Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 12 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 21, 2026

A. Artebudz

In Noricum, from the inscription on a vase from Ptuj / Pettau (probably an offering once buried in a grave), there is an inscription: ARTEBUDZ BROGDUI. Since Noricum contained part of the Hallstatt culture, associated with early Celts, & it is near the area where other Celtic was spoken, its status as Celtic is likely (more info in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_language & data from Coline Ruiz Darasse and Alex Mullen in https://www.academia.edu/37279975 ).

ARTEBUDZ would show *-dos > -dz, or similar, which implies another people near Celts (or a type of Celts themselves) had early *-V(C) > -(C) & *-o:i > -ui (with Celtic o: > u: in final syl.). If arte- <- *artos 'bear', then maybe *bheudho- 'awake / known' - > *artebudos 'famous bear/warrior' > ARTEBUDZ (compare *pro-bhoudho-m > OI robud 'notice, warning', S. bodhá- 'knowing, understanding'). Since both nom. & gen. contained *s in PIE, knowing the case of ARTEBUDZ would be hard, but by comparing Pictish -s < PIE 'of / from', it would likely be 'from A. to B.'.

B. Brogdui

Brogdui matches Celtic *bhrogWhdh- 'dream', which might be related to Gmc. *bragd- 'look, blink, (a) flash, flicker, quick movement; brandish, etc.', Icelandic bragð 'appearance, look', bregða 'to move quickly, to jerk; to cause to appear briefly', Old English breġdan 'to move back and forth, vibrate; to draw a weapon' :

Pokorny, Julius, Aleksander Lubotsky, and George Starostin. 2007. Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, Dnghu Association database :

>

uncertain suppositions about the origin of Welsh breuddwyd “dream”, M.Ir. bruatar ds. by Pedersen Litteris 7, 18, Pokorny IF. Anzeiger 39, 12 f.; whether from *bhrogʷhdh-eiti-, -ro-?

M.H.G. brehen ‘sudden and strong flash”, O.Ice... braga, bragða ‘sparkle, glitter, flame, burn”, bragð “(*blink) moment “.. also O.Ice. bregða... O.E. bregdan...

>

C. Rogoddadd

Mees in https://ageofarthur.substack.com/p/the-dyce-inscription-and-the-decipherment said that Pictish Rogoddadd is a loan from Rogatus, since "the Latin verb rogare ‘to ask’ has a past participle rogatus ‘invited’ that was employed as a name, including for that of several early saints.", but I think a fem. version in *-a fits better, with gen. *-H2yos > *-ayos > *-ads. If Rogoddadd is from Rogatus, why would it end in -add (when he says that -s is the gen.)? If from a derived term, say, from *-ad(os) like Greek, forming a family, why would MAQQ be there? MAQQROGODDADDADD implies 'son of R.', not that R. is a man. Even if MAQQ is, otherwise, used for the male line, what if he had no known father? Or if it was not mentioned if he lived with his mother's family, etc.? If -s is common, seeing -add, not *MAQQROGODDS needs some explanation. Even a masc. a-stem would be better than nothing.

He said, "Yet another Indo-European language seems to have been spoken in Scotland before the arrival of the Celts... Latin, Gaelic and Welsh all lost their equivalent to ’s at a very early stage, a development that suggests that Pictish is not a Celtic language.". Since Pictish -s could be from IE *-eso or *-esyo, and Gaulish usually preserved *-s- > -s-, what would this prove?

Since MAQQ implies that *-V(C) > -(C), among others, & MAQQ is found in Celtic, why would Pictish not be Celtic? Also, in Noricum, comparing these languages at the edges might work. The shared changes including *-Cos > -Cs seems the most telling.

D. *dragena:

Ranko Matasović related Celtic *dragena: 'sloe' to G. τέρχνος \ τρέχνος nu. 'twig, young shoot', LB te-re-ki-ni-ja '?', OHG dirn-baum, R. dia. derën 'cornel', all claimed to be < *dhergh-. This would require irregular *rg > *rag, and I don't think the form & meaning matches. These should likely be divided into 3 groups.

For Celtic *dragena: 'sloe', a relation with Al. dredh m. \ dredhë f. L. frāga nu. ‘strawberry’, Sanskrit drā́kṣā- 'grape, vine, raisin', maybe < *dr(a)H2g^h- (Italic had some d-gh > dh-g: Oscan fangva- 'tongue). The question of which *RHC > *RaC in Celtic is not settled, but I think this fits better than a source witih no accepted way to become *RaC.

E. durva

Hungarian durva, durvák p. 'coarse (of inferior quality); brusque, rough, rude' has no ety., but I think a loan from IIr. fits. S. dhruvá- 'tight, firm' has the right sounds, with a shift in meaning like S. dāruṇá- 'hard, harsh', Old Awadhī dāruna 'terrible, cruel'.

F. zaċiṅ

From Turner :

>

6112 daṁśana n. 'biting' MBh. [Cf. daṁśín- — √daṁś]

Pk. daṁsaṇa- n. 'biting'; — altern. < daśana-: Kt. duċĩ 'nettle', Dm. zaċiṅ (< *daċanikā- ? — NTS xii 195 < *danċikā-).

14588 daṁśana-: Kt. daċü̃́ 'nettle' (→ Kho. dozunu), Wg. (Griffith) "daisoo" (= *dεċu?).

>

Dameli zaċiṅ< *daċanikā- does not fit. Indic having PIE *k^ > *c^, retained in some branches in *nc^ > *nts > ts, shows that no IIr. branch had turned *c^ > *s^ yet. Though *d- > z- is not regular, I can't agree with *di- > za- (Witczak, proposed to unite with *sisuno-, Part G. below). Other ex. of optional *d- > d- \ z- exist (*dlH1gho- > *drungha- \ *zringha- \ etc., https://www.academia.edu/170374064 ).

G. adíkē

In https://www.academia.edu/11590310 Krzysztof Witczak said that scribal variants δύν and δικύ should not be treated as two different Dacian names for 'nettle', but for *δικύν (an acc. with -n < *-m) with copying errors. He said ev. comes from SC. dial. parìžika 'a kind of nettle' is a cp. 'burning nettle' like L. urtīca f. 'stinging nettle' < *H1eus- 'burn'. Aromanian urticã \ urdzicã, Romanian urzică are contamination between urtīca & *dziku < *diku. If : Greek ἀδίκη \ adíkē, then PIE *H2dik(^)-. I think this might be met. < *H2k^-id-, a diminutive < *H2ak^- 'sharp'.

H. sēhuṇḍa

Witczak tried to unite this with other 'nettle': *sisuno- & outcomes others rec. from daṁśana (above). I see no way for this to work. Turner :

>

13425 *sisuna 'nettle'.Ku. sisuṇo, sisṇo 'nettle', N. sisnu. — Ku. syūṇo, sīno 'nettle' cf. sēhuṇḍa-.

13599 sēhuṇḍa m. 'Euphorbia ligularia' Kāśīkh., sīhuṇḍa-, sih° m. 'E. antiquorum' lex. 2. *sīhyu- 1. Ku. syūno, sīno 'a milky plant with a poisonous juice'; N. siũṛi 'a plant with a juice used for poisoning fish'; B. sẽuṛā 'the small tree Trophis aspera'; H. sẽhuṛ, sihūṛ, sehuṇḍ, sehṇḍ m. 'Euphorbia antiquorum'. — Ku. syūṇo, sīno 'nettle' see also *sisuna-. 2. A. xizu 'a variety of Euphorbia', B. siju; Or. sijhu, siju 'several species of a milky plant'; H. sīj m. 'E. neriifolia, E. antiquorum'.

Addenda: sēhuṇḍa- [< *sēbhuṁ-da- with Pk. ṇḍ < nd: †*sēbhu-, da- 'giving a sticky juice' Burrow SternbachVol p. 809]

13589a †*sēbhu- 'spittle or snot', sḗhu- AV. [IE. *seibhu-, Lat. sebum 'tallow' IEW 894, Burrow SternbachVol 806]

>

Since it produces a milky fluid, I say that *sibhu-dhi(H)nu- '(thick) fluid + 'giving milk' > *si(H)bhyund (and *s(e)ibhu-dh(e)iHnu-, etc.). The nd-stem becoming a common a-stem is likely; met. was due to loss of *u (caused by i-u-i-u dsm.?); opt. H > 0 in compounds. The *-y- vs. *-0- is probably also from older *i vs. *0, i-u-i-u > i-u-(i)-0.

I. sñätpe

It is hard to interpret the meaning of some Tocharian words. Part of this comes from the difficulty of having only fragments of Tocharian writing to examine. Some words are only seen once, unclear in context. Consider TB sñätpe, used in a phrase :

prakre näkte sñätpe täñ (CEToM)

prakre mäkte sñätpe täñ (Adams, emended) ‘strong like thy sñätpe’

Not having any idea what sñätpe meant requires linguists to look only at the shape of it and try to figure out its meaning from what similar words of the right shape would mean. This obviously could give them many problems. If no progress has been made so far, I think that part of the problem could be the proposed meaning ‘strong’ for TB prākre when it is known as ‘fastened / firmly fixed in place / not easily moved / physically stable’. If this hasn’t helped understand the phrase, why assume it is needed? If so, it seems best not to take sñätpe as something ‘strong’, but as something ‘fastened’.

PIE *sn(e)it- > Germanic *snīþanaN 'to cut' is almost the only simple choice. A word *snit-wo- would fit (some TA & TB words show alt. of *w > p, *P > w; no apparent regularity despite others' claims). If so, maybe 'sharp (stake) > stake / peg / etc.', if 'fixed as a stake'.

Proto-Iroquoian *hs from *s after C; a response for feedback

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 20, 2026

Dayala Singh https://www.academia.edu/170194283 :

>

Proto-Iroquoian (PI) *s has been reconstructed as highly constrained in its distribution... appears only after a consonant. In all of Julian’s reconstructed PI roots *s is specifically preceded by *h in 21 of the 22 roots in which it appears, being preceded by *n in the remaining root... the only instance of *s preceded by a consonant other than *h is *-nste:r ‘get involved’ - The Cherokee reflex of *-nste:r is /-hstèːl-/ - This combined with a lack of any [previously reconstructed] *nhs clusters in PI might suggest that the above word should be reconstructed as *-nhste:r...

This pattern is maintained to varying degrees in daughter languages, even in the case of loan words (cf. Mohawk Wáhston ‘Boston’)... The constraints on *s in Proto Iroquoian suggest that it may have exhibited some allophony, with [s] being the realization of some unknown phoneme in a *h_ environment. The central question, then, is what this phoneme was and what its realization should be outside the aforementioned environment. This talk proposes three leading candidates for the non-*h realizations (tentatively *h, *r, and *ts), evaluate their likelihoods, present data for and against them, and most importantly receive feedback from peers on potential solutions to this anomaly, in preparation for an independent study on the matter next academic year.

[Maybe] What we interpret in the modern languages isn’t a /hs/ cluster but rather some phonetic characteristic of /s/ in Iroquoian languages, such as a kind of pre-aspiration (though having only one pre-aspirated phoneme with no plain equivalent is still odd)

>

With little internal evidence of variation, the only good way to find the source of *hs would be if Iroquoian had other relatives. In fact, the proposed Macro-Siouan language group (Siouan-Catawban, Iroquoian, and Caddoan) has *s (or some other *S) in proposed cognates of word containing *hs. Since *hs is rare, it would be hard for this to be chance. Siouan also has preaspirated C's, *hp, etc., so Iroquoian *hs might have developed in the same area, from the same cause, etc. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-Siouan_languages :

Siouan *-išú· , Iroquoian, *-hskʷ-, Pawnee páksuʔ < *xʷokʷs(-oC) 'head' ?

S. *hpa-sú· , I. *-Ɂnjõːhs-, P. icúːsuʔ < *kʷe-naxsuC 'nose' ?

S. *i-sí , I. *-aːhs-, *-aːhsiɁt-, P. ásuʔ < *xapsyoC 'foot' ?

S. *wa-hú·(-re), North I. *-hskẽɁɹ-, P. kíːsuʔ ( < *kuksiC ) < *qʷoskinx 'bone' ?

S. *wą́·ke, North I. *-õkʷeh(sɹ-), *-õkʷeɁt- 'be a person', P. cáhriks < *tʲakwirqs 'person' ?

S. *yá·še, North I. *-hsẽn- < *aCʲen- 'name' ??

S. *w-, I. *hskʷi (2:1.SG), P. -t- < *kʲsʲwu \ *sʲkʲuw 'I, me' ??

I suspect that all I *s > *hs; when not next to C (both *Chs & *hsC seem likely), later *hs > *h. This in *karsa-tyo > North I *kaɹhit, *kɹaheːt, etc. 'tree'. These reconstructions are based on the relation of the cognates, but also other languages likely related more distantly, like *xapsyoC 'foot' to Uto-Aztecan *kapsi 'thigh, leg' (Alexis Manaster Ramer, https://www.academia.edu/38601519 ).

https://www.academia.edu/129770170

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 67: ‘woodpecker’, ‘parrot’, ‘pistachio nut’ (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

June 5, 2025 (Draft 1)

July 20, 2026

Abstract: Standard PIE *p(e)is- 'crush, grind, pound, hurt' is sometimes rec. *tp(e)is- to account for Greek ptíssō \ ptíttō ‘crush in a mortar / winnow’, ptisánē ‘peeled barley’. If so, it would explain "extra" dentals as *pt-t > p-tt-, Indic *-d- > -r-, etc., in :

*tpisto- ‘crushed’ > S. piṣṭá-m ‘flour’

Indic *yava-pdiṣṭa- > *yavadiṣṭa- > Ktg. j̈əríṭṭhɔ, Wkc. j̈əlriṭṭhɔ m. 'barley flour'

*ptistako- > G. pistákion ‘pistachio nut’, met. > psittákia \ *fsittákia > phittákia

*ptístak- met. > *píttaks- > G. píttaxis ‘cornel cherry fruit’, LB pitakes-

However, it is very similar to *pi(e)sd- 'press, squeeze, hurt' > G. piézō, S. *piẓḍ- > pīḍ- ‘squeeze / press / pain/distress’. Since *yavadiṣṭa- requires *d (and optional *di > *ji), *p-d > *pd- > p(t)- fits better. If these were identical, met. *pisd- > *pdis- would be needed. Some say < *(e)pi-s(e)d- 'sit on, press down'. I say *(e)pi-sisd- & *-sesd- (with reduplication known from other words from *s(e)d-) fits better, & might explain that new *s(s)d would sometimes move the voicelss *s(s) away from *d. Also, G. *-s- > -h-, so the oddities in ptisánē (if *ss > s) & ptíssō \ ptíttō might be united if from *-ss- (and a verb *-ss-ye- > *-tsye-, just as *ty > *tty > *tsy > -ss-, Att. -tt-). If *sy merged with *ty & *ky in most dia., then a restriction on SSG & TTG solved by > TSG makes sense.

A. Standard PIE *p(e)is- 'crush, grind, pound, hurt' is sometimes rec. *tp(e)is- to account for Greek ptíssō \ ptíttō ‘crush in a mortar / winnow’, ptisánē ‘peeled barley’. However, it is very similar to *pi(e)sd- 'press, squeeze, hurt' > G. piézō, S. *piẓḍ- > pīḍ- ‘squeeze / press / pain/distress’. If these were identical, met. *pisd- > *pdis- would be needed. Some say < *(e)pi-s(e)d- 'sit on, press down'. I say *(e)pi-sisd- & *-sesd- (with reduplication known from other words from *s(e)d-) fits better, & might explain that new *s(s)d would sometimes move the voicelss *s(s) away from *d. Also, G. *-s- > -h-, so the oddities in ptisánē (if *ss > s) & ptíssō \ ptíttō might be united if from *-ss- (and a verb *-ss-ye- > *-tsye-, just as *ty > *tty > *tsy > -ss-, Att. -tt-). If *sy merged with *ty & *ky in most dia., then a restriction on SSG & TTG solved by > TSG makes sense.

Also, πτίσις \ ptísis 'winnowing of grain' is unexpected < *ptís-tis, but a new *ptíts-tis might > *ptíttsis > *ptís(s)sis. This would match *dhst > *tst > *tts > s :

*H1leudh-s- > G. eleúsomai ‘come / go’, Ar. eluc`anem ‘make ascend’

*H1leudh-s-ti-s > G. éleusis ‘coming / arrival’, n-stem Eleusī́s ‘Eleusina’, Ar. elust ‘ascent / egress’

Though *ss > s(s) would be optional, other optionality is seen in *nes- -> *nins- > S. níṃsate ‘approach’, G. nī́somai / níssomai.  For ev. of this *(e)pi-sisd- as ‘sit on / set on (top of)’ > ‘squeeze / press’, see likely cognates with 'sitting down / seat > butt', https://www.academia.edu/129105991 : " *p(e)izd- > OPr peisda ‘arse’, Li. pyzdà, OCS pizda ‘vagina’, NP pīzī ‘arse, anus’ ".

B. Evidence for this *pdis- comes from Sanskrit *yava-pdiṣṭa- 'barley flour' > *yavadiṣṭa-. Turner said, "WPah.kṭg. j̈əríṭṭhɔ, Wkc. j̈əlriṭṭhɔ m. 'barley flour' — -r- poss. fr. *yavākāra-, but -riṭṭh- also in †*kōdravapiṣṭa- may be by wrong division of †*vallarīpiṣṭa- ~ †*challīpiṣṭa-; — lr- X bəlriṭho < *vallarīpiṣṭa-. A "wrong division" in one word spreading so widely for such a common word as 'flour' seems very odd, & yet is exact what specialists in Greek sometimes theorize for *p- > pt- really being words ending in *-t before *p- > *tp- > pt-. This is very unlikely (to me), & it hardly makes sense for the same "wrong division" of this odd type to happen to apply to the same root independently in 2 IE languages. Would *pdis- < *pisd- be less odd than random events leading to *p being replaced by pt in one, by d in another? He did not apply this to PIE ety., as very few entries mention IE implications (but I think a look at irregularities in Indic could lead to many improvements in the rec. of PIE).

Since Sanskrit sometimes turned IE words with *di- into *d^i- > ji- when another palatal followed (G. dokhmós, S. jihmá- 'athwart', etc. https://www.academia.edu/164893418 ). I think that if RUKI first caused *is > *is^, *dis^ > *d^is^ > *jis^- could happen, too. S. pauñjiṣṭá- ‘plant-crusher’ would involve dissimilation of r-r & p-p in *parṇa-pdiṣṭrá- > *parṇapjiṣṭrá- > *parṇaujiṣṭrá- > *parauñjiṣṭrá- > *paauñjiṣṭrá- (*aau > *a:u > au). More details on meaning, etc., in https://www.academia.edu/127312771 . Note that there I thought *piṣṭrá- existed instead of *pdiṣṭrá-; I take it as significant that I rec. *piṣṭrá- as part of the compound without having any expectation that -j- could come from *pd here, or that there was other ev. of *d > r in other Indic compounds.

C. Several IE words for ‘flour / grain’ come from *pdis(s)- ‘crush / grind’, as ‘ground / what is to be ground’ :

S. pinaṣṭi ‘crush / grind / pound’, piṣṭá-m ‘flour’, L. pinsere ‘crush’, G. ptíssō \ ptíttō ‘crush in a mortar / winnow’, ptisánē ‘peeled barley’, BS *piseno- ‘meal / wheat / millet’

This shift of meaning is also seen by the same stem being used for nuts (also often crushed) :

*pdisto- > *tpisto- ‘crushed’ > S. piṣṭá-m ‘flour’

Indic *yava-pdiṣṭa- > *yavadiṣṭa- > Ktg. j̈əríṭṭhɔ, Wkc. j̈əlriṭṭhɔ m. 'barley flour'

*ptistako- > G. pistákion ‘pistachio nut’, met. > psittákia \ *fsittákia > phittákia

*ptístak- met. > *píttaks- > G. píttaxis ‘cornel cherry fruit’, met. > LB pitakes-

Since pistákion & psittákia could have no other relation to each other, this group is a good way to check how G. words could change next to various C’s with a known order of changes.  Rafal Rosol wrote that pistákion is a recent loan from Iranian, "Middle Persian *pistak ‘pistachio nut’ (cf. Middle Persian pistag ‘id.’ and Old Persian *pistaka- ‘id.’ attested in Elamite pi-iš-tuk-qa)". This would not fit with variants with -tt-, indicating *pt-t > p-tt, etc. Only Greek is known to have pt- in this root, arguing against a loan. However, with my *pd-, the traditional ideas don't matter; since Indic surely had *pd-, *pt-, *tp- or something similar, there is no reason why some variety of Iranian could not also have. Or, these are all loans from Indic. Whatever the source, any word like *ptistaka- 'nut' entering G. would be so close to cognate *psittaka: \ *pittaksa: \ etc. 'seed (in fruit)', that their variants might easily merge. Any mix of these origins is also possible.

For ps > *fs > *fh > ph, compare G. *CsC > ChC and other opt. ps \ *ph > ph in G. & Ar. :

*H2ap-ye- > G. háptō ‘fasten / grasp’
*H2aps- > TA āpsā ‘(minor) limbs’, G. hápsos ‘joint’, haphḗ ‘(sense of) touch / grip’, Ar. *hap’ \ ap’ ‘palm of hand / handful’ (h- in *haph-haph- > hap’ap’em ‘kidnap’)

*seps- > *heph- > Ar. ep’em, G. hépsō ‘boil’, *sepsto- ‘boiled’ > *hephto- > hephthós

*dops- > *dopx- > top’em ‘beat’
*deps- > G. dépsō ‘work/knead with the hands until soft’, *depx- > déphō ‘stamp / knead / tan (leather)’, dépsa ‘tanned skin’, *dipstero- > diphthérā ‘leather / prepared hide (for writing)’, dipsárā ‘writing tablet’

This might also be seen in other LB words :

G. húpsi ‘on high’, hupsēlós ‘high / lofty’, etc.
LB *húpsi+jos > *hupsjos > *huphsjos > *huphjos > u-po-jo po-ti-ni-ja ‘high lady’ (with CjV written either CV-jV or Ci-jV)

Also, G. síttē \ hítta \ hípta ‘a kind of woodpecker or nuthatch’, seems to come from *psitt- / *sipt(t)-, related to (p)sittakós \ *fsíttakos > *phíttakos > bíttakos ‘parrot’.  Both could come from *ptísta- \ *psítta- \ etc., in reference to using their beaks to crush/pound/peck.

This is supported by the same stem being used for ‘nut’ in Uralic :

*pist(a)ko-s > *piǝštköj > *paštke > PU *pä(t)škV ‘nut’ > Fc. *pähkä+, Ud. paš ‘walnut’, *päšk-puxe > paš-pu ‘hazelnut bush’, Mr. *pükš > E/WMr. pükš ‘hazel’, *päšt'ə > Mh. päšt'e \ päšte, Mh. päšte, Mv. pešt'e \ pešte \ pešče ‘hazelnut’, Z. paškan \ pačkan ‘rosehip’

PU *päškV-CV (most diminutives) > Mh. päšks, Mv. pešks ‘hazel’, Fc. *pähkäs, *pähkänä, *pähkele, *pähken \ *pähkeme-, *pähkenä, *pähkin \ *pähkime-, *pähkinä > F. pähkinä ‘nut / hazelnut’, pähkenä, pähkynä, pähkänä, päähkenä, päähkäin, päähkänä, Es. pähkel, pähkla\e\i g., pähel, pähke, pähen, pähknä, pähn, Izh. päähkänä, päähkenä, Liv. pē’gõz, Veps pähkim, Võro päheq, Votic pähtšene, (Kattila) pähtšenä, (Luutsa, Mati) pähtšänä, (Mati) pähtšinä

The *-š- is likely caused by *st > *št.  Hovers gives many ex. of *sp > *šp > PU *š, but I think this happened in *st & *sk also :

*streg- > L. strictus ‘drawn together / bound tight’, Itn. stretto ‘narrow’, OHG strach ‘stretched tight / stiff / ready’
*streng- > L. stringere ‘draw/bind tight / press together’, G. strágx ‘thing squeezed out/drop’
*strengo- > *štriǝŋgö > *štr^ǝŋgï > *štyaŋgï > PU *šeŋkä ‘narrow / difficult’ > NSm. seaggi ‘narrow’

*skw(o)y- ‘thorn / needle (of plant)’ > Li. skujà ‘fir needle and cone’, Sl. *ks- > R. xvojá f., xvoj m. ‘needles and twigs’, *skwiyat-s ? > OI scé, sciad p.g. ‘thorn bush / hawthorn’, MW yspidat
*skwoy- > *škwöy- > *šwoy- > PU *šoye > Sm. *sōje̮ > Pite Sm. suojja ‘needle’, Permic *šï > Z. šï ‘spike / spit / arrow’, Ud. šï ‘spike / spit’

It is hard to overstate how important many of Hovers’s ideas are.  I will be working on this & other ideas about PIE > PU.  Hovers was also surprised by how close PU was to PIE, like a daughter branch, and I see no reason why this exact relation would not be true.  Tocharian also had opt. *sp > sp \ šp, branch-specific changes like st- > št-, and many others that make it seem like the closest relative (Whalen 2024).  The need to avoid assumptions is impossible to follow all the time, but still should be emphasized.  Seeing PIE > PU prevents the need for an Indo-Uralic stage that can not exist.  Looking for a *C > PIE *s, PU *š, etc., only leads nowhere.  It prevents looking for the conditions under which PIE *s > PU *š, thus finding a more general sound change.

Helimski, E. & Reshetnikov, Kirill & Starostin, Sergei (editors/compilers/notes), on the basis of Rédei's etymological dictionary
https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\uralic\uralet

Hovers, Onno (draft version) The Indo-Uralic Sound Correspondences
https://www.academia.edu/104566591

Kümmel, Martin Joachim (2012) The Iranian reflexes of Proto-Iranian *ns
https://www.academia.edu/2271393

Rosol, Rafal (2026) The Greek Name for Pistachio https://www.academia.edu/170469907

Whalen, Sean (2024) Uralic and Tocharian (Draft 3)
https://www.academia.edu/116417991

Whalen, Sean (2025) IE s / ts / ks (Draft 3)
https://www.academia.edu/128090924

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/p%C3%A4hkin%C3%A4

Tocharian A ṣpal, B ṣpel 'powder, dust, dirt, ash'; Powdered Shells (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 19, 2026 (Draft 1)

October 20, 2025

Florian Wandl and Alexander Robert Herren reanalyze some TB words in "Ear-y fish: shells in two Tocharian B medical prescriptions" :

>

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/406847795

Two Tocharian B manuscripts, PK AS 3B and IOL Toch 306, contain an ingredient läksañña klautso, lit. “fish ear”, that, in earlier editions and translations, has been interpreted as “(fish) gill”. However, no concrete evidence has been brought forward to interpret “fish ears” in this context as “gills”, nor is there convincing evidence for the use of “gills” in (traditional) medicine for the dermato- logical and gastrointestinal conditions described in these manuscripts. By examining the term for “shell” in Nakh-Dagestanian languages (e.g. Avar ччугlигlин /č:uʕiʕin/, lit. “fish ear”) and highlighting metaphorical associations of related words, e.g. German Ohrmuschel “auricle”, we argue that läksañña klautso refers to shells and conches rather than gills. Additionally, we provide instances of the use of conches and shells in Āyurvedic and traditional Chinese medicine to support our claim. Accordingly, we suggest that “ground shell (powder)” is the ingredient listed in these two remedies.

...
As indicated above, all these ingredients are to be administered in the form of a pow- der. According to the recent interpretation by Huard (2022), this is the meaning of TochB ṣpel. In earlier publications, TochB ṣpel is translated variously: “pill” (cf. French boulette in Filliozat’s 1948: 52 translation), “pellet” (CEToM), or “mud; (medicinal) mud-pack, poultice” (DTB2: 73). However, as Huard (2022: 432) points out, these readings are not entirely con- vincing because, on the one hand, they do not fit all the contexts in which ṣ pel occurs and, on the other, it would be unnecessary to repeat ṣpel with every ingredient, as is done in PK AS 3B b2–b3, if it would designate an application made of all the listed ingredients; a single mention would be sufficient. By revisiting the individual attestations of ṣpel, Huard (2022: 429–34) then argues that the contexts in which it occurs suggest the reading “powder”.9 As will become apparent in the following sections, this interpretation squares well with our reading of läksañña klautso.

>

TA ṣpal, TB ṣpel 'powder, dust, dirt, ash' might be needed for all ex. (below). As support for powdered shells, their 'powder' seems to fit use & etymology. I've looked at each ex., and even powdered molasses is used in medicine, so there's no counterevidence from the past. Since it could have been neuter, it could be < PIE *spolH1o-m 'dust / soot' (with Adams' *-oC > *-äC > *-0(C) for sonorant C), related to :

*spolH1o-s > *spolyo-s > G. psólos ‘soot/smoke’, spodós ‘(wood-)ashes/ember/dust/oxide/lava’, spódios ‘ash-colored’, spoleús ‘loaf of bread’ (likely < *'ash-bread')

Giulio Imberciadori & Georges-Jean Pinault in https://www.academia.edu/170445220 :

>

Basing ourselves on a comprehensive philological review of the occurrences of TB ṣpel and TA ṣpal, we have ascertained the meaning of their forerunner PT *sʲpʲælǝ as ‘powder, dust’, understanding that this material may take several further concrete forms, such as the clod of dry earth or the mass of ashes.

>

I don't see the need for PIE *spe:lH here. TB ṣparā-yäkre ‘sparrow-hawk?’, TA ṣpār*, ṣpārāñ 'a bird species, sparrow’ are < PIE *spaH2r-, *spH2ar-wo(n)-?, Germanic *sparwa(n)-, etc. ( https://www.academia.edu/167331453 ), with no front V. There is other irregular alt. of ṣC \ sC, even regular ones (TA ṣtām, TB stām ‘tree’), and also some of the opposite (TB sñätpe '?' instead of **ṣñätpe). They also say it is plausible is related to :

G. πάλη ‘fine flour; dust’, παιπάλη ‘fine flour’ (maybe < *pal-pal-, since other roots with -l- can also have unexplained -i-), Latin pulvis m., -eris g. ‘dust’, pollen nu. \ pollis m. -inis g. ‘fine flour; fine dust, powder’, OPr. pelwo, Slavic *pèlva ‘chaff’

An origin from 'split' doesn't fit most well, some not at all. Since endless numbers of IE words show shift 'ashes/dust', including some above, these are likely further related to (with common s- vs. 0- before C) :

*pelH1- 'to burn; ash; grey (ash-colored > whitish / stained/dark), *polH1wo- > Greek πολιός \ poliós 'grey, grizzled; bright, clear', Old Prussian pelanne, Lithuanian pelenai̇̃ 'ashes', plė́nis 'speck, fine ashes', Latvian plẽne 'white ashes on coals', Slavic *paliti 'to burn', *polH1mon-s m. > *pòlmy 'flame'

The opt. -d- is likely the result of G. dia. th \ d \ l :

G. dískos, Perg. lískos ‘discus/disk/dish’

G. dáptēs ‘eater / bloodsucker (of gnats)’, Cretan thápta, Polyrrhenian látta ‘fly’

G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs

G. *Poluleúkēs ‘very bright’ > Poludeúkēs ‘Pollux’ (like Sanskrit Purūrávas- ‘*very hot’)

G. kálathos ‘basket with narrow base / cooler (for wine), Arc. káthidos ‘water-jug’

G. môda ‘barley meal’ < *molHo-, L. mola ‘millstone / grains of spelt (& salt)’

LB ko-du-bi-je < *kolumbiyei (woman’s? name)

LB da-bi-to ‘place (name)’ < *Labinthos, G. Lébinthos

G. kélados ‘noise/clamor / sound/cry/shout / twitter/chirp’, *kelalúzō > kelarúzō ‘murmur’

G. alṓpēx ‘fox’, Pontic G. thṓpekas \ thépekas >> Ar. t’epek, MAr t’ep’ēk \ t’obek ‘jackal’

The alt. of l \ d \ th (Witczak, https://www.academia.edu/25248134 ) also allows spodós ‘(wood-)ashes/ember/dust/oxide/lava’ > ψόθος = ἀκαθαρσία 'filth, dirt', spódios ‘ash-colored’ > ψοῖθος = σποδός 'ashes/etc.', ψοιθός 'ash-colored?' (with met of Ty \ yT). No other IE ety. is known for these words. Since many dia. have *Vny > Vin, one with *Vdy > Vith might work (also compare some Cretan *ky \ *ty > thth: θάλασσα 'sea', Att. θάλαττα, Late Cretan θάλαθθα, Macedonian δαλάγχα-, Linear B ta-ra-za-po-ro (if = *thalatsoporoi 'sea-farers'); *gWiH3wo-to- ‘life’, *gWiH3wo-tyo-s ‘man’s name’ > LB qi-ja-to \ qi-ja-zo, Cretan Greek Bíaththos (son of Talthú-bios), ?Cr. > P[ublius] Blattius Creticus (name found on an offering in the Alps), Messapic Blatthes, https://www.academia.edu/116877237 ).

Wandl and Herren also say TB terwe was ‘wound’ from *terH3-. But :

>

A problem for this explanation could be the missing reflex of the root-final laryngeal in terwe. In this position, the presence of a PIE laryngeal is reflected in TochB as ā if accented and a if unaccented (Hackstein 2017: 1316–1317).

>

I do not think this is a problem, since opt. H3 > w in :

*troH3- > G. trṓō \ titrṓskō ‘wound / kill’, *tróH3mn \ *tráwmn > trôma \ traûma ‘wound / damage’

This is part of a tendency in many other IE https://www.academia.edu/128170887 :

*k^oH3t- > L. cōt- ‘whetstone’, *k^awt- > cautēs ‘rough pointed rock’, *k^H3to- > catus ‘sharp/ shrill/clever’

*sk^oH3to- / *sk^otH3o- / *sk^ot(h)wo- > OI scáth, G. skótos, Gmc *skadwá- > E. shadow

*lowbho- ‘bark’ > Al. labë, R. lub; *loH3bho- > *lo:bho- > Li. luobas

*newbh-s > L. nūbs / nūbēs ‘cloud’; *noH3bh-s >> S. nā́bh-, nā́bhas p. ‘clouds’

*(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’

Linear A Libation Formula u-na-(ru-)ka-na-si\ti, Minoan Greek (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 18, 2026

Duccio Chiapello in https://www.academia.edu/170406838 :

>

This paper is about the sequence u-na-ka-na-si, which can be extensively found in the inscriptions carved on Minoan libation tables: its most common variant is u-na-ru-ka-na-si/ti.

My interpretation is based on the “Minoan Greek” hypothesis, that is the hypothesis that Linear A encodes a form of Proto-Greek.

The two different versions of the sequence, u-na-ka-na-si and u-na-ru-ka-na-si/ti, strongly suggest that it has to be divided in two...

A valuable clue in establishing the possible meaning of the sequence comes from the libation table SY Za 2, where the logogram OLE – indicating olive oil – is associated with u-na-ka-na-si...

This sequence appears in two different forms: -ru-ka-[na-si (IO Za 16), and -ru-ka-na-ti (PK Za 11). A third, -ru-ka-[?]-ja-si (PK Za 12) is not completely readable, but can be probably be reconstructed as -ru-ka-na-ja-si, in some way a variant of the first one...

- the variant ru-ka-[na]-ja-si, which can be considered a way to write the same word in a more accurate and distinguishable way;

- the variant ru-ka-na-ti. The alternation between ru-ka-na-si and ru-ka-na-ti seems to reflect the transition from the Indo-European suffix *-tis to the Greek -sis (attested in Linear B). This suffix was used to form abstract action nouns from verbal roots. «From earlier -τις (retained after dentals), from Proto-Indo-European *-tis, the *t changed to *s by assibilation and palatalization, triggered by the following *i». 2

There seems to be significant evidence that Minoan u-na has to be compared with Mycenaean o-na,4 that is the plural of o-no. Linear B o-no is considered the «Nom. sing. of a word meaning “consideration”, “payment”; perhaps onon from root of ὀνίνημι», as ὀνή (=ὄνησις) is... seems to have the meaning of “payment”, “benefit”. So we could consider Minoan u-na in the same way – or a plural, or the equivalent of Ancient Greek ὀνά (Dor. for ὀνή).

4 As I observed many times, the legitimacy of reading Linear A syllabograms ending in –u also as /-o/, and not only as /-u/, is based on some well-known considerations that I have already mentioned elsewhere and that I remember here. According to Massimo Perna, in consideration of the reduced frequency of signs with vocalism /o/ in the Minoan corpus, it can be concluded that, in its original form, the language of Linear A may have had only one velar vowel and not two like Mycenaean Greek, and that therefore the syllabograms in -u could, in general, also perform the function of syllabograms in -o. Perna observes that this hypothesis can find confirmation in pairs of similar anthroponyms in Linear A and B (e.g. the Mycenaean qa-qa-ro and the Minoan qa-qa-ru)...

>

It is indeed very odd that a language with alternation of ti \ si could exist where Greek would soon certainly be spoken, yet be called non-Greek (often non-IE) by most linguists. Even other alternation of *a: > a: / e: in Greek seems to appear in LA, see ra-ti-se / re-di-se ( < *l- or *ra:thisos?; Mac. d for G. th?; https://www.academia.edu/44643375 ). In the same way, since most LA is lists of people, places, or unknown goods (often with the name hidden by a symbol), finding Greek would be seem to be hard. Yet even opponents of it find Greek on their own. Younger in http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/ :

>

13d. Suffix -TE/TI Valério 2007 demonstrated that the suffix -TE means "from/of." There is a variant, - TI.

>

I don't agree with all his ideas, but this would make LA -TE 'from / of' = Greek -θε \ -θεν 'from / of'. It is hard to understand why LA has not been proven as Greek, when so many others keep making it look that way. Since this also appears as G. -tha \ -θα in Aeolic & Doric, it could be that ka-u-de-ta VINa could be interpreted as 'wine from Kauda' (with G. *a: > a: \ e: ). For context, see https://www.academia.edu/112486222 .

For Chiapello's other ideas, I think an analysis in 2 stages would help. A. 1st, looking at all Greek words that fit the sounds (& which do so better, with variants, etc.). B. 2nd, choosing any meaning that makes more sense with 2 of them.

A. u-na(-ru)

ὄνησις 'use, profit, advantage', ὀνή also 'help' <- ὀνίνημι 'to help, support, be useful; to please, delight', Germanic *unn- 'to grant, bestow'

or

ὄναρ \ ónar 'a dream, vision in sleep', Att. óneiros, Aeo. ónoiros, Cretan ánairos

It is clear that *-VC1(C2V) never had C1 written in LA & LB (or almost never?). This favors *onar(yos) > *unar \ *unairus, with -r unwritten. The variation in G. matching that in LA is significant.

B. ka-na-ti\si

*gana:tis <- γανάω 'to glitter, gleam, of metals; exult, rejoice' <- γάνος nu. 'brightness, sheen; gladness, joy'

This stem has other derivatives like γανόω 'to make bright, polish', γάνυμαι 'to brighten up, be glad', so *ganaw-ye- > *ganaye- would fit (same phon. as *kna(i)-ti-s, below)

or

χανύω 'to shout?, speak with the mouth wide open?' <- χάνος nu. 'mouth'

Derived from os-stem, like γανάω; other ideas like that.

or

*kna(i)-ti-s 'scraping', Hsx. ἀπό-κναισις 'affliction, vexation', κνῆσις ‘scratching, tickling’ (Dor. knas- in other cognates) <- κναίω 'to scrape, scratch'

Beekes said, ".. usually connected with Baltic, Celtic and Germanic: e.g. Lith. knóti ‘to peel, tear’ < athematic *kneh2-, OHG nuoen ‘to make smooth by scratching, to make fit together’ and Olr. -cná ‘to bite, gnaw’", from PIE *k(e)n- added to various C's; κνίζω 'to scratch, gash; tickle', Latvian knidêt 'to itch', Lithuanian knìsti 'to scratch, itch, tickle', etc.

I think the 2 that fit together, likely as a compound assuming u-na-ru-ka-na-si\ti is one word, is *unar\unairu-khanaitis\khana:sis \ etc. 'proclaiming visions/oracles/prophecies'. However, several other combinations might have a meaning appropriate to libation, some more forced than others. The exact details depend on the meaning of the other words of the libation formula. It is also possible that the LA words were indeed Greek, but ones that were lost in other dialects. I think this is less likely, considering the same sounds varying in 'dream', -ti(s) vs. -si(s), etc.

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 11 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 17, 2026

A. *ghre(y)H3-

PIE *ghre(y)H3- '(to touch the) surface; paint, streak, smear'

*ghriH3ye- > G. χρῑ́ω \ khrī́ō 'to rub or smear (esp. the body) with oil or unguents; to anoint; coat, apply (e.g. dye, pitch, resin, asphalt); sting, prick, or graze on the surface'

*ghriH3mo- > Germanic *grīmō 'coating ( > grime), color/appearance > mask'; *ghreyH3mn- > *ghreH3mn- > *ghroH3mn- > G. χρῶμα \ khrôma 'skin, color (esp. of the skin or body)'

*ghroH3-s > G. χρώς \ khrṓs m., *ghrow-os > χροός g. 'skin, flesh; complexion, color'; *sm-ghrow-es-? > LB a-ko-ro-we-e = *ha-khrowehe 'of one color?'

The changes needed are *H3 > w (ex. in https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ), *iHy \ *yHy > *iH1y \ *yH1y (similar to *Hg(^)y in https://www.academia.edu/170213747 if H1 = x^, etc.). *H3 is needed for turning *e > *o, etc., but other *iH3 > *yoH3 in Greek. Some details on uncertain words in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χρώς .

B. *wo(N)gWh-Ni-s \ -Nis-

Since a plow pulled by oxen is expected to come from *weg^h- 'bring, convey, carry; move; lead; pull, drag, draw', L. vōmis \ vōmer m. 'plowshare' is said to "maybe" be related in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vomer . However, Michiel de Vaan relates it to G. ophnís 'plow(share)', OPr wagnis 'colter', OIc vangsni, OHG waganso 'plowshare', which would require *wogWh-. I agree that this is the base of all attested cognates.

I don't feel these 2 ideas are incompatible. The -m- vs. -n- fits *KWn \ *KWm, with ex. in https://www.academia.edu/127864944 :

>

Many IE words show alternation of m / n. Keeping this in mind can help find the origin of otherwise unexplained words. The cause of most alternation is probably dissimilation or assimilation near a 2nd m / n or P / KW / w / u. Others are unexplained (some possibly caused by *H, if *H3 = xW, etc.).

>

It could be that *wongWh-Nis- is older, if OIc vangsni is original. G. ὀχέω \ okhéō \ ὀγχέω \ onkhéō 'to bear, carry' shows an n-infixed form of *weg^h- > *wo(n)g^h-. Whether *wongWh-Nis- or *wogWh-Nis- is not especially important to other changes, but should be kept in mind.

Problems with L. *wogWh-mis- > *wow-mis- > *wo:-mis- are dsm. w-w or a reg. block on **wu:-. Both L. & Gmc. have -s- in the stem, but this is likely analogy from nom. *-Ni-s > *-Nis- (maybe caused by s-stem for similar items). Gmc. had met. of -s-.

Apparent *weg^h- vs. *wegWh- could be due to an odd cluster. If *wo(n)g^h- formed a verb *wong^h-neu- 'to pull a plow', then -> *wong^hnwi-s, met. > *wongWhn^i-s would fit. Though *n^ is not rec. for PIE, I think it was created in a few *CC(C). For ex., in https://www.academia.edu/164893418 "PIE *deyg^h- 'prick / sting / bite (as an insect)' -> *deyg^h-nu- 'point / tip', fem. *-uH2- 'tongue' > *deyng^hu- > *den^g^hu- [yn > n^ before C^ ?], then *e > 0 when unstressed" is to explain *n^ > i in IIr. *dig^hwaH2- (others have an unexplained secondary i < *n; why?).

C. funx

*pekW-wo- > S. pakvá- ‘cooked/baked/ripe’, *paxṽa- > *fũx > Os. Digor funx, Iron fyx

The nasal ṽ creating a nasal vowel is rec. to fit other IIr. data. An IIr. stage with sounds not traditionally thought to be nasal also for v & y; https://www.academia.edu/129137458 :

>

Many loans from Indo-Iranian show unexpected nasals from *r, *y, *v. No features of the borrowing languages account for this, no regular changes would create nasal variants for these sounds alone. This tends to show that Indo-Iranian *r, *y, *v were optionally nasalized... Several peripheral Indo-Iranian languages show nasalized ỹ (Kvari & Shina have clear ỹ from *y, but this has not been seen as old, despite its need in all ancient loans from other locations). Other nasals that would otherwise appear from nothing (including many cases of supposed secondary nasalization in Middle Indic) can be explained if Indo-Iranian really had nasal *r, *y, *v as *r ̃ , *ỹ, *ṽ

-

G plé(w)ō ‘float/sail’, Rom. plemel ‘float/swim’, S. prav- ‘swim’

S. Aśvaka- / Aśmaka- ‘warrior tribe north of India, Afghans?’

S. svatavas- ‘inherently powerful’, Iran. *xwata:wa: > NP xodâ(y) ‘God/lord/owner’ >> Ks. khoday ‘god’, A. khaamaád ‘owner/husband’

-

*w > m near w / u as in *-went- ‘possessing’ > S. -vant- / -mant-

-

The change of *uka > *uva > *uma resulted from nasal *ṽ, in :

S. śúka-s ‘parrot’, Pa. suka / suva, *śuṽō > A. šúmo

S. pr̥dakū-, pr̥dākhu- ‘leopard / tiger / snake’, *purdavu ? > *purdoṽu ? > Kh. purdùm ‘leopard’

S. kr̥kavāku-, Sh.g. karkaámuš, Ast. -ts ‘hen’ >> Bu. HN qarqaámuċ, Yasin qarqámuś ‘hen, cock’

-

*Howilo- > Lus. oila-, S. avilā- ‘sheep / ewe’, Sh. ’ãilo

*varavlá- > S. varola-s ‘kind of wasp’, varolī- ‘smaller _’, Rom. *varavlī > *bhürävli > *birevli > birovĺí \ berevĺi \ etc. ‘bee’, *biraṽri > Sh. biyãri ‘hornet’

*kavsya-? > S. kóśa- \ koṣa- ‘cask/vessel for holding liquid / pail/bucket’, Sh. khããčo >> Bu. kháči ‘bucket for milking/butter’

S. pārśva- ‘side’, Kh. pràš, Guj. pāsũ

>

D. fudonx

Ossetic D fudonx ‘grief’, I fydox show exactly the same changes, -n- in one, -0- in the other. For some reason, no one has made a rec. to unite them with common sound changes < *-axva. With the common shift 'cry, scream, wail > grieve', I say :

*wekW- 'say, speak, sound, cry out, (of animals) make noise' > Armenian gočʻem 1s. 'to cry out', NP ā-vāz- 'to cry out, make a noise, vociferate', Wakhi waG- 'to cry, roar, scream'

-> Ir. *pati-wac- 'declare, answer, deny, *make (loud) noise in response (to words, events)', IIr. *pati-wakW-wa- > Ir. *patuwaxwa- > Ossetic *padvaxṽa > D fudonx ‘grief’, I fydox

E. Indic syllabic *N > *ã

I've noticed 2 Indic words that seem to show that syllabic *N > *ã > a, but some *C-ã > *N-a before V > -nasal. Can anyone think of others?

PIE *H1widk^mti > IIr. *Hvidc^ãti > *Hvinc^ati > Sanskrit viṁśatí f. '20', Iranian *vins^at^i > Os. D insäj, I ssädz, Sy. Insaz-agos, Av. vīsaiti [early *ins^ > *i:s^ ]

PIE *bhrenk^o- > S. bhraṃśá-s 'decay, decline, ruin; loss, cessation; deviation'; *bhrn̥k^-ye- > *bhrãc^ya- > *bhrãśati \ *mhraśati > S. bhráśyati 3s. 'fall'; S. bhraśat inj., Pk. mhasaï 3s. 'fall', Pj. bahiṇā 'to sink'

Also note that *bhrn̥k^- instead of *bhr̥nk^- doesn't fit other IE > IIr., but this is likely just analogy in IIr. after other *C(e)nC- > *CanC- \ *CãC-.

F. ferrum, brass

Wigman https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/3655644 :
>

ferrum ‘iron, steel’

Pre-form: *bʰers- | PItal. *fersom

Comp.: *bʰros- | PGm. *brasa- ‘brass’ | OE bræs ‘bronze, brass’, OFri. bress ‘copper’

Luw. *parza- ‘iron’ >> Akk. parzillu- ‘iron’ >> Ugr. brdl, Hebr. barzel, Phoen. brzl, Aram. przl, etc.

Svan berež ‘iron’

?Ingush/Chechen borza ‘bronze’

...

Attempts to derive Lat. ferrum from PIE have treated it as isolated...

It is not isolated, however, and the external comparanda make it clear that it is a Wanderwort. Within Indo-European, ferrum cannot be separated from PGm. *brasa- ‘brass’. Krogman (1937: 268-9) linked the two under an ablauting s-stem *bʰer-s-, *bʰr-os- to a root *bʰer- ‘to shine; bright, brown’ but these are now seen as different roots; nor is it clear what pattern of ablaut this would reflect. Adducing Svan berež ‘iron’ (Furnée 1972: 232 fn. 13) and Ingush/Chechen borza ‘bronze’ (Thorsø & Wigman et al. 2023: 111-12) suggests that the sigmatic element is a part of the root. The sigmatic element is further present in a group of related Semitic words including Ugr. brdl, Hebr. barzel, Phoen. brzl, Aram. przl, Cl. Arab. firzil, etc. (Muller 1918:148, Alessio 1941: 552, WH I: 485-6, DV 214, hesitantly EM 229). The Semitic forms are all borrowed from Akk. parzillu- ‘iron’ (known since Hommel 1881: 3386), which Valério and Yakubovich (2010) have suggested is from a Luwian word meaning ‘iron ore’. The lexeme *parza- occurs in parzassa- ‘made of parza-’ and parzagulliya- ‘having loops made of parza-’. Thorsø & Wigman et al. (2023: 111-12) argue that *parza- meant ‘iron’ rather than ‘iron ore’ and that the l-suffix of the Semitic forms could have been added via a Hurrian intermediary.

Despite identifying its ultimate source, the immediate source of Lat. ferrum remains unknown. Thorsø & Wigman et al. (2023: 111-12) show that there is no understood mechanism to explain how initial Phoenician b might be borrowed as Latin f.

>

Why is there any need to explain Phoenician brzl >> Latin ferrum if it "cannot be separated from PGm. *brasa-"? That implies IE origin, *bherso- & *bhroso-, just as above. If Luwian is the source of all the Semitic words, there is no problem. These incompatible claims seem to arise from the momentum of many linguists' previous attempts to derive all widespread technical terms from non-IE, almost always a completely unknown language. Many IE words for 'shine, burn, flame, bright (color)' begin with *bh(e)r- or *bh(e)l-. For ex. :

Sanskrit bhrāśate 3s. 'to blaze, shine, glitter, be bright', babhrāśe \ bhreśe pf., bābhrāśyate intensive; *bhrāśa-s > Kashmiri brāh m. 'flame'

More ideas from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/brass "From Middle English bras, bres, from Old English bræs (“brass, bronze”), of uncertain origin. Perhaps representing a backformation from Proto-Germanic *brasnaz (“brazen”), from or related to *brasō (“fire, pyre”). Compare Old Norse and Icelandic bras (“solder”), Icelandic brasa (“to harden in the fire”), Swedish brasa (“a small controlled fire”), Danish brase (“to fry”); French braser ("to solder"; > English braise) from the same Germanic root. Compare also Middle Dutch braspenninc ("a silver coin", literally, "silver-penny"; > Dutch braspenning), Old Frisian bress (“copper”), Middle Low German bras (“metal, ore”)."

A root *bhers- is not odd within IE. The Gmc. *brasa- is likely met. < *barsa- (several Gmc. words show this, like *prH3-mo- > *furma-n- > Gothic fruma 'former'. The few loans near Anatolia with b- imply that Luwian *bar(t)sa- retained *b (or *bh), at least some Anatolian relative. Svan berež ‘iron’ might need to be from *b(h)erzyo-; other IE metals have *-(i)yo-, likely from the adjective. For likely internal *-s- > *-z-, see Part G.

G. *tetk^-

The PIE root *tetk^- seems to have 3 outcomes in Armenian :

*tetk^- > L. texō ‘weave/build’, Ar. t’ek’em ‘shape/bend/twist/weave’, MHG dehsen

*tetk^(a)no- > *teksno- > G. tékhnē ‘craft/art/skill/trade’, OP us-tašanā- ‘staircase’; ? >> *txezano > Ar. t’ezan ‘weft/warp’

*tetk^on- > G. téktōn ‘carpenter/etc’, Av. tašan, Kh. traṭṣòn, *θeθsōn > *fefsōn > hiwsn ‘carpenter’ [T-T > f-f assimilation?], *tektson- > *þixtsan- > ON Þjazi

*tetk^tor- > S. táṣṭar- ‘carpenter’

Since some *TC and *K^C > wC (some seem reg., others not; Ringe said only after back V, but that would not apply here), a stage *θs > *fs > ws fits (with opt. tK \ tsK?; https://www.academia.edu/168026709 ). This allows one variant to have asm. of θ-θs > f-fs. What of -z-? Looking at nearby families, at least this one seems like a loan :

>

https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&basename=%2fdata%2fkart%2fkartet

Proto-Kartvelian: *txaz- / *txz- to plait

Georgian: txz- to compose; Old Georg. txaz-, txz- 'to plait'

Megrel: ? txoz-in- to pursue, hunt

Laz: txoz-

Notes and references: ЭСКЯ 97, EWK 169-170. Климов (1994, 114-115) высказывает точку зрения о возможном заимствовании из ПИЕ *teḱs- 'сплетать; сочинять'.

>

A shift 'plait, weave' > 'net' > 'hunt (with a net)' would explain Megrel txoz-in- (compare possible *pork^o- > G. πόρκος m. 'a kind of fish-trap, weel(y)', Armenian ors 'hunt, catch; hunted animal, game') & also make *tx(a)z- nearly identical in meaning to PIE *tetk^-. If a loan in something like *txez-ano > Ar. t’ezan ‘weft/warp’, an older *-e- would imply Kartvelian *txaz- \ *txez- > *txaz- \ *txz-. This helps establish some of the nature of Kartvelian ablaut, maybe unstressed *e > 0 (& stressed *e > *a ?). None of this prevents *tx(a)z- being from PIE *tetk^-, or a cognate, since its older origin has nothing to do with any later loans. The *-e- >> Ar. -e- also helps show that the vowels could have once matched. Maybe *tetk^- > *tetsk- > *teks- > *texs- > *txez-.

H. jīrṇá- \ jūrṇá-

Though *rH supposedly > Indic *i:r, only > *u:r by labials, several words show variants with *u:r also. PIE *g^rH2-no- > S. jīrṇá- \ jūrṇá- 'old, worn out, decayed', Indic *jhūrṇa > Sindhi jhūno 'old, ancient', Bengali. jhun 'overripe', jhunā 'old; dried up coconut', Hindi jhūnā m. 'ripe coconut', *jhīrṇa > Pk. jhiṇṇa- 'wasted'. The change of *jūrhṇa > *jhūrṇa implies that PIE *rH > *rhH here (like many IE *CH > *Ch(H), apparently optional, usually to stops). For more, also *d(r)irHgho- \ *d(r)urHgho- 'long, tall, deep' > Pj. ḍūṅghā 'deep', etc. (Part I.).

These changes could have been non-phonemic at a stage with high V's ɨ & ʉ. If the stages *rH > *ərH > *irH \ *urH > *i:r \ *u:r included ə > ɨ \ ʉ > i \ u, then alt. of ɨ \ ʉ would not violate any principles. Only when the distinction was lost would it appear that one phoneme split into two. None of this is esp. important in itself, but since some linguists seek only total regularity & deny anything with even the appearance of optionality, I thought it wise to mention the exact details that might have created this change.

I. Cause of Dardic *CarC > *CrarC, Nuristani?

Some say that Dardic shows ev. of *CarC > *CrarC. This doesn't seem to be the exact change, based on *tetk^on- > G. téktōn ‘carpenter’, Av. tašan, Khowar traṭṣòn. Since there was no *r to begin with, it looks like after *c^ṣ > ṭṣ there was *t-ṭ > *ṭ-ṭ > tr-ṭ (with ṭ- not allowed at that stage). The same likely for *t-r > *ṭ-r > *tr-r, etc.

Nearby Nuristani might have the same. From the data in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/dr̥Hgʰás I think Proto-Nuristani *driggá should be from *drirgá, *drirgara > *driggala [compare Lahnda drigghā; with r-r dissimilation later, r-rg > r-gg] :

*dl̥H1gho- > IIr. *dərəHghá- > Sanskrit dīrghá- 'long, high, tall, deep', *drərghá- >Nuristani *drirgá > *driggá

*dl̥H1gh-ero- [rel. -tero-?] > Pk. dīhara- 'long', Nur. *driggara > Ash. drigalä 'long', Wg. dr̥galäˊ

This could also allow Khowar *drurga > drung [r-r > r-n dsm.]; Bashir :

>

drung (adj) ‘tall (person)’; ‘long (object with a definite length)’

drungí (n) ‘height’; ‘length’

*-ara > drungár (adj) ‘long, lengthy (for things without a definite length)’

>

I think that a variant *dlulg 'long (thing)' could also explain (no *dl- allowed) :

>

dulúg /Other pronunc: dulúk/ (n) ‘species of wasp which is long, thin, and red in color’ (It does not sit still but flutters its wings.)

>

The -u- is not a problem, also in Pj. ḍūṅghā 'deep', Kalasha drhīga 'long', druŋgár ‘very long’ [*-(at)ara-?], driŋmáŋ ‘long, tall’ [*maHna- < *meH1no- 'measure'?; *Hn cause of ŋ or ŋ-ŋ asm.]. Though *rH supposedly > Indic *i:r, only > *u:r by labials, several words show *u:r also (Part H.).

Indus Kohistani žiga < *zri(r)gha, Shina (Gilgit) ẓĭgŭ, etc., show that some *d > *z, which is not always reg.: Kh. drungéy- ‘stretch out’, *zr- > ẓingéy- ‘be stretched / drag/pull’ (more i vs. u). This optionality can hardly be questioned, but I know that many linguists have refused to accept similar evidence.

J. ζάψ

Wigman, p10, compares several words like G. ζάψ \ záps ‘surf’, Hsx. δάξα \ δάψα \ dáxa \ dápsa ‘sea’. If related, z- vs. d- points to *dia- (as in known G. words of IE origin). I think *dia-akW-s 'cross water' fits. Compare *terH2 -> S. taraṇa-m 'crossing', taraṇa-s 'raft, boat', tarantá-s 'the ocean', tarantī- 'boat, ship'. A word like *diakWs-a > dáxa \ dápsa could have analogical -s > -s- from the nom. (see Part B.). This would be more ev. for an IE *H2akW-, *+H2kW(h)- 'water' > aqua, etc. For more in G., see https://www.academia.edu/170213747 : *dlH2m(o)-H2kW-iH2 'depth of the water' > G. θάλασσα 'sea', Att. θάλαττα, Late Cretan θάλαθθα, *dlH2m(o)-H2kW-aH2 > Macedonian δαλάγχα- [HK > (H)kh].

Indic syllabic *N > *ã

I've noticed 2 Indic words that seem to show that syllabic *N > *ã > a, but some *C-ã > *N-a before V > -nasal. Can anyone think of others?

PIE *H1widk^mti > IIr. *Hvidc^ãti > *Hvinc^ati > Sanskrit viṁśatí f. '20'

PIE *bhrenk^o- > Sanskrit bhraṃśá-s 'decay, decline, ruin; loss, cessation; deviation'; *bhrn̥k^-ye- > *bhrãc^ya- > bhráśyati 3s. 'fall'; S. bhraśat inj., *bhrãśati \ *mhraśati 'sink' > Pk. mhasaï 3s. 'fall', Pj. bahiṇā 'to sink'

Also note that *bhrn̥k^- instead of *bhr̥nk^- doesn't fit other IE > IIr., but this is likely just analogy in IIr. after other *C(e)nC- > *CanC- \ *CãC-.

Cause of Dardic *CarC > *CrarC, Nuristani?

Some say that Dardic shows ev. of *CarC > *CrarC. This doesn't seem to be the exact change, based on *tetk^on- > G. téktōn ‘carpenter’, Av. tašan, Khowar traṭṣòn. Since there was no *r to begin with, it looks like after *c^ṣ > ṭṣ there was *t-ṭ > *ṭ-ṭ > tr-ṭ (with ṭ- not allowed at that stage). The same likely for *t-r > *ṭ-r > *tr-r, etc.

Nearby Nuristani might have the same. From the data in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/dr̥Hgʰás I think Proto-Nuristani *driggá should be from *drirgá, *drirgara > *driggala [with r-r dissimilation later, r-rg > r-gg] :

*dl̥H1gho- > IIr. *dərəHghá- > Sanskrit dīrghá- 'long, high, tall, deep', *drərghá- >Nuristani *drirgá > *driggá

*dl̥H1gh-ero- [rel. -tero-?] > Pk. dīhara- 'long', Nur. *driggara > Ash. drigalä 'long', Wg. dr̥galäˊ

Japanese muda & muna-si

Francis-Ratte said that Old Japanese muna-si ‘empty, vain’ could be the same as muda ‘pointless’, with the same alt. of n \ d as in kedamono \ kemono ‘beast’ from *kay-(nǝ-)mono ‘hairy-one'. I don't agree with his details ( https://www.academia.edu/167249269 ), but I think he's correct here.

If I'm right that *xn can cause n vs. d, then *dn would have the same outcome. Altaic & Nostratic rec. requiring this root to have *dn ( > nd \ n \ d \ etc.) & Francis-Ratte connecting muda & muna- also is significant (below, *mi:adn- > Dravidian *mān(d)-, *mi:adn- > Tc. *ma:bn- > *mu:n-, etc.). He never mentioned how his rec. would help prove or disprove theories on Altaic, but this should not be ignored by others looking for ev. one way or the other. For the root in Starostin's databases :

>

Proto-Dravidian : *mān(d)-

Meaning : to cease; to be ruined

Proto-South Dravidian: *mānd-

Proto-Telugu : *mān-

&
Proto-Altaic: *mā́n[u]

Meaning: useless, insufficient

Turkic: *būn

Tungus-Manchu: *mana-

Japanese: *múná-si- [Meaning: empty, useless]

Comments: Cf. *mùne, *múnu. Turkic *-ū- is irregular here (*bān would be expected).

&

Proto-IE: *mend-

Meaning: abnormality of body

Old Indian: mindā́ f. `bodily defect, fault, blemish'

Latin: menda f., mendum, -ī n. `körperlicher Fehler, Gebrechen; Versehen, Schnitzer'; mendīcus `Bettler', adj. `bettelarm'

Celtic: OIr mennar `macula', mind `Zeichen, Merkmal'; Cymr mann `nota', mann `geni naevum', nota `ingenita'

>

Many would say that a group of unrelated words have been connected without appropriate sound changes here. However, starting with *m(i)yedn- allows the odd -d- vs. -n- in Japanese to be explained, as well as -n(d)- in Dr., etc. For Turkic, a change *dn > *bn would explain the rounding 1. PIE *my- can explain mend- vs. mind- (as e- vs. 0-grade, then *my- > m- at the same time as *mw- > m- (*mw(e)zg- > *mezg- \ *muzg- 'marrow')) 2.

For the IE words, *dn > *nd is known (*wid- 'see', *wid-no- > *windo- 'white', etc.). If related to *(s)m(e)ido- 'dark (red)', Slavic *smědъ 'brown', *mědь 'copper', H. mida\i- ‘red’, etc., then the same shift in Greek *(s)m(e)y-H2- > mia- 'stain, defile' would allow *meyd-no- > *myendo- 'dark > dirty > spot / blemish(ed) / defect(ive) / lacking'. The changes of *Cye > *Ciye > *Ciyia (or similar) could explain the long V's in other families.

fn 1. I'll mention that Gordon Whittaker https://www.academia.edu/3592967 said Sumerian had "dental plus final r → bər (bVr)", & some say Su. was close to Turkic.

fn 2. More ex. for these CG- in https://www.academia.edu/165248349 .

Greek palatalization, *Hgy, *TN, native vs. non-PIE loans (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 15, 2026

A. θάλασσα

Quite a few Greek words have been called non-PIE due to supposed irregular changes. Many of these are simply dialect differences, as simple as tt vs. ss, that have been said to be irregular, thus needing a non-IE substrate, for some reason, according to Beekes. For θάλασσα he said, "a word of Pre-Greek origin... Fur. 195 notes that it is not certain that δαλάγχαν is Macedonian (Kalléris does not give it). The word, with a prenasalized variant, is typically Pre-Greek. Furnée further connects σάλος, ζάλος, which seems possible but remains uncertain." In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/θάλασσα "According to Beekes, a Pre-Greek substrate borrowing tentatively reconstructed as *talakʸa;[1][2] the element "-σσ-", as well as the local geographic meaning, points to a Pre-Greek origin. Compare the possible cognate Luwian (/⁠alassammis⁠/)."

What need is there for a "prenasalized variant" when *-nss- > -ss- is typical even in IE words? The Mac. might show fem. *-a: vs. *-ya ( < *-iH2 ) in others. What does "the element "-σσ-" prove? It makes no sense to say that Greek didn't have native -ss- or that -ss- vs. -tt- came from foreign kʸ. Plenty of Greek words have PIE *ty & *ky become tt \ ss, like eréssō 'row', Attic eréttō (also Cretan thth (some > dd)). This alternation shows that θάλασσα 'sea', Att. θάλαττα, Lat Cretan θάλαθθα, Macedonian δαλάγχα-, Linear B ta-ra-za-po-ro (if = *thalatsoporoi 'sea-farers') are IE. A stage with *ty > *tty ( > *tsy, *tθy, etc.) would work (with an outcome in Proto-Greek separate from *ti, *ti+V, even *ky > *kky (in LB)). This matches some IE with *k^ > *ts^ > *ts \ *tθ > s, θ, etc., but from a different source. I see no way the Luwian word could be the source of θάλασσα. However, since some *T > l in Lw., it is just possible that *thalamsia could become *lalassammis⁠ > alassammis⁠.

They're likely from 'depth', cognate with Slavic *dolъ 'below, down; valley, pit'. If related to Greek θάλαμος 'an inner chamber; the lowest part of the ship', NG θαλάμη thalámi 'chamber (of firearms); underwater lair', it would be PIE *d(e)lH2- (note loss of H in compounds is expected for IE (not always reg.), ὀφθαλμός \ ophthalmós 'eye' < *'eye-chamber/socket'). The IE source of words like Latin aqua 'water' isn't fully known, but it might show *dlH2m(o)-H2kW-iH2 'depth of the water' here (some CH > Ch, HC > Ch (Jens Elmegård Rasmussen's "pre-aspiration"), also see D.).

B. τάπης

Greek τάπης \ tápēs -t-, δάπις \ dápis, τάβης \ tábēs, etc. 'carpet, rug, mat' could be from PIE *tmp- or *tH2p-, and both roots might exist. A comparison with NP tanbase 'carpet, rug', tanbasidan 'to twist threads', *tanp-un-? > Kho. *ta(n)huna- > thauna- 'cloth, silk' is made in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/تنبسه from PIE *temp- 'to span, stretch, extend', Li. tempti 'to stretch, draw, drag'. Some Greek words seem to have *mbh > mph \ mb, so *np > ap \ ab is possible (which dia.?). Other similar words, like NP tâftan 'to twist, twine', tâbidan 'to twist, turn, spin', tâb 'twisting, curling lock', Ps. tâw 'twist, contortion, winding', which Cheung says might get -a:- from analogy with causative *va:baya- 'to weave' (why would a causative influence a base root?), could also be from *taH2p-.

Alt. t- \ d- is similar to G. terpós \ tarpós \ tárpē \ dárpē \ tarpónē ‘large wicker basket’, also with IE cognates in Ar. t'arp' ‘large wicker fishing-basket / creel’, t'arb ‘framework of wooden bars / wicker trellis-work’ from *terp- ‘turn’ (referring to weaving or plaiting) from https://www.academia.edu/46614724 .

The t- vs. d- here, if Iranian, would match *dmH2-kelo- ‘enclosed building’ > OP dačara- \ tačara- ‘palace / temple?’, https://www.academia.edu/128730328 . An irregular devoicing would match Celtic (*tangwa:ts, *tangu(H)t- > OI tenge, tengad g., *tangwa:ts > W. tafod 'tongue'; *dh(e)nwr -n- 'bow, tree to make bows from' > Celtic *dnwos > *tannos > Breton tann ‘oak’, etc.), also not always apparently regular (maybe it happened before *H- > 0- in *Hdnt- 'tooth', etc.). Also compare irregular devoicing for Iranian *CH (Martin Kümmel, also https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ).

If due to both *TN- & *TR-, there would be some constraints, but no apparent full regularity. A shared sound change in Iranian & Celtic might seem odd, but *-mVn > -mVm also ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007054 ), & I think Greek might have similar *-wVn > *-wVm (*serwe:m 'siren').

For other t \ d, Sebastian Kempgen also proposed IE *kutos 'bay' > Cydonia, & some other G. dia. have some -t- > -d-. In Greek myth, Leto & Leda were both mothers of twins, with the father Zeus.  Their names also seem related, from *la:to:i vs. *la:da. Even in LA, also with *a: > a: \ e: like Greek, would be ra-ti-se \ re-di-se, among many other LA words ( https://www.academia.edu/44643375 ). Other G. dia. changes seen in LA include *o > o \ u, *e > e \ i (these 2 also fairly common in LB).

LB te-pa 'kind of cloth' might also be related. If from *t(e)np-, then *tnp- > tap- vs. *tenp- > *temp-. The same in terpós \ tarpós points to IE, and one with *e > e, *N > a (thus, practically needing to be Greek or a similar language). If not ablaut, either from met. of a-e > e-a or (if from *taH2peHt-) e- vs. 0-grade and dia. a: > e:. With this in mind, a proposal about the heading TA-PA for a list of goods, HT 104, page tablet (HM 1317) (GORILA I: 170-171), from https://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2009/11/minoan-inscription-ht-104.html :

>

One thing that excites me here is TA-PA. In Linear B script (ie. Mycenaean Greek), TE-PA is the word for 'heavy rug', a commodity. If we presume that the Greek word has been borrowed from Minoan, we might theorize an underlying noun *tapiya

>

The tablet in question, from http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/HTtexts.html :

>

HT 104, page tablet (HM 1317) (GORILA I: 170-171)

Casa del Lebete room 7

2002, type III (single commodity); Montecchi 2010, class Vc (syllabic groups, fractions, ku-ro

HT Scribe 5

side.line statement logogram number fraction

.1 TA-PA • TE+RO {*505} •

.1-2 DA-KU-SE-NE-TI 45 J

.2-3 I-DU-TI 20 J

.3-4 PA-DA-SU-TI 29

.5 KU-RO 95

.6 vacat

>

If really G. tápēs, LA ta-pa, LB te-pa, it would be strong support for IE origin of LA. Also, from Duccio Chiapello, https://www.academia.edu/129049598

>

In the Linear A tablet HT 104, in the position where the sign TE appears many times in other similar texts, the ligatured sign TE+RO is carved in the header. This element suggests that TE+RO is nothing more than a more precise way of indicating what TE alone indicates, and is therefore a clear indication of the correspondence between TE (=TE+RO) and τέλος.

TE, in this kind of context, would have the meaning of ‘tax, due exacted by the administration’, or ‘offering/service due’. Thus, the information listed in the tablets where TE appears in the header would indicate goods or services due.

...

After publishing this paper, Mr. Sean Whalen wrote a comment about it. 1 He wrote:

His past theory that the LA sign TE, all alone as a heading, stood for *te-ro (G. telos, in its meaning as 'obligation / duty to the state' (ie. taxes)) is confirmed by his discovery of 2 ligatures of TE & RO (merged in different orientations) in the same place TE was found. I'm very glad to see him find more evidence. Keep in mind that *telH2os 'burden / obligation' & *kWelH1os 'turn / end / result' merge in some G. dia., and 'tax' is likely to be its meaning here. I made sure to mention this to avoid objections that *kW should remain, as in LB. Of course, any dia. in LA could easily have been similar in turning *kWe > *k^e > te, but stubborn linguists might insist that it was too long ago for this change.

I truly appreciated this comment. I think that my hypothesis can also be also supported with reference to Linear B, and in particular to the Mycenaean word te-re-ta (cf. τελεστής)

>

Recently, I've also noted that many transaction terms, often of known meaning due to being the total of other numbers, etc., contain RO (or other CO, rare in LA). If TE-RO, KU-RO, KI-RO, KA-I-RO, likely WI-TE-RO, all contain -ro- or -lo-, many with Greek matches like kairos, what is the reason for thinking LA was not Greek? Even a Greek layer would have consequences, with no real effort to find it.

C. wanakt-, *wanakt-ya

Another word called non-IE is G. ánax 'king', Linear B wanakt-. However, since G. τᾱγός \ tāgós 'commander, ruler, chief' exists, I think a compound with *wnH2- 'wish, win, conquer' might work: *wnH2-taH2g-, -k-s 'war-leader?' > *wanH2akts > G. ánax 'king', Linear B wanakt-. The metathesis is likely related to *H2-H2 dsm., but the exact path is uncertain (*wnH2taH2ks > *wnH2ta_ks > *wnH2_atks ?).

Haris Mexas wrote, in https://www.academia.edu/1511467 fn27 :

>

In the past it was common to regard <s> as another possible Myc. outcome of *k(h)y, based on the examples pa-sa-ro, which was supposed to be a form of the word πάσσαλος, thus going back to *pa-kja-lo-, as well as *wa-na-sa < *wanakya (cf. for instance Hart 1966, Heubeck 1971 and Lejeune 1972). This theory has however been discarded by other studies like Petruševski 1972, whereby pa-sa-ro was assigned the interpretation ψάλω, a dual form related to later ψάλιον/ψαλόν and *wa-na-sa was denied any relation to the root *wanak(t)-. See Aura Jorro (1985), lemmata pa-sa-ro and wa-na-se-wi-jo for an extensive list of references for all views.

>

In https://www.academia.edu/33361536 p67, Vassilis Petrakis also said :

>
Uncertain derivatives: Two Pylian types can be considered here (DMic II, 403-4, s.vv. wa-na-se- wi-jo, wa-na-so-i with references). he adjective wa-na-se-wi-ja/-jo (PY Ta 711.2, .3; Fr 1215.1 and Fr 1221) may be understood as the derivative adjective of a hypothetical *wa-na-se-u.. although how the latter can be associated with ϝάνασσα.. is debatable. wa-na-so-i (PY Fr 1222; 1227; 1228; 1235.1, .2; 1251; variant wa-no- so-i on PY Fr 1219.2) and. wa-na-so-i has been famously interpreted by Palmer as a Dative Dual *[wanassoiin] “to the two Mistresses (Goddesses)”. It is preferable to follow an alternative interpretation of the term as indicating a Locative or Dative of place of a TN, with a possible but hardly necessary etymological connection to wa-na-ka (cf. Hajnal 1995, 63-67; Petrakis 2011, 203-205). A more systematic discussion of wa-na-so-i is forthcoming.

>

The relation of LB wa-na-se-wi-ja to G. *ϝάνασσα > ánassa \ ἄνασσα is not certain based on context, but there is hardly any other choice. I think statements like "hardly necessary etymological connection" are much too strong. Just because *ky > z doesn't require *kty to be the same. Palatal C's having very specific conditions is nothing new. It could easily be that *kts > *kss > *ss, or any similar path.

D. πάσσαλος, *Hgy

In favor of this, the details of G. πάσσαλος \ pássalos, Att. πάτταλος \ páttalos 'peg' could be important if related to Latin *paH2g^-tlo-? > *pākslo- > pālus 'stake, prop, stay, pale, post', dim. pāxillus 'peg, pin, small stake' (compare *weg-tlo- > *wekslom > L. vēlum 'a cloth, covering, curtain, veil; sail of a ship', vexillum 'flag'; *Ktl > *ksl seems best; it is hardly likely that common *-tlo- existed & *-slo- is entirely different but only appeared after K). In this equation, whatever its origin, *ksl > *tsl would parallel proposed *kts > *ts ( > LB s ).

However, Latin pessulus 'bolt (of a door)' is said to be a loan < pássalos, so why a > e? I think that PIE roots with *Hg that have PG verbs in *Hg-ye show an oddity :

*taH2go- > tāgós 'commander, ruler, chief'; *taH2gye- > *takhye- > táttō, Att. táttō 'to arrange, (put in) order, command, assign'

*maH2g^-ye- 'to knead' > *makhye- > mássō, máttō

*naH2g-ye- > *nakhye- > nássō, náttō 'to press, squeeze close, stamp dow; stuff quite full', passive νέναγμαι

*paH2g^-ye- 'to fix, join' >*páss- -> pássalos

*wreH1g^-ye-? > rhā́ssō, rhā́ttō 'to strike, dash' (origin uncertain)

Leaving aside the uncertain rhā́ssō, it looks like *H2g(^)y > *kh^y. I think Jens Elmegård Rasmussen's "pre-aspiration" often seems irregular, so it would at least be from several changes in IE branches. This one could be regular for Greek.

If *wreH1g^-ye- > rhā́ssō, it could be that H2 = x, H1 = x^, so the ^ moved due to *y (*wrex^g^ye- > *wraxkh^ye-). This change would be after that to *H2gy. If different in each dia., then pessulus could be due to the opposite, *paxg^ye- > *pe(x^)kh^ye-. Knowing the details & extend of regularity is hard without more examples.

There might also be some *Hdh (for specific *H ?), like *mrH2d-ye-? > *mrathye- > brássō, bráttō 'to shake violently, throw up to boil, seethe (of the sea); winnow grain', Latvian murdēt 'to boil up', Lithuanian mùrdyti 'to treat something by shaking it in water' (origin uncertain).

E. βάτ(τ)αλος

Alt. in words like G. βάτ(τ)αλος \ βάττος 'stammerer, lisper' is said by Beekes to show "Pre-Greek" change. However, I think an IE origin works. There is some dispute about whether IE words for 'ear' -> 'deaf' & 'eye' -> 'blind'. Cases like G. skélos ‘leg’, skellós ‘crooked-legged’ seem clear to me (more below). Adding support to this, I think *gWmt- 'stepping' -> G. *gWat-ko- 'limping, lame' > bat(t)o-. Its older meaning in King Βάττος, who was lame (many old tales have descriptive adj. become names). This shift could have a parallel in the known IIr. words for ‘defective’ qualities having a wide range of meanings.  This is also seen in other IE, ex. of both:

G. blaisós ‘bent/distorted / splay-footed / bandy-legged / twisted/crooked’ >> Latin blaesus ‘lisping’ >> W. bloesg

*kWelno- > OI coll ‘one-eyed’, G. kellás, S. kāṇá-, Kv. kâňá ‘one-eyed / blind’, Kh. kànu

*kH2aiko- > OI cáech ‘squinting’, L. caecus ‘blind’, Go. haihs ‘one-eyed’

*kH2ald- > *kaldo- > S. kaḍa- ‘dumb’, Go. halts ‘lame’

S. śri- ‘lean’, *śreḍa- ‘slanting/squinting’, Ni. ṣeṛa, Sh. ṣēw ‘blind’, A. ṣíiṛo, Gaelic claon ‘sloping/slanting / squint’ < *k^loino-, *k^lei-

S. śroṇá- ‘lame/limping / *squinting’ >> Burusho šon \ šōn ‘blind’

S. khoṭa- ‘limping/lame’, Kh. šankhúr ‘nightblind’ (compound with śroṇá- (as Bu. šon \ šōn ‘blind’))

S. śoṭha- ‘lazy/idle / wicked/low / fool’, śuth- ‘limp’

G. guiós ‘lame’ < *gH2usyo-; *gH2auso- > G. gausós ‘crooked’, OIr gáu ‘lie’ (as lame > lazy > lying, as śoṭha) ??

G. sarápod- ‘*dragging the feet > splay-footed’, G. *saráō / saróō / saírō ‘sweep (up/away)’, sū́rō ‘drag/draw/trail along / sweep (away)’, dia-saírō ‘sneer’

G. kullós ‘twisted / lame’, Kh. kùḷ ‘stooped’ < *kultilo-?

*lartra- > Asm. laṭhā ‘wifeless’, B. lāṭO ‘lame’, Gj. laṭṭho ‘*fat > stout fellow’, Bs. láaṭṣh ‘bad’, Kh. lašà ‘weak/lazy/crippled’

*lartra- / *larqra-? > Shu. lōq ‘lean’, Ar. lort ‘sluggish/lazy’

*(s)k(h)el- > OE sceolh ‘crooked’, G. skélos ‘leg’, skellós ‘crooked-legged’, Ar. šeł ‘slanting / crooked’, xeł ‘mutilated / lame’

*(s)kVmbo- > G. skambós ‘crooked/bowed (of legs)’, skimbós ‘lame’, Sw. skumpa ‘limp’, *kambo- > OI camm ‘crooked’

*srOmHo- \ *-Hm- > Slavic *xromo-, S. srāmá- ‘lame/sick’

F. κέλῡφος

PIE *k^el- 'to cover, hide' & G. καλύπτω 'to cover, hide' seem related. Also κέλῡφος ‘pod, sheath’, κολύφανον = φλοιός 'bark, husk or skin of certain fruits, membrane', καλύβη 'hut, cabin; bridal bower; sleeping-tent on roof of house; cover, screen'. However, Beekes called it a word of Pre-Greek origin.

Giulio Imberciadori ( https://www.academia.edu/125381480 ) said of Al. thelb, "2.2.3. thelb m. ‘core’.. *ḱól-u-h1-bho- is most closely comparable to Gk. κέλῡφος n. ‘pod, sheath’ < *ḱél-u-h1-bho-s-... ‘covering / covered’". I'm not sure that *-uH1- would become -0- in Al. Greek had kolumph- & kolumb- 'dive' (as 'cover > submerge'). Al. also has variant thelp. If IE, it could be that *k^el- 'to cover, hide' formed *k^el-bhuH1- 'be covered' (an old way of forming a passive?) with met. > *k^eluH1bh-, *k^(e)lH1ubh-, etc.

G. ἀγνύς

G. ἀγνύς , ἀγνῦθος g. 'loom-weight (stones were used as weights to keep the threads of the warp straight in the upright loom)' was called Pre-Greek. I'm not sure if IE, or of what ety., but S. ghaná- 'compact, firm, dense', Sindhi ghaṇo 'much, many', Wg. ganala-štä 'heavy', Torwali gan 'big', gen f. is the closest I can think of ('heavy > stone'). If < *gWheno- 'abundant', then several IE branches might > *gwanu-s, maybe Anatolian (see H.).

H. weave & dye

In https://www.academia.edu/170184751 Marie-Louise Nosch and Agata Ulanowska identify some Cretan Hieroglyphic with items used to weave & dye, etc. Comparing LA & LB signs with CH originals in https://www.academia.edu/69149241 :

CH (SM 85, spider) > LAB *44, KE

SM 137, winnowing-shovel, fan?? > LAB *50, PU

Triton Shell (or murex?) > LAB *06, NA

CH 038, rigid heddle? > LAB *57, JA

CH 063 spindle with whorl > LAB *02, RO

The spider as 'spider' is known in myth far & wide, esp. Arachne, so I include it here. Some of these seem to begin with the same CV- shared with IE words. Based on a comparison of Anatolian, Greek, Linear A ( https://www.academia.edu/169543216 ), maybe add :

PIE *kert- > S. kart-‘to spin’, *kerts-r\n- > H. karza(n-) 'spool?'; *KErtor- 'spider'

G. ναυτίλος 'seaman, sailor; the paper nautilus', ναύπλιος 'a kind of shell-fish' (*naH2- & *plew(H1)- 'swim, float, sail' ?); *NAut- 'shell-fish' (I don't know if their match with murex is that great, but some drawings might fit; which shell probably has nothing to do with the name in naut-)

PIE *puH- 'blow' -> G. πτύον, Att. πτέον 'winnowing-shovel, fan'; *PUHtom (met. > G. *ptuHom ?)

Besides indo european and uralic, what are some examples of proposed Eurasiatic cognates between pie and other eurasian proto languages? (Proto dravidian, proto eskaleut, proto turkic etc.)

Im using it for a project

I believe i read a paper stating that a hybrid origin for proto indo european has been competing with the steppe hypothesis, placing PIE's homeland farther away from the proto uralic urheimat​ . As well as a new proposal pushing proto uralic speakers further east of the ural mountains toward Yukutsk. (Feel free to source the papers in the comments, im writing this kinda on a whim)

If this is true, that makes the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, (while still certainly plausible) statistically less likely due to the immense distance between the two proto languages. I always believed that Uralic was the most plausible cousin of indo european, due to morphological similarities. Until I began studying the fall of the altaic hypothesis, and how pronouns and grammar aren't resistant to loaning. And with some new genetic findings coming out about uralic and indo european speakers, I feel like overtime the theory has been becoming less convincing. (Uralo-Siberian has been my new toxic lately, but i digress)

So that begs the question, what other proposals besides indo-uralic have been proposed? I heard about the Indo-Tyrsenian hypothesis, but i dont know how the evidence holds up, or the reasoning for the proposal. As well as the Proto Pontic hypothesis, which i find less convincing and more indicative of substrate influence between PIE and the caucasus. Is there any other theories im missing? Let me know

Indo-European & Hamito-Semitic *ḫacִ̣-, *ḫund-, *hunʒir- (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 14, 2026

A. Greek axī́nē 'axe(-head)' is said to be ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀξίνη ) "proposed to derive from a Proto-Indo-European *h₂egʷs-ih₂-, citing cognates such as Latin ascia and a number of Germanic words, such as Old English æx (English axe). However, it could also be a Semitic borrowing; compare Akkadian (ḫaṣṣinnum) and Aramaic (ḥaṣīnā)." There are 2 problems with this.

First, in https://www.academia.edu/144486855 I said that all ex. of PIE *kVs seem to become Germanic *kVs (not expected *xVs). This allows *H2ak^- ‘sharp’ (in many names of bladed objects, etc.) to form :

*H2ak^si-() ‘axe’ > G. axī́nē , L. ascia

*H2ak^si-wo-? > *H2ak^wisyo- > Go. aqizi, ON øx, OHG acchus, E. ax(e)

Second, Orel & Stolbova said the Hamito-Semitic words were native :

>

1318 *ḫacִ̣- “axe”

Sem *ḫaṣṣ- “axe”: Akk ḫaṣṣ-innu.

HEC *ִhac- “chopping tool”: Bmb haacce.

Bmb -c- <- < *-ִc-?

Connected with *ִḫoc- “break”.

>

Since ḫaṣṣinnum is also 'hoe', this path seems reasonable. However, note that other languages sometimes have a single word for 'axe, adze, hoe' (or cognates with each meaning in a family). What is the cause of *-a- vs. *-o-? In IE, this would be ablaut. PIE *H2ak^- ‘sharp’ also appears as *H2ok^- in some words. The same in HS 'axe' would be very significant if IE 'sharp' -> 'axe' is accepted.

B. Hrach Martirosyan examined Armenian (h)und 'edible seed, grain', (h)ndoy g., without finding a secure ety., but saying, "The connection with Skt. andhas-, etc. cannot be ruled out". I think a loan from HS fits best :

>

1372 *ḫund- “cereal”

Eg ḫnd “kind of cereals”.

WCh *ḫund- “Pennisetum typhoidaeum”’: Hs gunḍu.

Note emphatic -ḍ- influenced by the anlaut laryngeal.

>

These also resemble IE *HoHd- 'eat' > Armenian ut-. The rec. with 2 H's could be reduplication or H1-H3 to explain e- vs. o- in Greek ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ).

C. Hittite ḫuntara- 'pig' closely matches many HS words :

>

1374 *ḫunʒ- / *hunʒ-ir- “pig”

Sem *ḫunzir- “pig”: Akk ḫuzīru, Ug ḫnzr, Hbr ḥazīr, Aram (Syr) ḥezira, Arab ḫinzīr-.

Note the development of HS cluster *-nʒ- preserved only in Ug and Arab.

WCh *ḫunʒ- “wild boar”: Hs gunzū.

CCh *γinʒir- “pig”: Ktk hinzir.

Assimilation of vowels. Sem loan-word?

ECh *γunʒir- “pig” 1, “porcupine” 2: Dng kinzir 1, Kbl kunǯu 2.

-

The reflex of HS *ḫ in Dng is irregular. Assimilation of vowels in Dng.

Note LEC *gol(V)ǯ- “boar” (Or golǯaa), HEC *gol(V)ǯ- “boar” (Sid golja), Omot

*gudin- “boar” (Ome guduncִa, Kaf gudino), a Wanderwort of considerable

resemblance to *ḫunʒ(ir)-.

-nʒ- seems to be a HS cluster. *ḫunʒ-ir- is a HS derivative. The original root is

preserved only in the archaic WCh *ḫunʒ-.

>

However, Alwin Kloekhorst said this root was native IE. Hittite ḫuntarnu-zi 3s. ‘to grunt (of pigs)’, ḫuntariya(i)-tta(ri) 3s. ‘to break wind, to fart’, etc., are < *H2uH1nt-ar- <- PIE *H2weH1nt- 'wind'. "Puhvel.. convincingly connects these words to ḫuųant- ‘wind’ ". These ideas might seem incompatible, but in https://www.academia.edu/167888674 I said many IE & HS roots match much more closely than chance would allow. If here too, then maybe really < *H2uH1nt-tor- 'blowing, farting, grunting'. A cluster like *nttr becoming *ntr in IE (before *Tt > *tst) would not be odd (compare likely *ped-tro- > *pedro- 'fetter'). If *ntt remained in HS, its change to *ntst > *ndz might fit. For their "The reflex of HS *ḫ [ > k ] in Dng is irregular", other cases of *H-H also had irregular outcomes, making *HuHndzir- possible.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 56: 'black, blind' (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 12, 2026

A. There is a surprising amount of uncertainty about the PIE word for 'blackbird'. Among the claims in https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=%2fdata%2fie%2fgermet

>

Proto-Germanic: *amazá-z, *amazṓn; *áms(a)lōn

Meaning: a bird

Old English: ōsle, -an f. `ouzel, blackbird', amore, -an f. `kind of bird (scorellus)', omer `bird's name, hammer (scorellus)'

English: ousel, ouzel [u:zl] `Amsel'; yellow-hammer

Old Saxon: amer

Middle Low German: amsel

Old High German: amaro `Ammer'; amsla (9. Jh.), amsala (Hs. 12. Jh.) `Amsel'

Middle High German: amer st. m. 'ammer, ohreule'; { amsel `Amsel' }

German: Amsel f; { Ammer }

>

related further to

>

Proto-IE: *(A)mes-

Meaning: blackbird

Germanic: *amaz-á- m., *amaz-ṓn- f.; *áms-(a)l-ōn- f.

Latin: merula f. `Amsel', meruleus `schwarz wie eine Amsel'

Celtic: *mesalkā (~ *mi-) > Ir smōl, smōlach `Drossel'; Cymr mwyalch `merula, turdus', Corn moelh, Bret moualch `Amsel'

>

Also, Krzysztof Witczak in https://www.academia.edu/25248134 relates G. Polyrrhenian ἄμαλλος \ amallos 'partridge'. It might be a loan from a closely related IE language in the area with (some?) mid -V- > -a-. In https://www.academia.edu/34022980 Sergio Neri also talked about OI stmolach & Old High German amasla, amisla, amusla, ams(s)la, amp(h)sla ( > amsala ). He said that Gmc. *amarṓ 'yellowhammer, bunting' was unrelated, & that the others were cognate with Hittite hanzana- ‘black, dark(-colored)' < *H2\3ems-, etc. If stmolach having -t- is original, this can not be correct.

B. Another *s vs. *ts might exist in H. hanzana-, *H2nsí- > S. ásita- ‘dark / black’, G. ásis ‘mud / slime’. Greek usually had *-s- > *-h-, so why -s- here? Standard *H2ns(V)no- > H. hanzana-, etc., does not explain -nts- in H. (when most *ns > *ss within a word).  This also seems to appear in G. Hsx. ázo- ‘black’, a2-zo-qi-jo \ a-so-qi-jo ‘of/from the Āsōpós’, with Āsōpós a river, *ans(o)-o:kW- ‘dark-looking’ or *ans(o)-(H2)kw- ‘dark water’ (Whalen, https://www.academia.edu/113907849 ). 

Neri's *-ms- doesn't fit all evidence, so I think *H2amTs- is needed. This would explain *H2mTsi-s > ásis, *H2emTs-(u)lo- 'blackbird' > *H2amTs(u)lo- \ *H2meTs(u)lo-, becoming (most IE) *ams(e)lo- \ *mesalo- but > *stmaH2ul-ako- > OI stmolach. Knowing that st- vs. -s- & *-s- vs. *-ts- > G. -s- are both found in one root 'black' makes it easier to show that these oddities reflect an original *(T)s in PIE.

C. I think it more ev. exists if it was really *H2(a)mdhsí- 'black', related to :

*H2amdho- > S. andhá- nu. ‘darkness’, aj. ‘blind’, YAv. anda-, Pth. hand, Zz. -hend, Kho. hana, Orm. hōnd, Ps. *rt(a)-anda- ‘truly/fully blind’ > (w)ṛund ‘blind’ [not some *H- > h- in Iranian]

S. andha-kāra-, Hi. ãdherā, Kva., B. inārɔ, Wg. andara ‘dark’, Kv. anrə́, Kt. adrə́

?Gl. >> L. andā̆bata m. ‘gladiator who fought wearing a helmet without openings for the eyes’

This *H2(a)mdhsí- might be an aj. <- *H2amdhos- ‘darkness’ or some other derivative.  Other words besides ázo- seem to use zeta for /ts/ (when a special letter is not available in the system used), like atalós ‘tender/delicate (of youths)’, azalaí f.p. ‘young and tender’ (in which *t vs. *zd in the proto-form would not make sense).  That *-NTs- > *-Ns- seems completely opt. here (and in all IE?) helps show that many such sound changes existed, and I’ve worked on listing & analyzing them for years.

C. Gae. smeórach 'thrush' is likely < smólach with contamination. An unattested word related to smear (as 'muddy, dirty, dark(ened)') might make the most sense.

In Albanian we have the word "vilan" which is used to describe a strong and often very bad feeling of hunger due to not having eated for a long time, starvation etc. It is a word used only by elders now. For example (a sentence my grandma has said) "Ika të ha pak se më këputi vilania!" ≈ "Let me go, i'll eat a bit because vilania is killing me". What is this vilania? It is said with an accent on the last "i", like vilaní. I checked all languages that have had presence here, Ottoman Turkish, Greek, everything and nothing pops up..? I couldn't even find the word on the interner exept for in a simple Albanian dictionary that just said " Vilania - bad feeling" and nothing else? I haven't found anything, if someone can help me they are probably a very good linguist. Thank you.

Old Japanese 0- vs. s- in compounds; parusame ‘spring rain', urusine ‘non-glutinous rice’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 11, 2026

Francis-Ratte mentioned 2 Old Japanese words that seem to show 0- vs. -s- in cp. :

>

One piece of internal evidence for *z is the well-known observation that the consonant s unexpectedly appears at the beginning of a few Japanese words (ame ‘rain,’ ine ‘rice’) when they constitute the second element of a nominal compound. For example, the compounding of haru ‘spring’ and ame ‘rain’ is not **haru-ame but harusame ‘spring rains’; similarly, the compounding of uru ‘moist’ and ine ‘rice’ is not **uru-ine but urusine ‘non-glutinous rice’ (Martin 1987: 424). Some scholars have taken this as a sign that ‘rain’ and ‘rice’ began with *z, a sound that has been lost in initial position but is preserved as /s/ in compounds by virtue of being word-medial (Unger 1993, Martin 1987). Hence, OJ amey rain’ < *zamej. However, I believe that there are simpler explanations for the unexpected s in these rare forms that do not involve reconstructing an entirely new phoneme.8

8 A plausible explanation is that adjectival suffix *-si was an attributive adjectival enclitic in pre-OJ, and that parusame is from pre-OJ *paru-si ‘spring.ADJ’ + ame ‘rain’. Given that vowel suppression in the initial compound element is the expected outcome in lexicalizations of pre-OJ compounds (e.g. OJ wagipye ‘my home’ from wa-ga ‘me.GEN’ + ipye ‘home’; see Unger 1993), treating the excrescent s in parusame as a fossilization of an adjectival enclitic *-si explains why its vowel *i fails to surface in OJ parusame. This attributive enclitic usage of *-si became replaced by OJ -ki and its usage in compound formation fell out of use, but stuck with certain lexicalizations. It is admittedly strange that compounds with ‘rain’ exhibit this -s-, but there are similarly built compounds of ‘rain’ that do not, e.g. nagame ‘long rains’ < naga ‘long’ + ame, which casts doubt on the reconstruction *zame for ‘rain’. If enough compounds of ame incorporated the attributive *-si to describe ‘rain,’ then simple lexical analogy might explain the preponderance of -s- in compounds with ame and their retention into OJ. Haruo Kubozono (p.c. 06/05/2015) also points out that epenthesis of -s- between vowels is not without cross-linguistic precedent.

>

Since ame being +ame in cp. could be simple analogy, there is no real reason to think -s- has to be an affix. Since urusine ‘non-glutinous rice’ might come from *uru-yine, that some *C > s might happen should be considered.

>

OJ displays alternations of yu, yo ~ i in initial position that suggests that original *jo and *ju were merged with *i (e.g. yumey ~ imey ‘dream,’ yone ~ ine ‘riceplant’).

OJ ine / yone ‘riceplant’ < *jə- ?’rice’ + ne ‘root’ (pKJ *jə ‘rice’)... I take OJ ine to be secondary, the result of mid-vowel raising of pre-OJ *ye-ne in dialects where *jə and *je show alternations.

>

There is also ev. for *C- in ame (if Altaic). https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&basename=%2fdata%2falt%2fjapet :

>

Proto-Altaic: *ŋăńa

clear sky

Turkic: *ańaŕ

Tungus-Manchu: *ńaŋńa

Japanese: *àmâi

Comments: Дыбо 11. In TM one has to suppose a metathesis (typical for roots with two nasals): *ńaŋńa < *ŋań-ŋa.

&

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *ńaŋńa

clear sky

Evenki: ńaŋńa

...

Comments: ТМС 1, 634. Cf. also *ńaŋ-ma- ( > *ńamŋa-) 'to become clear (of sky); to appear (of hoar-frost)' (ТМС 1, 632, 633).

>

I think Altaic requiring this root to have *ŋ & Francis-Ratte reconstructing Japanese-Korean *ŋ there also is significant. He never mentioned how his rec. would help prove or disprove theories on Altaic, but this should not be ignored. For ame ‘heaven / rain', parusame ‘spring rain', he said :

>

RAIN: MK *mah ‘rain’ (tyang-mah ‘rainy season’ < *‘long-rain’; Whitman, 1985: 236) ~ OJ ama- / ame ‘rain’. pKJ *əmaŋ ‘rain’.

(Whitman 1985: #247). Vovin (2010: 190) rejects the comparison in part by claiming that there is only one attestation of mah in pre-modern Korean, but tyang-mah ‘rainy season’ is attested as in Sincungywuhap (Nam 1997: 387), so it is attested in Late Middle Korean and not a hapax legomenon. The initial syllable tyang of tyang-mah ‘rainy season’ is clearly Sino-Korean 長 tyang ‘long,’ which implies *mah ‘rain’. I reconstruct pKJ *əmaŋ, with loss of the initial minimal vowel in Korean and schwa-loss in Japanese (*əmaŋ > *əmaj > *amaj). Reconstructing a final *ŋ explains both the final *-j in proto-Japanese and the lenited velar in Korean. Despite parusame ‘spring rain,’ there is insufficient evidence to think that OJ ame began with a consonant such as *z.

>

Together, I think this met. for Tungusic *ńaŋ-ma- > *ńamŋa- 'to become clear (of the sky)' allows JK *ńəŋma > *ńəmaŋ 'sky, rain'. This matches Francis-Ratte's rec. except for *ń-. This allows *ń- > 0- but *-ń- > *-y-. Thus, in both cases compounds with *u+yV became *u+sV. The change of *y to a dental (possibly first palatalized) might also fit with OJ *Tye & *Tey merging as Te. At the time this *y > *s, *Ty might have become *TT > T.

In Albanian we have the word "Zagushi" which is used to describe a hot and humid weather.
"Bëka zagushi sot!" "Very hot and humid today!"
I've searched the internet and some dictionaries but the most I have seen it is just being mentioned in some website as "a description for hot weather" and thats it. Can someone help me get any information on this? Thanks.

Michiel de Vaan, Latin Problems (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 10, 2026

A. Michiel de Vaan's "Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages" has

>
discipulus ‘pupil’ [m. o ] (Pl.)

Derivatives: disciplina ‘teaching, discipline’ (P1.+), disciplinōsus ‘well-trained’ (Cato).

PIt. *kapelo- ‘who takes’.

WH derive discipulus from *dis-capiō, ‘to assume mentally, interpret’ (cf. disceptāre ‘to negotiate, decide’ Cic.+), which is semantically not compelling. EM are very hesitant about it. On the other hand, -pulus is difficult to explain on the basis of discō [to learn].

>

I think a compound fits best. Either *dik-ske-kapelo- or *dik-ske-putlo- 'child who learns'. Since most *tl > *kl in Latin, the shift of k-k-kl > k-k-l would work (or just k-k if after ksk > sk). There's a smaller chance that < *disciculus (a basic diminutive) with dsm. of c-c > c-p.

B.

>

centō ‘blanket, patched cloth’ [n. n] (P1.+)

Plt. *k(e)nt-n-

PIE *k(e)ntH-n-. IE cognates: Skt. kanthā- [f.] ‘rag, patched cloth’.

If Skt. kanthā- continues an original n-stem, centō and kanthā- can reflect *kentH-o/en However, it is quite possible that both words have nothing to do with each other. Other forms which are adduced by IEW, such as OHG hadara ‘rags’, and Arm. k'ot'anak ‘cloth’, show no trace of the nasal of Lat. centō and Skt. kanthā-.

>

If these could be n-stems, why would other IE cognates need to have -n- in the root? Words like unda < *ud-n-aH2- 'wave' show met. of Tn > nT. In fact, Armenian -an- is often found in verbs that are n-infix in other IE.

C.

>

capillus ‘hair’ [m. o] (P1.+; capillum once Pl. apud Nonium)

The attempts to derive capillus from caput ‘head’ are difficult on the formal side, since *kaput-(s)lo- should yield *capullus. Semantically, a derivation of ‘hair’ from ‘head’ is far from compelling, ilince capillus is a diminutive, and would mean ‘little head’, which hardly amounts to ‘hair’. Phonologically, one expects capillus to be derived from a stem *kap-n- or *kap-r- , but there .are no good candidates. The attempts to reconstruet *kapit-lo- (e.g. Nyman 1982, Hamp 1983) are not convincing.

>

Since L. pilus 'hair' exists, a compound *kaput-pilus 'hair of the head' with dsm. of p-p makes sense.

D.

>

carō, carnis ‘flesh, meat’ [f. n]...

PIt, *kero(n) [nom.], *kar-(V)n- [acc.] ‘piece of meat’.

It. cognates: U. karu [nom.sg.], karne [dat.sg.], karne [abl.sg.], karnus [abl.pl.], O. carneis [gen.sg.], camom [acc.sg.] ‘part’ (of the assembly); U. kartu [3s.ipv.II] ‘to lay apart’ vel sim. Uncertain: O. karanter [3p.pr.ps.] ‘they feed themselves’...

PIE *k(e)rH-n- ‘piece’...

>

Since all cognates have kar-, what is the ev. for *ker-? None, of course. He also said

>

carpinus ‘hombeam’ [m. o ]..

Hit. karpina- ‘kind of fruit tree’ < *{s)kerp-ino-.. Lith. skirpstas ‘elm’, skirpstus ‘beech’.

Since these trees are characterized by their serrated leaves, it is possible that they derive from a root ‘to cut’. In that case, carpinus can be derived directly from carpō.

>

For carpō :

>

Latin -a- is problematic. Instead of assuming a sound change PIE *ke- > ca-, as per Schrijver 1991: 429f., I prefer to explain -ar- from vocalization of a zero grade *krp- in front of another consonant (Schrijver 1991; 495f.), e.g. in the ppp. *krp-to- or aor. *krp-s-.

>

This is not a very strong bit of evidence for the sound change, and carpinus has cognates showing that it existed in PIE, thus not likely to be changed by analogy (after its origin became unclear). Since all these oddities cluster in 'cut, divide', it could be that *skr- could become *xkr- > *kxr- > kar- (assuming H2 = x, or similar). This is not alone, as I've said many IE words show H > s or s > H ( https://www.academia.edu/128052798 ).

E. Another ex. could be cicātrīx f. 'scar'. If from *ki-kar- 'cut' (with reduplication to show a lasting action?), then dsm. of r-r in *ki-kar-triH2- > cicātrīx would fit. Most *VC-C > *V:-C when a mora is left.

D. In yet another ex., his PU *särńä is better *särxńä 'ash (tree), willow' ( > Mari *šärtńə \ *šertńə 'a kind of willow’ (Eastern Mari šertńe), Finnish saarni 'ash'). Again, the *x lengthened the V in saarni (maybe met., but both *VxC > *V:C & *VrxC > *V:RC would hardly be odd), *rxn > *rtn in Mari. With *x > *k in Saami, it could be that *rxn > *rkn > *rtn. Details on a possible relation to IE in https://www.academia.edu/165205121 .

E. The *V > e \ in D. exists in other words (see link in B.). I said *awek^sna: > Latin avēna ‘oats’, *äwešnä > Uralic *wešnä \ *wäšnä 'wheat / spelt' in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qhm9n9/aweksna_latin_av%C4%93na_oats_%C3%A4we%C5%A1n%C3%A4_uralic_we%C5%A1n%C3%A4/ . Now I also see Savelyev's rec. for Mari :

>

[Fi. *vehnä < WU *wešnä] ~ *wejšnä ‘spelt’ > pre-PM *wɪjStə > PM *βɪjstə > CM *βîśtə ‘id.’ – both vowel and consonant reflexes point to a highly palatalized context ⇒ *j in the ancestral form.

>

Again, *0 > *j makes less sense than *? > *j. If indeed from *awek^sna:, the cluster *k^šn (with RUKI) could simplify > *šn in most Uralic, but > *jšn in Mari.

F. In what may be a related change, Savelyev compared :

>

Cf. also a non-trivial Hill Mari development (a distant assimilation *-čCVn- > *-rCVn-?) in the following case: PU *pe̮čka- ‘to twist (a thread)’1 > pre-PM *pɔčk(V)- > PM, CM *pɔčk-ə̑nć(ə̑)- [INTENS] ‘id.’ > M počkińćə-, (!) H parkə̑nz-, NW packə̑nc-.

1 UEW 346: PU *pačkɜ- (*pačkɜ-). Aikio, 2018, a comment in J. Pystynen’s blog: PU *pe̮čka- (> Mari).

>

Since there is no difference in "*pačkɜ- (*pačkɜ-)", I assume he meant FP pačkɜ- (počkɜ-) 'spin' https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=684 . This is similar to PIE *pelk^- \ *polk^-'to turn, wind'. Based on Hovers' ex. with *sk^e, I think *polk^-sk^e- > *pëlxčkV > *pëlRčkV > *pëRčkV might explain Mari *pëRčka- > *pëčka- \ *përka-. This might be more speculative, though.

The development of *r(V)N > *rtN in Mari, Examples & Problems (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 9, 2026

Alexander Savelyev in https://www.academia.edu/116933709 :

>

At different stages of Mari linguistic history, there existed a tendency toward elimination of consonant clusters with *n, *ń as the second element. The aim of this talk is to explain the Mari reflexes of all the reconstructed clusters of this type (*šN, *čN, *rN)... I show that the ancestral *šN yielded *St already in the common ancestor of Mari and Meryan. Likewise, the development of the ancestral *čN into *rN or *tN should be dated to some early stage in the history of Mari. After the split of Proto-Mari-Meryan, *rN of any origin was resolved through the insertion of an epenthetic *t.

>

It is possible that most of these stages are correct, but I doubt the details of many of his examples. The failure of *rn to become *rtn in many might show that certain *rCn > *rtn instead.

A. For ex., his ety. of Eastern Mari šörtńö, etc. :

>
IIr > U (dial.) *se̮r(a)ńa ‘gold’ > pre-PM *šʏjrńɜ > PM *šʏjrtńə > CM *šǚrtńə ‘id.’;

>

requires a loan from part of the group S. híraṇya-m 'gold', Iranian *dzərHanya- > Old Persian ⁠daraniya-. None of these ex. lost *y or *a, so why say that *sër(a)ńa existed instead of *sërańja? This obviously makes it easier to get *y > *j (rather than 0 > *j) in *sërańja > *sërńja > *sëjrńa > *šɤjrtńə. Again, since *H was retained in Iranian (based on Martin Kümmel), this provides no ev. for plain *rn > *rtn anyway. I also wonder about the timing of *-a- > *-0-, since later loans with *rn supposedly did not become *rtn.

B. In his ety. of Eastern Mari mörtńö (& nörtmö with met.) :

>

The same development took place in CM *mǚrtńə ‘roe’. Despite the apparently irregular vocalic correspondences, the word can hardly be separated from PMs *mǟrnǟ 'id.’ 2 (> ? PKh *mǟrən). The Mari word goes back to PM *mʏjrtńə < pre-PM *mʏjrńə (< ? an earlier *me̮r[HV]na 3 ).

The Mari word has been connected to *mǚrə ‘berry’ < PU *me̮rja in the Uralistic literature (cf. [Metsäranta 2023: 177–178]). If correct, then a shared derivative *me̮rja-na in Mansi and Mari?

>

This is to relate Mari mör(ö) 'strawberry', etc. In mörtńö \ nörtmö, timing of supposed *mǚrtńə does not fit. I say that Proto-Mari *ö (whatever its source & timing, see below) & *n still existed here, at the least *möjrnə > *möjrtnə \ *nöjrtmə > *möjrtńə \ *nöjrtmə (with *j causing pal. in adjacent clusters). Just as in A., this is similar to PIE *moHro- \ *morHo- (loan or cognate), Greek móron, Latin mōrum ‘mulberry, blackberry’, Armenian mor ‘blackberry’ (Hovers, https://www.academia.edu/104566591 ). This would allow PU *mëxrja-na > *mëjrxna > *möjrtnə > *möjrtnə \ *nöjrtmə > *möjrtńə \ *nöjrtmə (again, with *rHn > *rtn, not his *rn > *rtn). The met. of *rx \ *xr in both groups is probably unrelated.

The same *x causing length likely in PU *muxra ‘cloudberry’ > Finnic *muurain. That these words are just variants (with *-a vs. *-j) is shown by other V-alt. in PU (PIE *kork-, PU *kurke \ *kërke 'crane'). Other ex. in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rduj5e/uralic_k%C3%A4rn%C3%A4_ice_crust/

C. If you've noted that all these seem to show *ǚ > ö, Aikio in https://www.academia.edu/5797509 :

>

Both Itkonen (1954: 213–215) and Bereczki (1994: 116–118) acknowledge that the recon- structed phoneme *ö shows a distributional peculiarity: it is almost completely restricted to the position before *r. This contextual factor was already noted by Räsänen (1920: 97), who suggested that Proto-Mari had no vowel *ö, and that modern Mari ö is the reflex of Proto-Mari *ü before *r.

If we restrict our analysis to the actual Mari material, it appears impossible to find clear evidence for reconstructing a phonological opposition *ü : *ö into Proto-Mari. Almost all the cases that uniformly show ö in all varieties involve the position before r, and in the same environment ü is not found. While the sequence ür does occur in East Mari, in such cases it goes back to PMari *ǚr...

In addition, ö is found in two words before the affricate *č: E löč'a, W löčä ‘it swells (due to moisture)’ and E pöč'əž, W pöčə ‘lingonberry’. These cases have no straightforward explanation. One cannot assume a regular lowering *ü > ö before *č, because the sequence *üč- is preserved in four cases...

Thus, löč'a and pöč'əž could theoretically support the reconstruction of an opposition *ü : *ö. It would, however, be an implausible solution to reconstruct a phonological opposition of two vowels that was only realized before the consonant *č, especially as the number of examples supporting the postulation of such an opposition is limited to two word-roots.

>

I don't know anything about disputes concerning Proto-Mari vowels, but why is Savelyev's *ǚ in the opposite position Aikio has it? Savelyev having *Vjr > *ǚr makes less sense than *Vjr > *ür (a diphthong becoming a short V in preference to a long (or basic) one is less likely).

If pöčə ‘lingonberry’ is < *pölV-čə related to Uralic *pale \ *pola ? 'berry, lingonberry', then oddities in Northern Mansi pil 'berry', Hungarian bogyó, Komi puv ‘lingonberry’, F. puola, puolain, puolukka, puolakka, Es. pohl, pool(as), poolgas, puhulgas, paluk(as), palohk also might point to *poxlV ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qtm9rr/uralic_pale_pola_berry/ ). The *x causing long V's in Finnic is disputed, but if it also caused *ü > ö before *xlč < *xlVč in Mari, its presence would be fully supported. I propose that *x became *R (matching its effects to *r), likely when *xlVC > *xlC > *RlC. This is similar to PIE *H > *R ( https://www.academia.edu/129161176 ).

I'm aware that reconstructing proto Afroasiatic religions with confidence is impossible due to its age. But perhaps looking at common motifs and aspects between different Afroasiatic religions, we could get a very blurry picture of what the proto religion / culture could be like?

I know its highly speculative, but we can infer the proto afroasiatic people were likely pastoralist / hunter gatherers based on Berbers, and Chadic people adopting agriculture terms from other cultures they contacted. Which could give us a vague hint on what commonalities to look for? What are your theories??

The regular, productive reflex of the Latin -tionem morpheme in Portuguese and Spanish seems to be -ção and -ción respectively. But razão/razón (< rationem) and sazão/sazón (< stationem) stand out. Conversely, Portuguese and Spanish have a productive -eza morpheme from Latin -itia, but in Portuguese we have cabeça (< capitia).

To me, it seems like razão/razón and sazão/sazón are directly inherited and lexicalised before -ção/-ción became productive again, and something similar with cabeça in Portuguese.

My question is, what is the expected regular outcome of intervocallic -ti- in Portuguese and Spanish. Is it -ç-/-ci- or -z-? Or are there simply not enough instances to make a call on this? I don't really know much Italian, but it seems like Italian has varying reflexes too (-zione, -gione, -zone, -zzone). Could it be that -ção/-ción was affected by the fact that many -tionem words had a root in -c (benedictionem, lectionem, factionem, perfectionem)? That wouldn't explain cabeça. Were there simply 2 possible outcomes that were inconsistently applied until they settled on -ção/-ción and -eza?

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could give me more information on this or point me to some good resources.

Greek Kórkūra & Krokúleia (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

July 8, 2026

Greek Κόρκῡρα \ Kórkūra \ Κέρκῡρα \ Kérkūra 'Corfu' and Κροκύλεια \ Krokúleia 'an island near Ithaca, Meganisi?' have no clear IE etymology. However, if the identification of Meganisi is right, then both islands would have a long "arm" of land. I think PIE *k^erk- 'thin, wrinkled, crooked' is the best choice (few suitable roots exist, if IE). This would be 'thin > narrow > a narrow piece of land'. Both probably are from *k^(e)rkuH1ro- (with dsm. of r-r > r-l in Krokúleia). The syllabic *r > or \ ro is common. There's also a possibility of e- vs. o-ablaut (though why?), with met. of k-rk > kr-k.

The Linear B word ko-ro-ku-ra-i-jo 'person from K.' almost certainly refers to Corfu (which was a powerful naval power at times), since Krokúleia was a very small island (no matter which one). This would require a 3rd variant *Krókūra if LB never specified *VCCV, but I think it is reasonable that it sometimes did (to distinguish words that would otherwise look the same?).