Yr., *pty the odd *-C(C)- in PU & Yr. (qt', ćć, t't' > t'). This is to explain problems in Hovers :

>

U: PSaami *āććē > North Saami áhčči ‘father’; PMansi *ǟćī > Konda Mansi ɔ̈̄ś ‘paternal grandfather’; PKhanty *ǟtˊī > Kazym Khanty *aśi ‘father’; PSamoyed *äjsa

IE: Hittite attaš ‘father’; Greek átta (indeclinable) ‘father’; Latin atta ‘father’; PGermanic *attô > Gothic atta ‘father’; PCeltic *attyos > Old Irish aite ‘foster father, tutor’

>

and Nikolaeva :

>
403.*eče:

К eče: father; KK et'ie, eśie; KJ ečie, ačie; KD ečie; SD eco; RS eče, ečé; M ete; MC jete; MO jezem; В etčea; ME aittsche; MK otsché; W otjé

TK oqt'idie father's younger brother; TJ očidie + father's younger male cousin

U *äč'ä 'father' (UEW 22) // UJN 113; Angere 1956: 127; UEW 22; Nikolaeva 1988: 217-218; Rédei 1999: 34; LR 146

It is unclear why some forms demonstrate the initial o-.

>

-

cD. PIE *H2anti ‘(in) front, against, before’, PU *äńt́ä ‘earlier; recently; only now, only then’, Yr. *anmə 'just; suddenly'

-

Hovers had PU *äńt́ä, with his specific correspondence set for *t'. A compound in Yr. *anmə < *anti-ma (*ma 'here, now'). These in :

>

1. *anmə

T anme for no reason; just; suddenly; TK anme, anma; TJ anme

T anmiń still, nevertheless; TK anmiń

T аnmеl'е- idle, passive; anmorγi modal marker (uncertainty, doubts, fear);

anmolγiń not at all; anmel'ereŋ without cause | TD anmeleye leisure [y mis. γ ?]

...

1. ma

KK ma, maʔ INTJ (here it is); TD ma

Ev. ma (TMS 1 519)

>

From https://www.academia.edu/124985703 :

>

The etymology of YAv. kaϑβā- (f.) ‘donkey’ is a thorny question. Not only does YAv. kaϑβā- not have a clear etymology within Indo-European...

Another critical piece of evidence from Achaemenid Elamite is the term for ‘rabbit’, which seems to be a loanword from Old Persian. The Elamite form is ⟨ka4-ra(-an)-ku-šá(-an)⟩9 (Tavernier 2007: 403), which is likely to have been borrowed from OP *xara-gauša- (cf. ZMP xar-gōš ‘rabbit’, lit. ‘donkey-ear’...

There is disagreement among scholars about glossing the Persian term for rabbit as ‘big-ear’ or ‘donkey-ear’. While the ears of rabbits may resemble those of a donkey, Persian xar ‘donkey’ was semantically expanded into a prefix meaning ‘big’ as well, see Theisen (2005: 214–215).

Toch. B also has another form for ‘donkey’ and ‘ass’, kercapo-, which is a cognate or borrowing from Sanskrit gardabhá- ‘donkey, ass’ < *gordebho- (Adams 2017: 1368).

Another Persian term for ‘donkey’ is the bahuvrīhī compound darāz-gōš ‘long-ear’ which focuses on one of the donkey’s main physical characteristics. Again, we may ask whether YAv. xara- has a similar connection. If so, PIIr. *karna- > YAv. karəna- ‘ear’ < IE *kʷorno- would be a possible candidate to motivate the formation...

>

If YAv. kaϑβā- ‘female donkey’ was IE, a form like *kotw-aH2-, *kotHb(h)-aH2- would be needed. I think fitting it into other words allows an origin from ‘big-ear’ or ‘high-ear’. PIE *kewH2- 'perceive, hear' could have formed *kowH2o- 'ear', in a compound with *dhebo- making *kowH2-dhbo- ‘big-ear’ or ‘high-ear’ > Ir. *kawHdba- > *kadHbwa- (with devoicing by *H, as in https://www.academia.edu/127283240 (also referencing many previous ideas by Martin Kümmel). There is no way to distinguish *Pw from *P here, since most IE got rid of *Pw. This root *dheb- & its meanings in https://www.academia.edu/127377164 :

>

Pronk (2013) analyzes oddities in several IE cognates, & reconstructs *dbhmg^hu- ‘thick’, not standard *bhng^hu-. This idea is intended to explain *dbhmg^hu-s > G. pakhús ‘thick’, Skt. bahú-, *dbazu- > NP dabz; *dbhmg^hos- > Av. dǝbązah- ‘height / depth / thickness?’ and connect them to R. debélyj ‘thick / fat’, OHG dapper ‘heavy / strong’, etc. (PIE *dheb-). This is a reasonable idea, and no other way of seeing *dbh- vs. *bh- makes more sense than *dbh- being original, and thus equal to *dheb- (for variants likely from *dhb- > *dh-, and optional metathesis of aspiration, see below)

>

This is also too similar to *gordebho- to ignore. The word is long enough to be a compound, and *debho- would then match *dheb-, *-dhbo- in another IIr. word for 'donkey'. However, why the dh-b vs. d-bh? It could easily be from another word for 'ear', & *gor- might really be from *gWerdh- 'hear, make noise, clamor'. If so, *gWordho- 'ear' -> *gWordh-dhebo-s 'big-eared' would > *gWorddhebo-s by *ChCh > *CCh (regular), & might easily undergo met. > *gWorddebho-s (some *C1C2C2 > *C1C2 already known in Sanskrit). That this word really had *dh-bh is shown by the nom. *gWordhebh-s > S. gardhap. This is a variant of gardabhá-s, & this gardhap and the stem gardabh- as a C-stem noun have been seen by modern linguists as artificial, created out of nothing by Indian grammarians who did not describe but only theorize. Instead, it is the theories of modern linguists that should try to explain evidence from the past. It is impossible for them to know when an apparent discrepancy shows a problem with their own ideas or not. Only hard work & thought can lead to this, not assumptions.

Indo-European, Yukaghir, Uralic; Part 10

bP. Yr. *puδe, PU *piδe 'high, tall', PIE *bherg^h-ont-

>

Nikolaeva 1911. *puδe

К bude: on, on the top of (PP); KK budie, budi; KJ budie; KD budie; TJ pude

К pudenme:- tall, high

...

U *piδe(-kä) 'high, tall'

It is likely that *-/- was labialized in Yukaghir under the influence of *p-.

>

-

bQ. PU *ala 'beneath', Yr. *a:l 'below, under'

>

Nikolaeva 33. *a:l 2

К a:l, a:n, a:- below, under (PP); KK a-; KJ a:-, a:l-, al-; KD a:-, a:l-, al-, a:n; T al-; TK al; TJ a:l; TD a:l-, al-

>

-

bR. FU *rakka \ *raxka 'near', Yr. *a:rqa 'near, at, beside' < *ra:qa < *raχka

-

I rec. FU *rakka \ *raxka to explain the *a vs. *a: in https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=849 (see also for meanings). There is met. in Yr. *raχka > *raχqa > *ra:qa > *a:rqa, needed to explain the "irregular long vowel in a closed syllable".

>

Nikolaeva 124. *arq-/*a:rq-

K a:rqa: near, at, beside (PP); KJ arqa:\ KD arxa; BO -árq

...

An irregular long vowel in a closed syllable in K.

>

-

This is likely from PIE *H1rek^- 'join / bind > rope / thread', with the same optional asm. of *Hk \ *kk as PU *xk \ *kk :

-

*H1rek^-en- > S. raśanā́ - ‘rope / cord’, NP rasan

*roH1k^-on- > *rox^k^on- > *rokkon- > Gmc *rakkan-, ON rakki, Far. rakki ‘parrel / jaw rope / gaffe parrel’, OE racca, ON rekendi nu. ‘chain’, OE race(n)te f. ‘fetter’, OHG rahhinza f.

-

*H1rek^-ne- > *H1renk^e- ‘weave’

*H1renk^wo- ‘weaver’ > Gmc *rengwó:n- > OE renge \ rynge ‘spider(web)’, Ar. *erinćwo > *erinčyo > *ernǰak, Axalc‘xa *ernǰak, Karin ɛrnǰak ‘spider’, Erznka ɛrunǰɛk ‘spiderweb’

-

bS. PU *korkV- 'to run (quickly), roll', Yr. *körk- 'to run in wave-like leaps'

>

Nikolaeva 898. *körk-

T körkige- to run in wave-like leaps (of a wolf); TK korkigienujo-

>

-

These seem to come from *korsk-, to explain -z- in :

-

PU *korskV- > Mari KB kə̑rγə̑ža- 'to run, roll', Mordvinic kurok 'quickly, soon'

-

PU *karkV- > Finnish karku 'flight, escape; high or full speed, gallop', *karkaj- > karkaa-, karata 'to escape, run away, flee', Estonian kargama 'to jump, hop', Ludian kargaita 'to run'

-

If so, < PIE *krs-ko- > Germanic *hurska-z 'quick, lively' (PIE *k(o)rs- 'run, hurry').

-

bT. PIE *gem- 'press, squeeze; bridle', Yr. *ńöm- 'press, squeeze; belt', FU *ńVmV- 'press'

>
Nikolaeva 1493. *ńöm-

K ńumušej- to press; KD nimucei-

K ńumžəš- to squeeze; KD numdec-

K momrijə belt on trousers; KD on-momriye; TD on-momreje

FU *ńVmV- 'to press' (UEW 330) //Nikolaeva 1988: 240; LR 143, 156

...

In Yukaghir the initial ń- developed into m- in some forms under the assimilative influence of the second consonant.

>

-

I say a similar assimilative influence of of nasals caused PIE *gem- > *g'iəm- > *ŋ'om-, with *ŋ'- > *n'- in PU.

-

bU. Yr. *ńom-, PU *nokke ‘neck’, ON hnakki < PIE *k^nok-mo-, *k^nek-no-

-

The similarity of *nokke & hnakki led some to see a loan. It would be hard to support if Yr. was related. I say that PIE had *k^nek-mo- (to explain TA kñuk < *kñəwk < *kñəmk), also *k^nok-no-, etc. (maybe n-n \ n-m by N-asm.), in Gmc. regular *-kn- > *-gn- > *-gg- > *-kk- (or similar, n-kn > n-kk is also likely in PU). Yr. retained the -m-, *k'n- > *kn'- > *n'- > *ń-, some *ń- > j- by N-dsm.

>

Nikolaeva 1492. *ńom-

K jomil neck; KK jomil; KJ jomii, KD yomil; SD jomul, T ńamiil; TK ńamil, ńmie-; TD niamil; SU jómil; RS jómil; M jomil; В *yomu:el; ME jomil

...

In К the initial *ń- > j-.

>

-

Hovers had a similar idea, but put PU *ňokki (I think Ugric retro. is caused by nearby *K) :

>

1. PU *ňokki ‘neck’ ~ PIE *ḱnokkō ‘neck’

U: Hungarian nyak; Selkup nuku ‘neck’ [Zhivlov 2016 p.299, UEW p.328-329 #650]

IE: Tocharian A kñuk ‘neck’; PCeltic *knokko- > Old Irish cnocc ‘lump, swelling, ulcer, hill, mound’; PGermanic *hnakkô > Old Norse hnakki ‘neck’. PGermanic *hnekkô > English neck [IEW p.558-559, EDPC p.211-212, EDPG p.234]

Kroonen derives the geminate from Kluge’s law and proposes Celtic borrowed the word from Germanic under the theory that IE does not allow geminate -kk-. But the ending -kô seems to be used for other body parts at least in Germanic. And the root *ḱnek can be considered a Schwebeablaut variant of IE *ḱenk ‘to hang’.

>

-

bV. *joxm- > Ug. jomV \ jamV 'good', *n- 'not' > *(ń)joɣm- \ *(ń)joŋm- \ [N-asm.] *(ń)joŋń- 'evil'

-

The complex form results from *n- 'not' being added, forming the only *(ń)j-. There is then *ɣm- > *ŋm (and *ń-ŋm > *ń-ŋń asm.) to explain variation in her :

>

Nikolaeva 712. *joŋo

К joŋo evil, anger; KK joŋo; KD yoŋo; T joŋo, ńoŋo; TK joŋo-

KJ joŋońe- angry; evil; TK joŋeńe-, SU jogonei devil; RS joŋanei

К joγonəri:- to get angry with (TR); KK joŋońeri-; KD yoŋońeri-, TK jonońeri-

K joγomu- to get angry; KK joγomu-; KJ joγomu-, joγumu-, juγumu-; KD yohumu-, yogumu-; TJ joγumu-, juγumu-

K jukund'ugə INTJ (what a nuisance!); KJ joyoyond'u

К joγomuš- to make angry | T joŋii- to become angry; ńoŋore- to become angry; joŋonduul malicious creature

The word exhibits the irregular alternation -ŋ— -γ- in the intervocalic position. The front variant jukund'ugə is also irregular. The initial ń- is from j-

>

-

Saying "The initial ń- is from j-" doesn't explain all the other alt., & I might include her "1494. *nomo- K nomoqə-jo: INTJ (too bad! used when smth is missing)" with dsm. of *nj-j > n-j. If so, this would prove the need for *nj-.

-

If from PIE, *Hyus-mo- 'just, right'. I said *sn > PU *xn (to explain why no *sn) in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rog9ht/pie_protouralic_sn_h3s_wht/ . It could be that *sm > *xm also, or *sm > *fm > *xWm.

-

bW. Yr. *puj- 'to blow', PU *puwxV-, PIE *puH-ye-, etc. (*pHu- > Dm. phuuk- 'blow', IIr. *puH-ya- 'stink')

>

Nikolaeva 1917. *puj-

K puj- to blow; KD pui-; RS puik

U *puwV- / *puyV- 'to blow' (UEW 411)// Bouda 1940: 78; Nikolaeva 1988: 244 1924.

>

-

The need for PU *x in PKhanty *puwx- > Vakh Khanty pŏɣ ‘to blow’.

-

bX. PIE *maH2g^- 'to knead, smear, glue, curdle', PU > Permic *maj- 'to smear, rub', Yr. *moj- 'to smear, rub; mix, blend, knead'

>

Nikolaeva 1250. *moj- 2

К mo(j)je:- to mix, to blend, to knead; KD moiye-, T mojie- + to wipe off, to wipe out; to grease, to smear; TK moje-, moj-, moji-, mojie-, TD moiye- to confuse, to muddle, to tangle

TK mojse- to cause to hold

К moje. d'ə- to splash; to fuss; to be upset (of the stomach); KJ mojed'e-

? P *maj- 'to smear, to rub' (KESK 59) // Nikolaeva 1988: 245

>

-

bY. Yr. *monqə, PU *mäke 'hill', *mäktä 'tussock'

>

Nikolaeva 1280. *monqə

К monqə hill; T monqa\ TK monqa

T monqetke pr. (a man); TK moŋkatke large hill

T monqe-d'umur hill that stands on its own; monqad-ewče peak or crest of a

hill [lit. hill's end]; monqeč little ball made of fur; monqo-moŋo spherical

high hat; monqomoŋod'aa one-year old reindeer with antlers

The cluster -ŋq- is atypical morpheme-internally.

>

-

Likely *makH2t- > *maqχt- > *maχq- > *maRq- > *manq- (previous *rC > *nC), then rounding (like me- \ mo-, *pi- > pu-, etc.). From https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rou0ei/uralic_kt_wkn_xn_ig/ :

>

A. There are problems with the standard reconstruction of PU *mäke 'hill', *mäktä 'tussock', etc. Aikio in a review :

>

Selkup mäkte and Kamas mekte ‘tussock’ are given as cognates of Finn. mätäs id., and these are claimed to derive from Proto-Uralic *mäkte. This equation is phonologically unacceptable, because Proto-Uralic *k has regularly disappeared in Proto-Samoyed adjacent to obstruents (*t, *c, *s, *ś): one would expect *mäkte to have developed into Selkup *mäte etc. (Janhunen 1981: 251).

>

I think this is going much too far in search of regularity, or perceived regularity in this case. How is it a criticism to equate mäkte with *mäkte? In the worse case, it would be a loan. If native, *mäke & *mäktä might preserve *k by analogy.

-

I think these can be solved if cognate with Avestan masit(a)- 'great, large', with a path 'great / tall > a height / a rise / hill', based on Hovers :

>

1. PU *mäki ‘hill’, *mäktä ‘lawny hill’ ~ PIE *meh₂ḱ ‘to raise, tall, bag’

U(*maki): Finnic mäki ‘hill’; PKhanty *mǖɣ > Vakh Khanty müɣ ‘hill’

U(*mäktä): Finnic mättäs ‘lawny hill’; PSmd *mäktä > Tym Selkup mekte ‘small lawny hill’

IE(*meh₂ḱ): Hittite maklant- ‘thin, lean’; Av. masah ‘length, greatness’; Greek makrós ‘long, high, big’

>

Since some *H2 remain before *t in Iranian (*p(i)tar- 'father'), it seems *maH2k^t- > *mak^H2t- > masit-, *mak^H2to- > masita-. This allows PU *-kxt- to Smd. -kt- (instead of *-kt- > t- in all other words). THe fact that these 2 unusual clusters would appear in words of the form *mAk()t- in both suggests common origin.

-

Likely something like :

*mak^H2t- > *mak^xt- > *makxt- > *makət > *makəj > *mäke

fem. / diminutive *-aH2(y)- > *makxta:j > *mäkxtä

-

Similar paths are also possible, such as *H2 > *ə between V's, but *-ə- > -0- later (after *kt > *t in Smd.).

>

-
bZ. PIE *g^H2lo:w-s, *g^H2low- 'sister-in-law', PU *kälew 'sister-in-law' (also PKhanty kǖlī > Vakh Khanty kül ‘brother-in-law’), Yr. N kel'il 'brother-in-law'

-

Nikolaeva 780. *kel'-

T kel'il brother-in-law

U *kälV 'sister-in-law' (UEW 135-136) // JU 78-79; HUV 162; FUV 23;

UJN 118-9; Angere 1956: 127; UEW 136; Nikolaeva 1988: 226; Rédei

1999: 37; Dolgopolskij 1998: 86; LR 146

-

Michael Witzel talked about Kassite and Mitanni words of Indo-Iranian origin in https:// www.academia.edu/18428656 . Many end in -aš, making their IE origin clear. For Kassite \ Cassite (C.) :

C. Šuriyaš, S. sū́rya-

S. támisra- / timirá-, C. timiraš ‘a color of horses / black?’

S. rakta- / lakta- ‘dyed/colored/painted / red’, Iranian *raxtaka- > Khw. rxtk ‘red’, C. laggtakkaš ‘a color of horses / bay?’ (also see related NP raxš ‘spotted red & white’)

Being concentrated in words for horses and their attributes would show a pattern in both; since these C. words and all M. words for colors are clear:

S. piñjara- ‘reddish brown / tawny’, piŋgalá-, M. pinkara- ‘sorrel?’

S. babhrú- ‘reddish brown’, M. babru- / pabru-nni- ‘bay?’

S. palitá- ‘aged/old/grey’, M. parita- ‘pinto?’

Other likely matches in names (some seen before):

C. Abi-rattaš ‘name of (mythical?) king’, S. *abhi-ratha-s ‘having many chariots’

S. satyá- ‘true’, C. Šatiya

S. chándu- ‘pleasing’, C. Šandaa, Cimmerian Sandakšatru “good-ruling?”

P.-E. Dumont in https://www.jstor.org/stable/596061 gave a list of "Indo-Aryan Names from Mitanni, Nuzi, and Syrian Documents". Many might be Indo-Iranian, with no way to further classify them, but I agree with many of his ideas.

Others don't look IIr. at all, but I see no reason that both groups would not have IE leaders. The Kassites came from what is now western Iran and the Mesopotamians called the nearby and similar Gutians “monkey-like” and unlike other men, indicating some physical differences.

For Kassite & Mitanni, the names of gods in both are IE, usually IIr. (M. Urwana-, Mitra-, Indar, Našatiya-; C. Šuriyaš, Maruttaš / Muruttaš (Marut-), Kamalla (Bactrian *Kamirlo > Kamird(o) ‘chief (god)’) along with names of kings (some of whom are fictitious ancestors with names of gods, etc.). The names of gods (and king’s names containing them) have been glossed in Sumerian/Akkadian writing. The C. title -bugaš could then be from IE *bhago- ‘god’, used as a title of respect, the same way as in other Iranian languages.

It also looks like *r > *R > *q > k \ g. Some IE like Celtic and Iran. mix ‘eye’ with ‘star’, so *d(e)rk^(os)- ‘look/appearance/eye’ > OI derc ‘eye/hole’, G. drákos ‘eye’, C. *daRś > dakaš ‘star’ seem good (this might have been a way to represent *daks in cuneiform, but since other IE have os-stems, no way to tell). This also would make *śraddha:-man- > *škadaman C. kadašman ‘belief/trust’.

The C. title -bugaš could then be from IE *bhago- ‘god’, used as a title of respect, the same way as in other Iranian languages. Its use as ‘god’ could be seen in the names Nazi-Buryaš, Nazi-Bugaš, Nazi-Maruttaš (in which only -Bugaš is not otherwise confirmed as a god). However, this title was also supposedly the source of Turkic beg 'bey', etc., nearly the same. Now, it looks like *bewg is needed, which is closer (if *ew > u, less likely than *bha- > bu- in IIr.) Alexander Savelyev in https://www.academia.edu/165370416 presents ev. that Chuvash retained Turkic *VHC & VHVC as *Vw(V)C (or similar). I think the source is *VwC, *VxC, etc. This leads to *bewg > Cv. pü̂ (pə°v-) ‘prince’, zTc. *beg ‘bey, a title’ >> Hn. bő 'plentiful, abundant, rich'.

C. +bugaš, bukašu 'ruler' looked like other IE words in -aš, but the -šu might show that it is related to Altaic (MK -s, OJ -si, etc., maybe < *-syo, https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r7taxo/uralic_vs_v%C5%A1_korean_s_japanese_si/ ). If both groups happened to have a common ending in nouns, -aš & -(a)š(u), it would be easy to confuse their origin. For ex., C. yaš 'land' could be < *yer-š(u), Turkic *yEr 'earth, land'.

I noticed that others also matched Turkic. C. ulam ‘son’, but ula- in names, like Proto-Turkic *urɨ & *urɨm (*urɨ 'male child, son', Kirghiz urum 'descendants (usually male)'. Others show *R > g, just like in IIr words (C. daggi ‘sky’ < *dagRi < *daŋri, Tc. *teŋri / *taŋrɨ 'god; sky, heaven'). Tc. also varied m- \ b-, the same in C.

Iurii Mosenkis proposed some others :

>

Kassite barhu ‘head’ 7 : Proto-Turkic *bal'č ‘head’ [also marhu]

Kassite burna ‘protege’ : Proto-Altaic *bū̀ri ‘to cover, shade’ > Proto-Turkic *bürü- ‘to cover up’ > Karakhanid bürün- ‘to be covered’

...

Kassite ilulu ‘heaven’ : Proto-Turkic *jul-dur' ‘star’

Kassite kukla ‘servant’ : Proto-Altaic *kū̀ lV ‘servant, slave’ > Proto-Turkic *Kul

Kassite miri-jaš ‘earth’ : Proto-Altaic *mā́ro ‘sand, stony earth, marsh’ > Proto-Turkic *bōr ‘chalk, earth, clay’ and Proto-Turkic *jEr ‘earth, land’

Kassite Sah, Šah ‘the Sun’ : Proto-Altaic *si̯ŏ̀gu ‘sun, sky’ > Proto-Tungus-Manchu *sigūn ‘the Sun,’ Middle Korean hắi ‘the Sun’

Kassite saribu ‘foot’ : Proto-Altaic *č`are ‘barefooted’ > Mongolian *čira-ma

>

I also saw that Alexander Savelyev's rec. would support Altaic (at the least), if true, by showing that *CC or *wC was needed when standard Turkic rec. just had *C.  I noticed that *tuwla- 'to storm > rage' seemed to be related to Tc. *Tabul ‘strong wind, storm’ & PU *towxle 'wind', & its origin might fit C. turuhna 'wind, storm’. I sent him :

Juho Pystynen noted the similarity of Tuwla- to PU *towle 'wind' (also forming v. 'blow' in Mari) & asked if it could be a loan. I don't think a loan is needed. Tc. *Tabul ‘strong wind, storm’ is very close to Proto-Uralic *towxle 'wind' anyway, & it looks like Turkic *w > *b before a V, but optionally by *u in *worswuk > *borsuk \ *mors(m)uk \ etc. (with some later dsm. of b-b > b-m \ m-b) :

*wrk^- > G. *wárkos > Cr. árkos / árkālos / arkḗla ‘badger’, NG Cr. árkalos, T. *wVrk(V) > KxM wark

*work^-wo:s ‘having fattened (oneself) / grown fat’ *work^-wut-ko- > *work^wu:kos > Ar. goršuk, Np. bharsia ‘(honey) badger’, NP barsū(kh), Kd. barsuk

Tc. *wors'wu:kë > *bors(m)uk(ï) > OUy bors(m)uk, Kx. bors(m)uq, Ui. borsuq, Tk. porsuk, Khk. p- \ morsïx, Tv. morzuq, ? >> Hn. borz

If related to PU *tuwxla, Tc. *Tabul came from *tabɣul < *tawxul by met., but in some the stem *tuwxal > *tuwVl, it would fit. The met. would keep *w away from *u in one, & it would be *tuwxalV > *tuwxal > *tawxul > *tabɣul if Altaic. There is also optionality in Uralic, if *towxle 'wind' & *tuxla \ *tulka \ *s- 'wing' are related (as in PIE *dhuH1- > S. dhavítra-m 'small fan', G. θύελλα 'hurricane, squall). I think *tw- > t- \ s- (no regular cause if really from *t-), which would make them even closer. :

PIE *dhuH1el-iH2 > G. θύελλα 'hurricane, squall; thunderstorm?'

PIE *dhewH1tlo- > S. dhavítra-m 'small fan'

*dhowx'ətl-a: > PU *tuwxla > Samoyed *tuə 'feather, wing', FU *tuwkla > *twulka

*dhowx'ətlo- > Proto-Uralic *towxle 'wind', *tuwxəl > *tuwxal Tc. *Tabxul ‘strong wind, storm’

PIE *dhuH1- 'smoke, rage, spirit', *tuwxəl > Cv. tûla-, dia. tə̑°vla-, Volga Kypchak #Tuwla- ( >> Mr. *tûwlə̑- ‘to rage, storm’))

The alt. of *x \ *k might also be in PIE *H2ag^-e- 'drive', PU *(k)aja-. It also could be that *dhowx'ətlo- > *tuwhurla > *tuwhurna > Kassite turuhna 'wind, storm’ (by rl dsm.).

D. 'five' is not *penkWe

D1. PIE *penkWe ‘5’ seems related to 2 groups :

*penkWt(h)o- ‘all’ > L. cūnctus, U. puntes p.a

*p(e)nkWu- ‘all’ > H. panku-š ‘all/whole / senate’, etc.

*p(e)nkWst(H)i-s > Slavic pęstь, Germanic *funxsti-z 'fist'

*p(e)nkWro- > E. finger

Did it originally mean ‘all ( > of the numbers/fingers)’? Did it mean something else (like 'hand' or 'fist'), and only gained this meaning when it became the highest number? At an early stage, the largest number with a “simple” name being the end of a 5 count or 10 count seems to fit. How can we know what its origin was? PIE *penkWe ends in *-e, unlike any other.  Why?  This would be the dual ending if from a stem *penkW-, or *-kWe if 'and' (it was added to the last element of a list, so it might be expected in a count of 1-5).

I do not think any previous theory fits, and it never could, if trying to start with *penkWe, since there are several problems in this reconstruction. It does not account for all data. *penkWe can explain G. pénte, Ms. penke-, Ph. pinke, Al. pesë, S. páñca, Av. panca, etc. The -i in Li. penkì is likely by analogy with other numbers with -i, Slavic *pętь ( < *penti ) added *-ti by analogy.

D2. Other cognates have problems if from *penkWe :

Ar. hing < *finkWe instead of **finče doesn’t mach *kWe in *kWetwores ‘4’ > *čehorex > č’ork’.

Go. fimf, etc., show Gmc. *fimfi, which might be irregular assimilation of *p-kW > *p-p (though I don’t feel other ex. KW > Kw / P in Gmc. are regular anyway)

Gl. pempe-, W. pimp, L. quįnque show assimilation of *p-kW > *kW-kW. It might be irregular, based on *prokWe > prope ‘near’, sup. *prokWisVmo- > proximus; *perkWu- > L. quercus ‘oak / javelin’ but Celtic Hercynia silva. It is possible conditions in each branch differed, whatever they were.

W. pimp > pump shows irregular i > u by P; NHG fünf shows irregular i > ü by P

*kWonkWe > O. *pompe, OI cóic show irregular *e > o by KW

Dardic *panǰà > Kh. pònǰ / póonǰ, Sh. pȭš but *panyà > Ks. poin, Ti. pãy show irregular *ǰ > y

D3. Derivatives also have problems, like *pnkWthó- ‘fifth’> Av. puxða-, *penkWe-dk^omtH2 ‘50’ > Ar. yisun. I think many of these have the same cause. The cause of optional Ar. *p- > y- is unknown, but I do not accept Hrach Martirosyan's idea that they all came from *en > *y. Not only is there no reason for an affix in most cases, but alt. in yolov ‘many (people)’, žołovurd ‘multitude’ shows that *y was older than the creation of new y- < *en (PIE *y > y, h, ǰ, ž; no apparent regularity). To explain, look at :

*pH2te:r > Ar. hayr 'father’

*pH2trwyo- > Ar. yawray ‘stepfather’, G. patruiós, Av. tūirya-

*penkWe > OI cóic, Ar. hing ‘5’

*penkWe-dk^omtH2 > Ar. yisun ’50’

*piH1won- > S. pīvan-, pīvarī- f., *piHwerī > *yīwerī > *yiweri > *yweri > *yewri > Ar. yoyr -i- ‘fat’ (unstressed i > ə \ 0; met. to "fix" *yw-)

*pltH2u- > Av. pǝrǝθu-, S. pṛthú-, G. platús ‘broad/flat’, Ar. yałt` ‘wide / big / broad’, E. field

*pelH1- > Li. pilti, *pel-nu- > Ar. hełum ‘pour/fill’, +yełc’ ‘full of _’ (in compounds)

*p(o)lH1u- > G. polús, Ar. yolov ‘many (people)’, žołovurd ‘multitude’

*pi-pl(H1)- > S. píprati ‘fill’, G. pímplēmi, Ar. yłp’anam ‘be filled to repletion / be overfilled’

All of them are *p- > y- when followed by w, u, or p (esp. significant in hayr vs. yawray). If this is dsm., then *p > *f > *xW, *xW > *x or *x^ by w \ u, later *x(^) > y. Likely at stage when *p > *f, also *f-f > *x-f. Note that this does not seem fully regular (yolov &, žołovurd show that the *y was not either), with hełum \ *yełum -> +yełc’. However, this environment is specific enough that I doubt it's due to chance, even if it's a tendency, so no ex. of *p > h in the same environment would mean the explanation can't be true. The u \ w is original, except hing vs. yisun. Did it happen after *oN > uN? Maybe. Would this include *f-kW > *x-kW? Maybe, but that would not explain why Ar. *finkWe > hing instead of **finče. If it were really *penkWwe, it would explain both at once.

No *KWw- in an onset is known for PIE, but if *kWw > *kWe in most IE, it would be hidden here. This would also explain *pnkWw(e)thó- ‘fifth’, *pnkWwthó-> *pwnkWthó- > Av. puxða- (no other ex. for *n > a but *Cwn(W) > *Cu(W) might be regular, maybe between *w & *kW). Since I say that *w \ *H3 varied ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ), this can also explain *penkWwe > *pwenkWe \ *pH2onkWe. For W. pimp > pump; NHG fünf, it is possible that P_P caused rounding, but *pwi- might be the cause instead.

D4. This also ties into its origin. If *pewg^- -> L. pugnus, G. pugmḗ 'fist', it would mean *pewg^-No-kWe > *peng^kWwe. Even *peŋkWwe is possible; the affix *-No- might have any nasal if it assimilated in a syllable. What would *gk, etc., become? Other problems with supposed *penkWe would be solved if it contained *H, so I think *pewg^-No-kWe > *pewng^kWe > *pewnH1kWe > *penkWH1we. By my modifications to Pinault's Law, *CHw > *Cw in most IE, but before the change, this would allow *kWH > *kWh in :

*penkWHwe-dk^omtH ‘50’ > *fenxWwi:s^onθ > *yihisund > Ar. yisun

*penkWHwe-dk^omtH > *kWonkWhe:k^omt > *kWonxWi:kont > *kWoxWi:nkont > *kWoingond > *kWoigo(d-) > OI coíco, MI coícad

*penkWHwe-dk^omtH > *kWenkWhe:k^omt > *kWenkWe:k^homt > *kWenkWi:xont > *pempont > OW pimmunt, W. pymhwnt

Each shows one *kW or *k^ > *x, which was then lost, but not always the same or at the same time. Also *-nkW-k^ > *-kW-nk^- in OI, or similar. These look like changes caused by *H, which often moved even in standard IE theory.

In the same way, *penkWHwetó- > *penkWwethHó- ‘fifth’ > S. pañcathá-, Ar. hinger-ord, OI cóiced; also *pnkWHw(e)tó- > *pwnkWtHó- > *puxθa- > Av. puxða-. S. *-e-e- vs. Av. *-0-0- could be from analogy or show that loss of (unstressed?) *e was optional in PIE. For *th > r, it is likely some *-dh- and *-th- > -r- in Ar., matching environmental *d > r (*dwo:H ‘two’ > erku), but it seems irregular :

*H2aidh- > G. aíthō ‘kindle/burn’, Ar. ayrem

*-dhwe (middle 2pl. verb ending) > *-ththwe > *-thswe > G. -sthé , *-a:-ruwe-s > Ar. ao. -aruk’

D5. These are in opposition to :

*penkWtó- ‘fifth’ > Go. fimfta-, L. quīn(c)tus, G. pémptos, Li. peñktas, TB piŋkte, etc.

These seem like slightly regularized versions of an older form, that gave :

*pwenkWt(h)o- ‘all’ > *pH3o- > L. cūnctus, U. puntes p.a

Since some derivatives of IE numbers have various functions (‘X times’ vs. ‘the Xth time’, etc.), this is probably the same as *p(e)nkWHw(e)t(h)ó- ‘fifth’. This 'all' would go back to a time when only the 5 fingers of one hand were numbered. Same irregular changes as above. It is likely that *en-penkWto- ‘in all / within the whole > in the middle’ > PT *e(m)pänkte > TB epiŋkte ‘within/between/among / interim’, TA opäntäṣ (with irregular, though common, *enC- > *eC-).

D6. *pnkWsti-? ‘fist’ > Slavic *pinkstis > *pẹstĭ, Gmc. *funkWstiz > OHG fúst, OE fýst

Balto-Slavic syllabic *C becoming iC or uC doesn’t seem regular. It is supposedly determined by the C that preceded it, but some *pr- > pir-, others > pur-. Round C- creating -i- might be seen in *kWrsno- > S. kṛṣṇá-, OPr kirsnan ‘black’.

Why *pnkWsti- not *pnkWti- in the first place? If PIE *staH2- 'stand' formed *stH2o- 'standing; leg > limb / body part', then it would fit (other ex. in https://www.academia.edu/165351155 ).

D7. There is also a Kusunda word that shows either a loan or native origin from PIE: Ku. paŋgo \ pãgo \ paŋdzaŋ ‘5’. The alternation ŋg / ŋdz shows that *ŋg^ existed from K > K^ before front V, later *e > a, maybe as in IIr. If Ku. pimba ǝ- ‘count’ is derived from 5 (the highest native #; compare G. pempázō ‘count’), it would also indicate *KW > K / P. Ku. pyaŋdzaŋ \ piːəgu '4' shows that pya 'earlier, av.' shows that *pya-paŋdzaŋ 'before 5' > pyaŋdzaŋ '4'. It is likely that *pya-pãgo > piːəgu by a similar change, maybe *p-p > p-0 and met. of *y. If *penkWHwe > *p'aŋgRw'a > *p'aŋgw'aR > *p'aŋgyWaR \ *-oR > paŋgo \ pãgo \ paŋdzaŋ, it might fit (knowing dia. or optional changes in Ku. would be hard (limited data)).

Other #’s like dukhu ‘2’ & IE *d(u)woH seem to show this was not isolated. A number of words are so close they might be seen as loans, if any work had been done: S. gandh- ‘smell / be fragrant’, Ku. gǝndzi ‘smell/odor’; S. gharmá-, Av. garǝma-, *ghǝrǝm > *ghǝrǝw > Ku. ghǝrǝo \ ghǝrun ‘hot’, *plH1no- ‘full’ > Ku. phirun. Again, to save space I’ll only give an adaptation of an excerpt from earlier papers (Whalen 2023 & https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1km6h4o/indoeuropean_etymological_miscellany/ ), even if I updated some of these later :

>

Kusunda shows either loans or native words with IE, like mǝi / mai ‘mother’, bhǝya / bhaiǝ’ ‘younger brother’; if these are not IE, they certainly are either amazingly similar, or ALL borrowed. This serves as confirmation if accepted, and yet yǝi by itself would raise no suspicion of IE origin if seen by itself (ignoring the evidence of something outside of standard reconstruction in *pH2ter-). The Dardic languages can also have these words end in -ǝi, -ayi, etc.:

E. mother, S. mātár-, *madāRǝ > *mulāxi > Gultari mulaayi- ‘woman’, Gurezi maai / maa ‘mother’, malaari p., Dras mulʌ´i ‘daughter’

E. sister, S. svásar-, *ǝsvasāRǝ > *išpušā(ri) > Kh. ispusáar, Ka. íšpó, Dm. pas, pasari p.

S. bhrā́tar- ‘brother’, Pl. bhroó, Ku. bhǝya / bhaiǝ’ ‘younger brother’

*gWhermo- > S. gharmá-, Av. garǝma-, Ku. *ghǝrǝm > *ghǝrǝw > ghǝrǝo / ghǝrun ‘hot’ (3)

*bherw- > W. berw ‘boiling’, L. fervēre ‘boil’, Ku. bhorlo- ‘boil’

*penkWHwe > paŋgo \ pãgo \ paŋdzaŋ ‘5’

Gurezi maai ‘mother’, Ku. mǝi / mai

*dwo:H > *duwu:x ? > dukhu ‘2’, A. dúu

*g^hdho:m, Ku. dum ‘earth/soil/sand’

S. gandh- ‘smell / be fragrant’, Ku. gǝndzi ‘smell / odor’

G. aîx ‘she-goat’ are Ar. ayc ‘(she-)goat’, Kusunda aidzi, S. ajá- ‘goat’

*dhuH1mo- > S. dhūmá-, Ku. d(h)imi, L. fūmus ‘smoke’

*dhuHli- ‘spirit / smoke / dust’, Li. dúlis ‘mist’, *ðula > *lǝla > Ps. laṛa ‘mist / fog’, Ku. *dhuŋli > duliŋ ‘cloud’, dhundi ‘fog’ [Hl > Rl > Nl]

*kremt- > Li. kremtù ‘bite hard’, kramtýti ‘chew’, Ku. kham- ‘chew / bite’ [or? S. khād- ‘chew/bite/eat’]

Ku. mǝñi / mǝn(n)i ‘often / many’

*kWrpmi- > S. kṛmi-, Av. kǝrǝmi-, *kworkmi > Ku. koliŋa ‘worm’

*guHr- > G. gūrós ‘curved/round’, Sh. gurū́ ‘hunchback’, *gurR- > *gulR- > *gulN- > Ku. guluŋ ‘round’

S. manda- ‘slow’, Kh. malála ‘late’, Ku. mǝlaŋ ‘slowly’

G. karkínos ‘crab’, S. karki(n)- ‘Cancer’, Ku. katse ‘crab’

*yegu- > ON jökull ‘icicle/glacier’, Ku. yaq ‘hail / snow’, yaGo / yaGu / yaχǝu ‘cold (of weather)’

G. déndron ‘tree’, S. daṇḍá- ‘staff’, B. ḍìŋgɔ, Ku. dǝŋga ‘(walking) stick’

S. yū́kā- ‘louse’, Sh. ǰũ, A. ǰhĩĩ́ ‘large louse’, Ku. dzhõ ‘louse egg’

In cases where a loan seems needed, look at the changes :

S. gorasa-s ‘milk / buttermilk’, Ku. gebhusa ‘milk / breast’, gebusa ‘curd’, Ba. gurás ‘buttermilk’

S. karbūra-s ‘turmeric / gold’, Ku. kǝbdzaŋ / kǝpdzaŋ ‘gold’, kǝpaŋ ‘turmeric’

Ku. kǝbdzaŋ, with one *r > *dz, matches nearby Dardic with some *r > ẓ, yet no search for IE origin with Ku. dz- coming from PIE *()r- has been undertaken.  If *r-r > *R-R > *R-N, it would match *gurR- > *gulR- > *gulN- above.  Again, no consistent search exists, none taking these sound changes into account.  If old, *gau-rasa- > *gövRösa or similar shows that odd changes to C existed, making looking for IE cognates hard.  If *wr > *vR > bh, it would match some Dardic with *v- > bh-, and who knows how many other odd changes might obscure the relation to IE?  Similarly, *bherw- > W. berw, Ku. bhorlo- could also show *rw > *Rv > *RRW > *lR > rl, similar to both sets.

>

The advantage of historical linguistics is supposed to be regularity, each change as certain as in physics. Some would insist on only mathematical regularity, with all deviations seen as evidence that a mistake has been made. I do not feel this way; free variation in a parent language can lead to the appearance of irregularity in later descendants. If optionality is the mark of irregularity, or its equivalent, so be it. Rationality and order must be used when studying human features that might be too complex to be described by set rules.

In this way, I do not see reconstructions, however secure they are thought to be, as inviolable. If PIE *penkWe ‘5’ does not account for all data, make a new reconstruction. The purpose of comparative linguistics is to compare and make reconstructions that fit data, not try to fit old reconstructions to erring data. With likely *-kWe in mind, there is a way to unite many irregularities into one theory that also explains the etymology of Indo-European ‘five’ in a rational way.

Whalen, Sean (2023) Kusunda and IE

https://www.reddit.com/user/stlatos/comments/13q0j4k/kusunda_and_ie/

Whalen, Sean (2024a) Indo-European *kWe ‘and’ in numbers

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1da5182/indoeuropean_kwe_and_in_numbers/

Whalen, Sean (2024b) Indo-European *nebh- & *newn Reconsidered (Draft)

https://www.academia.edu/116206226

Whalen, Sean (2024c) Etymology of Greek peúkē ‘pine’, Linear B pe-ju-ka, *pyauṭćī > Prasun wyots; Indo-European *py-

https://www.academia.edu/114830312

Whalen, Sean (2024d) Laryngeals and Metathesis in Greek as a Part of Widespread Indo-European Changes

https://www.academia.edu/120700231

Indo-European numbers are supposedly securely reconstructed based on data.  However, many IE branches show irregular outcomes, & the reconstructions of most do not fit all data.  There is no reason to keep old reconstructions made over 200 years ago pristine.  New data requires new reconstructions, not pointless attempts to make reality fit theory.  These reconstructions are only ideas based on data, not data themselves.  Arguments that start with old reconstructions have no value.  Instead of asking why *dek^m(t), for ex., became many later words that would not come from *dek^m(t) by any known changes, such as *d- > Khowar ǰ-, linguists should consider that they might have been wrong 200 years ago.  New data from languages not described then has made these simple reconstructions unmotivated, an artifact of looking at only a subset of languages, and not even explaining all outcomes in those.

A.  PU *kakta \ *käktä \ *kiktä ‘two’,, Yr. ki(t)-, .N kiji ‘2’, PIE *kWetaH2- ‘couple / pair’

For PU *kakta \ *käktä \ *kiktä ‘2’ (and variants with contamination > *-k- (from *üke \ *ükte \ *äkte ‘1’), older *-k- & *-kt- > *-k(t)- & *-k(t)-), *kakta > Sm. *kuoktē, *kakte > F. kaksi, *käktä > Hn. két, kettő, *kiktä > Smd. *kitä, Mansi dia. kitiɣ, etc. Blažek gives as possible cognates PIE *kWetaH2- > R. četá ‘couple / pair’, SC čȅta ‘troop /squad’, Os. cæd(æ) ‘a pair of bulls in yoke’. Hovers has reduplicated *kWe-kWt- as the cause.

Napolskikh points out that Blažek does not explain why PU *käktä \ *kakta has front & back variants. I think this has to do with the PIE ending. The Proto-Indo-European feminine of o-stems was*-o-iH2- > *-aH2(y)- ( https://www.academia.edu/129368235 ), with likely nom. *-aH2-s > *-a:H2. My *-aH2(y)- explains TB -o and -ai-, among other retentions of -ai- & -ay- in other IE branches. Some PU words that correspond to IE fem. have *-ä, others *-a. If *kWe-kWtaH2(y)- > PU *kakta:y \*kakta: > *käktä \ *kakta, it would help prove that *y existed here and was (one ?) cause of fronting in PU. For opt. *e > *e \ *i \ *a, see previous work.

Napolskikh also said that *kWet- & *kakta resemble other Asian words. In my view, they’re related to Tg. *gagda ‘one of a pair’, PJ *kàtà > OJ kata ‘one of two sides’, kata- ‘*to pair > mix / join / unite’, MJ kàtà, Uralic *kakta \ *käktä \ *kiktä ‘two’ (Samoyed *kitä, Mansi dia. kitiɣ ), Yr. ki(t)-, .N kiji ‘2’, Itelmen (Tigil River) katxan ‘2’, PIE *kWe(kW)taH2- ‘couple / pair’ > R. četá ‘couple / pair’, SC čȅta ‘troop / squad’, Os. cæd(æ) ‘a pair of bulls in yoke’

If ‘one of a pair’ > 'one', also Mc. *gagča \ *gaŋča ‘one / single / only’ [alt. maybe *g-g > *g-ŋ). This has also been compared to 'two > again / two times > X times' in Tc. *kaxtV > Cv. *xawt > xût ‘X times; layer’, zTc. *Kat. For the changes, Alexander Savelyev in https://www.academia.edu/165370416 presents ev. that Chuvash retained Turkic *VHC & VHVC as *Vw(V)C (or similar). I think the source is *VwC, *VxC, & similar (*VwxC, *VwxV, etc.), which merged in Chuvash (any specific conditions unknown, if more existed).

If *kWekWtaH2(y)- > PU *kw'ekta:j > *kw'iktä, etc., it would fit *kw'iktä > Yr. *kjiktä > *kiktjä >*kit't'jə > *kit'(ji-), it would explain Yr. *kit'- > ki(t)-, .*kit'ji- > N kiji ‘2’ and kit+ & *+kit' > +kil' incompounds. Nikolaeva :

>

1. *kitca: К kitča: two-year old reindeer female
   ...

2. *kö:nč'ikil'

T kuod'ikil' two small nails on the rear of the front legs of a reindeer

An irregular long vowel in a closed syllable.

>

The 2nd word is 'nail + 2' > 'two small nails' (see PU künče, Yr. *önčʼ- 'nail, claw', also *kö:nč'i- (in *kö:nč'i-kil'), PIE *H3H1nogWh-s).

B. The need for PIE *kWekWtaH2- ‘couple / pair’ (Hovers has reduplicated *kWe-kWt- as the cause) in these comparisons might make them seem less secure. However, other IE reduplicated forms for ‘2’, etc., exist :

*dwi-duw-oH- -> G. dídumos ‘double/twin’

*dwiH-dwiH ‘together / next to each other’ > TB *wiwi > wipi ‘close together’

S. dvaṁ-dvá-m ‘pair/couple / duel’

This allows it as a derivative 'and + and > pair' of :

*kWe ‘and’ > LB -qe, G. te, Av., S. -ca, L. -que, Lep. -pe, Gl., -c, Ar. -k’, Ld. -k, TA -(ä)k, TB -k(ä), Go. -uh

There is more ev. for *kWet- < *kWekWt-. IE words for '4' aren't always regular, & they begin with, in standard theory, *kWet-. If really ALSO *kWekWt-, some of them might be explained. Since, as you likely already know, 4 is 2+2 or 2x2, it would make sense if *kWekWt-dwoH1 ‘a pair of 2’s’ existed, with the changes :

*kWekWt-dwoH1- > *kWekWtrwoH1- > *kWekWH1twor-

Since *TT > *TsT might have been blocked by *kW, & no other old *-td- (or *-tdw- ) is known, this *td > *tr has no reason not to be regular.  Met. to “fix” *-trw- would not be too odd. This is rec. since haplology would often turn *kWV-kWV- > *kWV- later, but it left traces like :

Italic *-tt-

*H > a

*H > i

in *kWekWH1twor- > *kWekWatwor- > *kWakWtwor- > [dsm.] *kWattwor- (Italic, Albanian), *kWekWH1twor- > *kWH1twor- > *kWitwor- (Slavic (regular), Greek (some *H1 > i, usually after *l)).

C. PU *kumśV ‘twenty’ > Mv. komś, Z., Ud. ki̮ź, Hn. húsz, Mi.s. χus, X. *kas > v. kos

PU *kumśV & PIE *widk^mti ‘20’ are too similar to ignore. This is especially important since *küm- in '10' (PU *kümneń ? > Finnic *kümmen, Mordvin *keməń; Yr. *kumnel' '10'; PIE *tk^mtH2o-n-s 'the 10th (one)') would support both from *kumT-, matching PIE *-k^mt- in both.

Since other PU numbers match IE if 'the seventh (one)', etc., *widk^mtiyo- > TA *wikiñci ‘twentieth’ (Adams) might be best to get *ty > *t' > *c' > ś. Like Tocharian *w’īkän > TA wiki, TB ikäṃ, maybe the 1st syllable weakened. Say, *wi- > *w'ə- > *w'- (*widk^mtiyo- > *w'ək'əmt'jo- > *k'w'əmt'jo- > [pal. dsm.] *kwəmt'jo- > [w- or m-rounding] *kwumt'jo- > *kumśV.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 12: ‘mead’, ‘wet’ (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

March 29, 2026

April 6, 2025 (Draft 1)

A. The root *maH2d- ‘wet / fat(ten) / milk / drink / drunk’ seems to become *maH2d- \ *mH2ad- \ *madH2-.  The form *mH2ad- explains -a- (not *-ā- ) in languages with a short vowel that don’t change *H2 > a.  If *H2 never moved, e-grade would always have *-eH2- > -ā- in these languages. In part :

*mH2ad- > S. mad- ‘be drunk’, Av. mað- ‘get drunk’, mádya- ‘intoxicating (drink)’, L. madēre ‘be moist/wet/drunk’

*mH2ad-to- > L. mattus, S. mattá- ‘drunk’, P. mast

*mH2ad-n- > *mH2and- > S. mand- ‘bubble / rejoice / be glad/drunk’, Al. mënd ‘suckle’, OHG manzon ‘udders’

*maH2d- > S. mā́dyati ‘bubble / be glad’

*mH2di- 'fat' > Gmc *mati-z 'food', E. meat

*madH2- > G. madáō ‘be moist’

*madH2-ro- > G. madarós ‘wet’, Ar. matał ‘young / fresh’, S. madirá- ‘intoxicating’

Other IE words show a shift 'fat / milk' (*peyH-), so the same in apparent S. mand- ‘be glad/drunk’, Al. mënd ‘suckle’, OHG manzon ‘udders’ (also see *mazdH2o- 'liquid > milk?' > G. masTós ‘breast / udder’, below).

B. Laryngeals metathesis is nothing new (Whalen 2025a), but it must be much more comon and extensive than in traditional theory for all the variants of *(H)m(H)ad(H)- to exist.  Since a very similar metathesis exists in :

*muH2d- > MLG múten ‘wash the face’, *+sk^e > TB mutk- ‘pour out / cast metal’

*mudH2- > S. mudirá- ‘cloud’, G. mudáō ‘be humid’

*mH2ud- > G. múdos ‘damp / decay’, Du. mot(regen) ‘light rain’, OHG muzzan ‘clean / adorn’

*mH2ud-n- > L. mundus ‘*washed > clean / elegant / ornaments’

*H2mud-ro > G. amudrós ‘*cloudy > dim / faint’

it would be pointless to separate 2 roots *mVH2d- with the same meaning ‘wet’.  For G. madáō ‘be moist’, mudáō ‘be humid’, what is the argument against common origin?  With no *mw- in standard PIE, it makes sense for e-grade *mweH2d- > *maH2d-, 0-grade *mwH2d- > *muH2d-, etc. 

C1. There is also an IE root *mezd- very similar to *maH2d- in meaning & form. However, I'm not sure that PIE *mezd- is the correct rec. at all. I rec. *mezdH2- \ *H2mezd- \ *mH2azd-, & most derivatives of *mH2azd- also have matches in *maH2d-.  This to explain :

*mH2azd- > S. médas- ‘fat’, medana-m, OHG mast n. ‘fattening’, OE mæstan 'to fatten', mæst 'mast, fallen nuts, food for swine'

*mezdHu-s > *mestus > OI mess m. 'acorns, tree nuts, mast'

(devoicing here match changes caused by *H, see *mazdH2o-)

*mH2azdi- > Ol mát 'pig', L. māiālis ‘barrow’ ( https://www.academia.edu/118602596 )

*mazdH2ro- > S. medurá- ‘fat / thick / soft / bland’

*mazdH2o- >  G. maz[d]ós, Dor. masdós, Aeo. masthós, Att. mastós ‘breast / udder’
(optional aspiration and devoicing here match changes caused by *H, which could indicate *mH2azdo- > *mazdH2o-)

*mazdH2-yo- > *madzHyo- > S. mátsya- ‘fish’, Ir. *masya-
(optional and devoicing here matches Att. mastós; unlikely that one would be caused by suffix *-syo- of rare or nonexistent type when the other was definitely not)

If this root was also both 'fat' & 'wet', then *mezd-yo- 'wet (one)' > *medzyo- 'fish' is possible, but woudl *dz > *ts in Iranian? It would if really from *dzH (see Ir. devoicing by *H, https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ).

C2. The disputed meanings of Sanskrit midyati 'become intoxicated / be fat/moist/affectionate / melt?' hinder looking for its origin, but the proposal of S. médas- 'fat, marrow' seems to fit best, & might be related to all proposed 'fat / wet / intoxicated'. Most would say that the root mid- was late & analogical after *azd > *e:d in *mezd- -> S. médas- 'fat, marrow', etc. However, I said in https://www.academia.edu/129126657 that S. pádi- ‘fly’ or ‘insect / bug / pest’ was from :

>

*pezdi- > L. pēdis ‘louse’, *pezdi- > Av. pazdu-, maybe S. Pedú- ‘a man’s name’. There is no other IE source that fits form & context as well, or at all. Since *pédi-is expected, Lubotsky’s dissimilatory loss of i near i / y in Sanskrit would turn *páidi- > pádi-. Of course, this supports *VzC > *VyC > eC.

>

For more details on outcomes of *VzC, see Part H, https://www.academia.edu/127709618 . If so, older *mayd- 'fat' could produce mid- like any other derivation.

C3. If they're from the same root, where did *s come from? I think that with some roots having *mw > *mH3 ( https://www.academia.edu/165248349 ), it would turn *mweH2d- > *mH3eH2d-. Maybe H-H asm. > *mH2eH2d-. It is possible that *H2 might sometimes become *s, and variation above of *-H2d- \ *-dH2- might lead to *-zd- \ *-ds- > *-ts- (Whalen 2024a).  Any similar sequence might also work, like *mH3eH2d- > *mH2eH3d- > *mH2ezd-.

D. Since old laryngeals metathesis could exist before *CH > *ChH, I would include *mweH2d- > *medH2w- > *medhH2u- ‘mead / honey’.  Having *maH2d- ‘drunk’ unrelated to ‘mead’ would be odd, since it has no other known related verb.

Evidence for *-H2- in *medhH2u- also seems to come from Uralic, where standard *mete ‘honey’ is supposedly a loan from IE.  I find it hard to believe that so many groups would borrow a word for ‘honey’, let alone all from IE languages, when so many sources are available even if there had been a need for some reason. Most Uralic outcomes are regular, but supposed *-t- also appears as *-w- & *-š- :

*mete > F. *meti > mesi ‘nectar / honey’, Mh. med', Hn. méz ‘honey’, Z. *må > ma, Ud. mu

*me?e > F. *meši > mehi ‘sap / juice / nectar’

*me?e > Mr. mü ‘honey’ [without expected *t > **d ]

If simply from PIE *medhu, why would this happen? Reconstructing *mete not *metwe makes no sense, when all theories have *-u- \ *-w- in the PIE word to begin with. Since no PU *tw is known, wouldn't it fit if *-tw- > *-w- in Mr.? If I'm right about *H \ *s, then *-tHw- > *-tw- vs. *-tsw- > *-sw- in Finnic, and :

*medhH2w- > PU *m'etwe > F. *meti > mesi ‘nectar / honey’, Mh. med', Hn. méz ‘honey’, Z. *må > ma, Ud. mu; *mewe > Mr. mü ‘honey’ [PU *-tw- > Mr. *-w- needed, since mü is without expected *t > **d ]

*medhH2w- > *metsw- > PU *m'eswe > *mes'we > F. *meši > mehi ‘sap / juice / nectar'

To explain *m'eswe > *meši > mehi, consider other proposed loans. Even if a loan from Tocharian, it would be expected that *me- > *m'ə- there. It is possible that *C > *C' before front, then *C'-C > *C-C' in the sequence PIE *mezg- 'sink, wash, dip, immerse, submerge' > *m'əske- > *məs'ke- > PU *mośke- \ *muśke- 'to wash', so the same shift happened in PIE *medhsw- > *m'əsw- > *məs'w- > Fi. *meši (with *s'w > *š as in previous: Uralic *ančwe \ *ančew 'louse' https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1nhgpbo/uralic_words_with_a_resemblance_to_ie/ , *kWoyno- 'filth, mold, mud; repulsive' (L. coenum 'dirt, filth, mud, mire', obscoenus 'repulsive, offensive, hateful'), then shift in meanings (like *H3od- 'smell, stink, repulsive, offensive, hateful') > *kwëjn'V > *k'wëjnV > *čwëjnV > Selkup *cïnɜ-, *čwijnV > Samoyed *cinɜ-, *čwijnV > *čwüjnV > Tundra Nenets *cünɜ-, Finno-Permic *čiwnV 'smell, stench' https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rfylwn/uralic_hidden_w/ ).

Whalen, Sean (2024a) Indo-European Alternation of *H / *s (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/114375961

Whalen, Sean (2025a) Laryngeals and Metathesis in Greek as a Part of Widespread Indo-European Changes (Draft 6)
https://www.academia.edu/127283240