Indo-European Etymological Miscellany (Draft)2025
A. Turner has : S. cihna- nu. ‘mark / sign’, Pa. cinha- \ cihana-, Pk. ciṇha- \ ciṁdha- \ ceṁdha-, Sdh. cinhu m. ‘mark’, Np. cinu ‘mark / signal’, cinā p. ‘horoscope’, Or. cina ‘mark’, cinā ‘acquainted / acquaintance’, Mthl. cenh ‘mark’, OHi. cīnha, Hi. cinh m. ‘mark, spot, stain'; OGj ciṁdha nu. ‘sign', Gj. cin f. ‘knowledge / acquaintance’; T4833 These Indic words with -dh-, show that *cidhna-m had to be 1st. Many other *dh > dh / h in S. (Lubotsky 1995), so certainly *cidhna-m < *chidna-m < *skidno-m ‘a cut / carving / mark in wood/stone’; S. chídyate \ chidyáte ‘be cut / be split’. This is best explained as metathesis of aspiration, which is not especially common in S., but is in Dardic. Since many of the S. examples are to “fix” *jh > j or create *mh- (or both) (Whalen 2025a), the late attestation of the word and -dh- might be evidence that this was a loan from a non-Vedic Indic language. B. There is some dispute over whether PIE ‘squirrel’ (NP varvarah, Sl. *we:weri(:)ka: > OR wiewiórka, Sk. veverica, Li. voverìs \ vėverìs, Ct. *wi(:)wéro(n)- > W. gwiwer, OI íaru f., I. feoróg) is directly related to L. vīverra ‘ferret’, Li. vaiverìs ‘male marten’ and what the source is. If older *wer-wero- ‘covering’ with r-dsm. in most, it could be ‘coverer’ as ‘hiding nuts’. However, this does not explain why long *e: or *o: existed, and it could be that its use for ‘ferret’ would require a meaningful source for both. If related to ODn viver, Dn. væver ‘nimble / agile’ (likely from *wer- ‘turn / twist / bend / etc.’), these 2 kinds of nimble animals could easily be ‘nimble animal’ in name as well. I think this is supported by *leH1k- \ *lek(H1)- ‘run / spring / jump’, *lekuno- ‘nimble animal’ > S. nakulá- ‘mongoose’, Ir. *nakuðá- > Xw. nkδyk ‘weasel’ (The shift of Ir. *ul > *uð also in Ir. *kulāw(w)a- ‘nest’ > Kurdish kulāw, *kulāma- > Bal. kuδām, NP kunām (Whalen 2025b)). Since only Ir. had *varvara-, I question if older *wer-wero- would really lose *r in ALL other IE. Also, how common is *VrC > *V:C ? Instead, if older *weH1-wero-, it would would be an example of asm. of *H-r > *R-r > r-r (Whalen 2025c). This is not alone; though reduplicated roots in PIE are usually said to be just Ci-C & Ce-C, there are many that look odd, like *pV(R\H\y)-p(a\e)lH1-to(n)- ‘quail / moth / butterfly’, Latvian paîpala, Lithuanian píepela, Old Prussian penpalo, Latin pāpiliō, Old Italian parpaglione, *pul-pult(y)ika-? ‘butterfly’ > Kh. pulmunḍùk, Kv. prüšpúlik, *palpul > *pampul > Km. pȭpur \ pṏpur. These are certainly not innovations, & Lt. paî-, which resembles Li. vaiverìs, makes it look like *pelH1to- \ *palH1to- ‘grey’ > *palH1-palH1to(n)- ‘moth’, with opt. *H1 > *y (1). In these, both V & C vary. Other problems include Gmc perfects with *Ce(?)- > Go. Ce-, even when most *e > i there. If the oldest PIE had *CeH1- added, then later “loss” of *H in compounds & reduplicated roots was really intermediate *H > *glottal stop, it could still have affected the V in Gmc (*i’ > e’ is common in many languages around the world). For late retention of *H in Gmc, see also (Whalen 2025e). Though the details aren’t certain, these ex. allow something like *wer- ‘turn / twist / move back & forth’ > *weH1wero- \ *woH1wero- \ *wiH1wero- ‘nimble’. C. Many have been eager to see an extensive Indo-Iranian substratum, like (Lubotsky 2001). They include ex. that look fully IE, even if not widely attested : *g(e)ndh- > S. gandh- ‘smell / be fragrant’, su-gándhi- ‘fragrant’, jáṅgahe (in)tr. ‘smells’, YAv. gaṇti- f. ‘bad smell?’, MP gandag ‘stinking’, Bl. gandag ‘evil’, Ps. γandal ‘disgust’ For *-en- > -an- but *-n- > -a-, why would it be non-IE? The reason is supposed dh vs. t in YAv. gaṇti-. However, this is not playing very fair. Many IE words have nouns in -ti-, so why say *-dhi > -ti instead of *dh-ti > -ti ? Though *dht > IIr. *ddh is expected, Ir. had *dh > *d, which made it impossible to know if *d-ti “should” give *tt or *ddh in derivatives, leading to analogical restoration. In this way, few ex. of *dht > Ir. *ddh remain, opposed to many in Indic. I say that when Ir. *gand-ti- was formed, another sound change of *ndt > *nt took place, before *Tt > *tst > st. This supports a late date for IE *Tt > *tst, which I say was a late post-PIE areal change in many IE groups (with some having different outcomes, like *wid- ‘see’ >> *n-wid-ti- > S. aṃ-vitti- ‘not finding’, but Ar. an-giwt ‘not found’ with *tt > *θt > *ft > wt) (Whalen 2025f). These words have already been classified as IE according to ‘hit / push (away)’ > ‘stink’ or similar : *gWedh-(ne-) > S. gandh- ‘push / pierce / destroy’, MHG quetsen ‘hit / poke’, G. dénnos ‘reproach’, Li. gendù, gésti ‘spoil / decay’, Lt. ģint ‘go to destruction’ *gWodho- > Li. pã-gadas ‘loss / ruin’, TA kat, TB keta ‘destruction’ Though most S. uses are neutral, also : RV 1.126.6 yā́ kaśikéva jáṅgahe ‘she stinks like a weasel’ (with musk/perfume to attract men) In fairness, there is Ku. gǝndzi ‘smell / odor’. Though Kusunda is seen as non-IE, it is an unclassified language, & seems to show many words in common with other nearby IE. Some of these are much closer to Dardic than IE in general, suggesting loans, but others can’t be Dardic loans. Whatever the cause, seeking IE sources for these words, from genetic relation or any other, seems to require more study (2). D. H. (GIŠ)mariyawanna- must be an object of wood (with Su. giš sometimes added), and ‘wooden fence? / top part of a tower / balustrade’ seems to fit. However, its affix -wanna- seems to have nothing to do with anna-wanna- ‘step-mother’ (against Kloekhorst). I would say that other ev. for Anatolian *mr̥yé- ‘bind’ allows *mr̥yómH1no- ‘binding / encircling?’ > *mǝryómnH1o- > *mǝryównH1o-. This takes advantage of *nH1 > nn, *mn > *wn (with other m / w alternation in H.) to show why the common PIE *-mH1no- seemed to disappear. With *mn > *wn here, I also question whether PIE *-meN > Anat. *-weni might also be dsm., instead of spread of the dual. In part : *mer- ‘seize / get / bind’ > *mer-eH1- or *mer-eye- > L. merēre ‘deserve / earn / get / acquire / serve’ *mr̥yómH1no- ‘binding / encircling?’ > *mǝryómnH1o- > *mǝryównH1o- > H. (GIŠ)mariyawanna- ‘wooden fence? / top part of a tower / balustrade’ *mr̥yétaH2- > Ld. *mλatá-, mλata-lad ‘their service? / obligation? / oath?’, mλatañ av. ‘by oath? / as obligated?’ [not *meryétaH2-, since > **maλitá; Garnier] *moráH2- > Lc. mara- ‘law’, maraza- ‘arbiter’ *mortyo- ‘seizing / trap’ > OSw merði, OIc merð ‘fishnet’, *-tsy- > *Att. -tt- > G. mórotton ‘basket made of plaited bark’ *mertró- > Gmc *mirdra- > OSw miœrdher, Sw. mjärd(r)e ‘fish trap (with a funnel-shaped opening)’ E. Kloekhorst had H. marzāezzi ‘crumbles?’, “always of bread that has been broken”. If ‘breaks apart?’ might fit, what of *merdH2-? Though he rejects a connection to S. mṛdnāti, L. mordēre, then why not? The -z- here could be produced by the same *d(h)H > *dzH > (d)z as in other IE (3). This allows : *mordH2o- -> *mordH2óye- > *mordzHóye- > H. marzāezzi ‘crumbles? / breaks apart?’ *mrdH-ne- > *mrdneH- > S. mṛdnāti ‘make weak/soft’ *mordH-eye- > L. mordēre ‘bite / gnaw / eat / devour / erode’, morbus ‘sickness/disease/disorder’, S. mardáyati ‘press / crush / squeeze / destroy / kill / rub (off/away)’ *merdH- > *Hmerd- > G. amérdō ‘deprive / bereave / lose’, *mherd- > mérdei 3s. For *Hmerd- > G. amérdō, *mherd- > mérdei, see H-met. in (Whalen 2025h), which produced attested mh- < *mH- < *m-H- in mhegalo- ‘great’. For Latin morbus ‘sickness/disease/disorder’, since both *dh- > f- and *d- > f existed (maybe secondary, if *dng^hwaH2- > E. tongue, L. dingua, *dhng^waH2- > *ð- > lingua, Umbrian fangva-), it is possible for mordēre to be the source for *mordHus > *mordhus > *morðus > morbus. It is cognate with other words from *mer- like G. maraínō ‘quench / waste away’, ON morna ‘wither / shrivel’ which directly have to do with illness. Also, even in English, “a gnawing disease” used to be a common phrase. Since all this is optional, mord- vs. morb- only supports that PIE *CH had many outcomes.
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 30: Compounds, 'fart / butt', 'squeeze' (Draft)2025
A. PIE *pezd- \ *perd- ‘fart’ have no difference in meaning and seem related. They are likely both < *perzd-, needed for Al. pjerdh \ pjerth, since other *zd(h) > dh \ th \ t there (1). A cluster *rsC having several simplifications also in similar *merzg(h)- > *-zg- \ *-rgh- \ *-zgr- (Whalen 2025b). Apparently, *p(o)zd- ‘anus’ is related : *perzd- > Al. pjerdh \ pjerth v. *perd- ‘to fart’ > OE feortan, OIc freta, G. pérdetai, S. párdate, Li. pérsti, pérdžu *prd-kaH2- ‘fart’ > W. rhech *p(e)rd-i- > Li. pirdis; OHG firz \ furz *pezd- \ *pzd- ? ‘to fart’ > L. pēd-, Li. bezdù, bezdė́ti, Sl. *pezdíti \ *pĭzdíti *pezdi- > Gmc *fistiz no. > NHG Fist *bdes- > G. bdéō ‘I fart’, *pezd-mn > bdésma ‘stench’ *pezdikaH2- > *paska:di ? > D. poskéey *p(o)zd- > L. pōdex m., pōdicis g. ‘anus, rectum, butt’, Li. bìzdas B. However, even this alternation is not enough. BS *bizd- & *pizd- need an explanation for b- vs. p- & the origin of *-i-. In standard theory, BS *-i- is inserted later to break up *bzd- (matching *H > *i \ *u), with some *bizd- > *pizd- by analogy. However, there is no standard theory about when *H > *i \ *u happened, and if ever *u was to be inserted in *CC-, why not next to P? I doubt that PIE *bzd- existed, and the ev. of G. bd- points to bdes- being older, met. from the original, with *bdesoH > bdéō (*s > *h > 0 / V_V ). If so, we’d also need PIE *p(e)izd- to exist. Also note *p > b in other BS words (2), allowing it here from the same cause (unknown, but all ex. have *s or *z, maybe significant, but PIE *s was common). There is no reason to favor *b > p over *p > b when PIE *p is needed in this root. Consider similar : *p(e)izd- > OPr peisda ‘arse’, Li. pyzdà, OCS pizda ‘vagina’, NP pīzī ‘arse, anus’, Nur. *pīḍikā́ > Ash. piṛí, Kt., přī́, Kv. přií ‘vagina’, Al. pidh \ pith It makes very little sense to separate these words, especially with Al. pidh \ pith showing the same alternation. Since *-i- is clearly needed here, BS *-i- does not need to be secondary. Most linguists say ‘fart’ -> ‘butt’, with *pezd- being onomatopoeia. With so many variants, I reject this ‘fart’ -> ‘butt’ direction in favor of a compound. If ‘butt’ was primary, then a meaning ‘sitting down/on the ground’ fits. PIE *pedo- ‘ground / soil / low(est part) / bottom’ (3), *sed- > E. sit would form *ped-zdo-. This would need to be before supposed PIE *dd > *dzd, which I say was later, an areal change in many IE groups with some having different outcomes. This in *wid- ‘see’ >> *n-wid-ti- > S. aṃ-vitti- ‘not finding’, but Ar. an-giwt ‘not found’ with *tt > *θt > *ft > wt. It would be reasonable to say that *dzd could be changed in several ways, *dzd > *zd vs. *ɾzd > *rzd. Even dsm. of *dCd > *yCd is possible, since there are few sounds that *d could become in *dzd to form a common cluster. However, even if this would fit the evidence of this group alone, I don’t think is sufficient in context. C. Since *ped- often appears as *pe:d-, sometimes *po:d-, the question of whether PIE had lengthened grade (though with no change in meaning) or the real root was *peH1d- must be examined. If true, *peH1d- vs. *pH1ed- would match *bhuH1- ‘be(come) / grow’ vs. *bhH1uti- ‘growth / plant’ to explain long vs. short V. Other linguists have used H-met., but none of these changes are regular. I’ve argued gainst Indo-European e:-grade (Whalen 2025d), mostly because these happen in roots with *H, so H-met. can explain this, and is needed for the same u vs. ū that can’t be due to ablaut. Why separate the cause of u vs. ū from e vs. ē? Linguists who multiply entities beyond necessity fail to follow the principles of science. If *peH1d-zdo- existed, the variant *peyd-zdo- would show that some *H1 > *y, as in other words (4). There is some evidence for *peyd- ‘foot’ anyway (5), though none decisive. Based on evidence that *H1 = *R^ (Whalen 2024d, with more evidence since), *peR^dzdo- is a reasonable way to account for the creation of *peRzdo- & *peydzdo-. D. Also, since this is nearly identical to supposed *pi-s(e)d- ‘sit on / set on (top of)’ > G. piézō, S. *piẓḍ- > pīḍ- ‘squeeze / press / pain/distress’, it is possible that *pisd- was really a similar compound. I do not think ‘set on (top of)’ is the best choice here. If related to *pis-n(e)- > *pin(e)s- > S. pinaṣṭi ‘crush / grind / pound’, L. pinsere ‘crush’, G. ptíssō / ptíttō ‘crush in a mortar / winnow’, ptisánē ‘peeled barley’, then the same principles above allow *pis-peH1d- ‘crush down / press down’. It would be likely to have *p-p dsm. in most IE. Though this idea is less certain, consider data in E. E. Many of these forms resemble those in language families throughout Eurasia. The idea that *pezd- is onomatopoeia, and other words of the form *pE(C)T- are unrelated, due to similar imitations of farts, can not go unchallenged if PIE *peH1d-zdo- existed, with no origin from imitation possible. In what way would a group of non-IE languages happen to make ‘fart’ with p-, all resembling IE? Fi. *peer(e)-däk > Veps perda, Vod. peerre, F. pierrä could easily be from *perzd- > *pezdr-, or a similar path. PU *pᴕnɜ > PX *pïṇ ‘a fart’, Hn. fin-g- ‘to fart’ resembles PIE *perzd- only slightly, but the creation of X. ṇ implies that this reconstruction is not complete. In Hn., *r or *l can cause the same shift (Zhivlov 2016), so I proposed *parznï (Whalen 2025f) from older *parzdï based on shifts like *mukšta / *mukšna (6). There are also words with -k-, resembling IE formations like *prd-kaH2- (see below for pihkā), Nen. perka- ‘fart suddenly’, *poske ‘fart’ > Mv. puska-. Dravidian *pītt- > Kuwi pītu, Telugu pittu would be an interesting match, since it had odd CV:C: form, in which *eH > *ī & *dzd > *dd > *tt are possible. Though linguists might say that these are both imitations of the sound of a fart, thus unrelated, I don’t see why *-zd- and *-tt- (or whatever cluster was responsible here) would have existed. Derived Gondi *pīh(t)kā ? (Adilabad Gondi pihkā ‘fart’ and ana. pihk- ‘to fart’, Muria Gondi pīhk-) also, if from *pīskā, would show *-tstk- > *-sk-, and it resembles IE formations like *prd-kaH2-. Notes 1. PIE *g(w)ozdo- > Al. gjeth \ gjedh m. ‘foliage’ *g^hrzdh- > Al. drithë ‘grain / wheat’, G. *khrihth- > krīthḗ, OHG gersta, L. hordeum ‘barley’ *wezdo- > Av. vazdah- ‘fatness’, Ps. wázda ‘animal fat / grease’ *wezdulo- > Al. vjéd(h)ullë / vjétullë / vjéllë / vjedull ‘badger’ Al. pidh \ pith; pjerdh \ pjerth (above) see (Witczak 2011) for more. 2. *p > b in BS words : *plusi- ‘flea’ > Li. blusà *pizd-? ‘butt / fart’ > BS *bizd- & *pizd- *potHi- ‘lord’, *swe- ‘own’ > Slavic *svobodĭ *splHg^Hon-? ‘spleen’ > S. plīhán, Av. spǝrǝzan-, *sfuruz > MP spurz \ spul, Li. blužnis, OPr blusne *? > OPr wobsdus, Li. opšrùs, Lt. āpšis / āpsis, Slavic *jazvŭ ‘badger’, G. áps(o)os ‘animal that eats grapevines’ 3. This range of meanings seen in : *ped(iy)o- \ *podo- ‘place, ground, soil’ > G. pedíon ‘plain’, pédon ‘ground’, OCS podŭ ‘ground/foundation’, Ni. pad ‘foundation’, *eni- > MI ined ‘place’ *pedāH2 > TA päts, TB patsa ‘bottom’ *peHd-su ‘at the feet / down / below’ *pedH2a ‘to the feet/ground / down to’ 4. Other ex. of *H1 / y : *H1ek^wos > Ir. *(y)aśva-, L. equus *yikwos > *hikpos > LB i-qo, G. híppos, Ion. íkkos ‘horse’ Ir. *(y\h)aćva- > Av. aspa-, Y. yāsp, Wx. yaš, North Kd. hesp >> Ar. hasb ‘cavalry’ *H1n- > *yn- > *ny- > ñ- in *Hnomn ‘name’ > TA ñom, TB ñem, but there are alternatives *suH1- ‘beget / give birth’ >> *suH1ur-s > *suyu-s > G. Att. huius, [u-u > u-o] huiós, [u-u > o-u or wä-wä > o-u] *soyu > *seywä > TA se , TB soy, dim. saiwiśk- *suH1un- > *seywän-ikiko- > TB dim. soṃśke *suH1un- > *suH1nu- > S. sūnú-, Li. sūnùs *suH1nu- > *sunH1u- > Gmc. *sunu-z > E. son *dhuwH1- ‘smoke’ > G. thúō ‘offer by burning / sacrifice’, thuá(z)ō ‘smoke / storm along / roar/rave’, LB *Thuwi:no:n \ tu-wi-no, -no g. ‘PN ?’ *dhuHw- > H. tuhhw(a)i- ‘to smoke’ *dhuH1- > *dhuy- > Li. dujà ‘mist’, L. suf-fī-re ‘fumigate / perfume’ *dhweH1- > Ct. *dwi:- -> *dwi:yot- ‘smoke’ > OI dé f., díad g. *dhwey- -> *dhwoyo- > TB tweye ‘dust’ *bhuH1-ti- > *bhH1u-ti- > G. phúsis ‘birth/origin/nature/form/creature/kind’ *bhuH1-sk^e- > Ar. -uc’anem, *bhH1u-sk^e- > TB pyutk- ‘bring into being / establish/create’ (Adams: Traditionally this word is connected with PIE *bheuhx- ‘be, become’ (Schneider, 1941:48, Pedersen, 1941:228). Semantically such an equation is very good but, as VW (399) cogently points out, it is phonologically very suspect as the palatalized py- cannot be regular.) G. *H1 > e is usual, but some *H1 > i : *p(o)lH1- > G. ptólis / pólis ‘city’ *pelH1tno- > S. palitá- ‘aged/old/grey’, G. pelitnós *dolH1lgho- ‘long’ > *dolH1gho- > G. dolikhós *H1s-dhi ‘be’ > *izdhi > (also proposed *H1esH2r > G. éar \ êar ‘blood’, *H1srH2 > poetic íara), though I disagree) cau. *-eH1e- > -áya- (2024c) dat. pl. *-mH1os > *-mos / *-bh(y)os, etc. (2025e) dual dat. *-mH1o:w > *-bH1õ:w > S. -bhyām 5. Williams connects L. Ī̆sca ‘a river [Ptolemy]’, W. Wysg ‘name of several rivers’, wysg ‘track / path [mostly with prepositions]’, OI és \ éis ‘track / trace / footprint / p. reins [mostly with prepositions]’, saying, “according to some authorities, the name casán has been applied to a few rivers in Ireland”, “also cosán (cf. cos), means a path or footpath.” For -sg vs. -s, he notes that some W. words show *s / *ks / *sk, but prefers a cluster with *k. I see this as from *ts \ *ks being widespread in IE (Whalen 2025c), with evidence in Celtic : > Both metathesis *sC / *Cs and *st / *sk seems to exist in Celtic : Greek *wrizda > rhíz[d]a / brísda ‘root’, *wrizga > Welsh gwrysg ‘branches’ *kWrstí- > Gmc *hurstiz > OHG hurst, NHG Horst, OE hyrst ‘bushes’, *prits- > *priks- >MW prisc, W. prys ‘brushwood’ *westi- > L. vestis, *wetsi- > *weksi- > W. gwisg ‘garment/clothing’, Go. wasti, Ar. z-gest, aṙa-gast ‘curtain’, aṙi-gac ‘apron’, G. westía, ésthos ‘cloth...
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 17: *k^(e)n-& *k^nd-2025
Two roots *k^(e)n-& *k^nd-seem related as 'rise (up/above) / overcome / surpass', & are probably the source of : *k^en-> YAv. san-'mount / ascend', Sg. sn-'rise / ascend / come up', *sa:naya-> Kho. sāñ-'raise', Greek *kn-ye-> kaínumai, *ke-knd-> kékasmai 'overcome / surpass / excel', kekadménos 'excelling?', *k^nd-k^nd-? > S. śāśad-'be eminent/superior / prevail' Since G. kaín-& kekad-mean the same thing, totally separate roots seem unneeded. No explanation of IE "root extensions" exists, nor is there any reason to think that most changes to *-C or added *-C-change the meaning. S. *VdK > *V:K is common but not likely regular (compare *widk^mti '20' > IIr. *wink^mti > S. viṃśatí-, with apparent asm. of *d-n > *n-n, but not seen in *k^nd-k^nd-, maybe to avoid **-ãn-in an intermediate stage in which *n > *ã). These G. words show some dm > *zm = sm, like odmḗ \ osmḗ 'smell', & also appear in names. G. Kadmîlos \ Kasmîlos is the diminutive of Kádmos \ Kassmos 'founder of Thebes', with this derivation making it likely Kádmos had a role as a culture hero, providing the basis of human & Greek life. Such figures are often crafty, tricksters (also fooling the gods, like Prometheus), etc., and his name likely was 'skilled / crafty'. The specifics needed to include variants of names like G. Kassándrā / Kasándrā / Katándrā / Kesándrā, LB ke-sa-da-ra might require *ke-knd-to form *ke-knd-tyo-'thing/person to surpass / to be surpassed', *Kekastsy-anōr 'surpassing men / superior', *Ke(k)assanōr > LB ka-sa-no. Since the outcome of *old *-sty-is not known, but since *-dhy-> *-thy-> *-tsy->-tt-/-s(s)-, I feel *-sty->-t-/-s(s)-would fit. Though some (J. Younger) say that Kasándrā & Kesándrā are unrelated, this seems to have no basis except the obvious fact that-e-is not-a-. If from an older form with both, this is not a problem. In a long original, some G. words show V1-V2-V3 > V1-V3 or V2-V3 (Whalen 2024a) like psíthur \ psíthuros \ psedurós 'whispering / slanderous', *psidurós > psudrós \ psudnós 'lying / untrue'. This allows *Kekas-anōr > *Keksanōr / *Kaksanōr, etc. With 2 k's, dissimilation of k-k > k-0 or k-t might also happen. Another set from *k^en-show a different meaning : *k^en(e)wo-s > G. ken(e)ós, Ion. keinós, Cyp. keneuwos 'empty', Ar. sin, sno-'empty / void / useless / vain', snanam 'become empty', snoti, snotwo-'empty / hollow / vain', (o)sin 'thin / blighted [of corn]', Muš hɔsnil 'to wither' However, it would be easy for 'having surpassed > made inferior/pointless/empty'. I favor the idea that 'surpass > overflow > pour out > empty out'. Since G. & Ar. often share many features, their shift of *k^enewo-from 'pouring out > empty' would be more evidence of a close relation. An isolated *k^en-in Ar. & G. that was different than *k^en(d)-in others is unneeded if a reason for a shift in meaning can be found. Though Ar. *(h)osino-seems like it has added a prefix (of completely unknown meaning & origin), there are words in which *w > h & *y > h suggest *k^enewo-> *c^enowo-> *sino(h)o-\ *(h)osino-. This is also seen in *w / *y > 0, often between V's, but some clear in loans : MP parwardan 'foster/nourish/cherish' >> Ar. *parhart > parart, *parvart > pavart 'fat / fertile [of land]' OP arvasta-'virtue' >> Ar. aruest \ arhest 'art/trade/handicraft/artifice/ingenuity' SCc *yorw-'two' > Svan yor-i \ yerb-i >> Ar. hoṙi '2nd month' *srowo-> G. rhóos 'stream', *ahrowo-> aṙog 'well / irrigating water', *arhoho > *arrō > Ar. aṙu 'brook / channel' *kalawint > Ar. kałin 'acorn, hazel nut', dialects: *kałint > K`esab käłεn(t), *gałwind > Svedia gälund *g^hH2wono-? > OCS zvonъ 'sound', o-stem *g^hH2woni-? > *j^hawony-> *j^ahoyn-> Ar. jayn 'voice / sound', i-stem *n-H1widhwa: > *amwirwa: > *awwirya: > *ahirya > Ar. ayri 'widow' (with w-w > w-y) Most w-> g-and-ew->-og-, but there are many doublets in Ar. for w > g \ w \ m, m > w, etc. : *srew-> aṙogem\oṙogem \ aṙoganem\oṙoganem 'water/sprinkle/irrigate', aṙog, *arrō > aṙu *pewyo-> ogi \ hogi 'soul/spirit' *pew-aH2-> hewam 'breathe heavily' *werandi(w) > gerandi 'scythe/sickle' dia: Hamšen gεrǝndi 'scythe', Iǰewan märändu; ? märändi 'biggest kind of sickle' *wra:do-m > *wro:ta-n > OIc rót >> E. root *wra:do-m > *ëwra:do > *arwa:do > Ar. armat 'root', argat 'branches cut off vine' (The other solid wr-> gr-etc. in Ar. is *wreHg^-> ergicuc'anem, making it very likely *wra:do
Etymology of Bacchus, echo, iamb2025
Greek Íakkhos & Bákkhos for names of the same god show older *vyakkhos. Dialects that retained *w as *v often had it written with b in others. The origin, according to Liddell and Scott, is : *wi-wakh-> G. iákhō 'cry out / shriek / scream / ring / resound (of echoes) / twang / sound forth a strain', Aeo. iaukhrelated to PIE *(s)waH2gh-, L. vāgīre 'cry [of newborns]', Li. vógrauti 'babble', Skt. vagnú-'a cry/call/sound', OE swógan '(re)sound/roar/rush/move with violence/enter with force', G. *wākhā́ > ēkhḗ, Dor. ākhā́ 'sound/noise' ( >> E. echo). Aeo. iaukh-shows that *wi-wakhbecame *wiakh-by dissim. (similar to *wi-woHkW-> Av. vyāxman-'ceremonial meeting', related to *woHkW-m(o)n 'speaking', Gmc. *wōpm-> OE wóm / wóma 'noise/howling/tumult/ alarm', ON ómr / óman 'voice') then metathesis of w. Compare the same in the Aeo. island Lésbos : *walto-'hair' > OIr folt, Li. valtis 'yarn', G. *wlatiyo-> *wlatsiyo-> lásios 'hairy/shaggy/ wooded', *latswiyo-> Lésbos >> H. Lāzpa The alternation of t(h) / d like Cretan : *dyeus > Zeús, acc. *dyeum > *dye:m > G. Zēn-, Dor. Zāń, Zāś, Cr. Tāń, Tēn-, Ttēn-Cr. óthrus 'mountain', Óthrus 'a mountain in Thessaly', *odrus / *odurs / *oduros LB o-du-ro, gen. u-du-ru-wo 'Zakros (in Cr.)' and others, some likely from Cr. : G. tárpē \ dárpē 'large wicker basket' *dwi->> G. dí-sēmos 'of 2 times / with a double border, haplo-dísēmos/tísēmos *d(e)mbh-> Skt. dambh-'slay / destroy', Os. davyn 'steal', G. atémbō 'harm / rob' *bhled-? > G. phledṓn 'idle talk', pl. blétuges 'nonsense talk' *meld-'soft', *mld-ako-> G. malthakós Hekátē, *Hekádē > Hekálē *sm->> *smambos, sambū́kē is to explain *s-> s-in G. (it is optional in *sm-> (s)m-). There is no ev. it came from Hebrew šebākā 'lattice', despite others' theories. *dwi-> i-*dwiH2pyugo->> Iāpugía diapatéō 'tread through', Arc. Diápatos / Lápatos '(name of a month)', dat. Zapatéai 'a god, Poseidon?', *Dyapat(y)o-> Iapetós, brother of Krónos Also, Chiapello analyzes LA a-ta-i-jo-wa-ja / *jowja as coming from *djewja, the feminine of G. *Djeus / Zeús from PIE *Dye:us ( ); seeing the same change in LA & íambos would help support this idea. That leaves íthumbos the only problem. If from PIE '5', it would require a lot of changes. However, I saw that the path of change for signs from CH > LA / LB (Ferrara et al.) included LA *28 (sound value I ) < CH 008 (hand with 5 fingers) Since neither '5' nor 'hand' begins with i-, I might have been in trouble if I hadn't been saying for years that íthumbos was '5' in this sequence. I considered the fact that some languages lose the old word for '5' and replace it with 'hand' or 'all'. If 'five' was replaced in LA, then there's a solution. Since G. has : *wik^wo-> *wiswo-> wiswos, Att. ísos 'equal/same/even', Skt. víśva-, Av. vīspa-'whole/ every/all', WI-SI-PE = WISPE 'all' on the Phaistos Disk (Whalen 2023d) which was 'all' in other IE, a path *wiswo > *yithwo > ithu-would work. Either w-w > y-w or some w > y before front (with dissim. of *w-w or the same changes as in *wes-> *w^es-> *yes-> G. hésperos 'evening', L. vesper ). That an old theory of mine requires i-for '5' in a language that loaned words into G., and the CH for 'hand' has been shown to be the source for I *28 by another researcher who had no knowledge of this (or mentioned the consequences for Greek / LA for any sound values it would produce) seems like independent evidence. Though I say *wik^wo-> *wiswo-, most would see this as impossible for an apparent Centum language, but Phrygian has the same optionality. G. also showed *k^ / *t^ in the other direction in some loans, like kībōtós < *t^ībōtós < Aramaic tēḇōṯā (Whalen 2025). This must have to do with a merger of *ky / *ty ( > s(s) in most, > tt in Att. showing intermediate *t^t^y > *ts^y / *tθ^y). This *ts / *tth also produced LB qi-ja-to & qi-ja-zo, Cr. Bíaththos < *gWiH3wo-tyo-s. Whatever the source, knowing that zo / to ( = Cr. ththo) goes back to (at least) Mycenean times would show that the palatalized *ty > *t^t^y usually produced *ts (zo) but could also become thth. In this way, some G. words have *k^ > s / th, *g^ > z, etc. This was more common in Cr. & Cyp., as expected if the island dialects (including LA) had greater variation from the standard. Also, when *k^ became *k^h (as in dékomai / dékhomai), it was likely *x^ and its outcome in *x^d was *yd > id. For opt. K^ > T^ > *ts^ / *tθ^ > s / th in G. : *bhak^-> G. phakós 'lentil', phásēlos 'bean', Alb. bathë 'broadbean' *dheH1k(^)o-> Skt. dhāká-'container', G. thḗkē 'box/chest/grave/tomb', thēsaurós 'treasure/ store-room/safe/casket/cavern/subterranean dungeon' *g^en(H1)os-> L. genus, G. génos, pl. genéā, Cr. zenia, Ms. zenaides *woik^->> G. oikeús 'inmate / menial servant', Cr. woizeus, more in Viredaz (2003) *g^amH-'marry' >> ágamos \ ázamos 'unmarried' *mg^H2two-? 'great' ? > G. agathós vs. Cypriot azathós *m(a)H2k^-> ON magr, L. macer, G. makrós 'long/tall/high/great', mássōn 'longer/etc.', masígdoupos 'loud-sounding' *dek^-> G. dékomai 'accept / receive/hold', Att. dékhomai; *dekh^-dekh^-> deidékhatai 'greet/ welcome' *g^has-'gape' > khásma 'chasm/gulf/open gaping mouth', [since Vs > Vr in some dia., *khárma] sárma 'chasm in earth' *kiHk^-> G. kîkus (f) 'strength/vigor/power', *chest > MIr cích (f) 'female breast/teat/nipple', G. kítharos 'thorax', kítharoi 'ribs of a horse' skúllō 'tear', pl. skûla 'spoils (of war) / booty/plunder/prey', sū́lē ' right of seizure/reprisal' *Hak^to-'pointed / raised (object)' > G. aktḗ 'headland/cape/promontory / raised place', aktaîos 'on the coast', Aktaíā / Attikḗ 'Attica', *aθtiko-> Attikós \ A(t)thikós \ Atthís 'Attic / Athenian' *Hak^(o)s-> G. akostḗ 'barley', Li. akstìs 'skewer', Arm. hawasti-k` 'tassels of a belt' *Hak^os-> L. acus, *Hak^sno-> G. ákhnē 'fluff / chaff', *xaθsno-> *anθos-ik-> anthérix \ athḗr 'awn / chaff' (with met., Vs > Vr in sárma) *Hak^sno-'sharp / horn' > anthólops 'antelope' (as above, r / l) *Hak^ro-> ákron 'peak', ásaron 'hazelwort / wild ginger / wild spikenard (a plant used for spice)' *H2arisk^e-> ararískō 'fit / join together', *H2arisk^mos > arithmós 'number' *H2arg^ro-/ *Haig^ro-'flashing / swift' > *xaiz^ro-> G. aisárōn \ aisálōn 'merlin (hawk)' *pod-H2arg^ro-'swift-footed' > G. Pódargos, Pḗdasos, Pḗgasos, Dor. Pāǵasos (all used for a swift horse, often in legends that seem related) Also, alternation of -ikos / -isos / -ithos and -ak(h)os / -asos is possible, but most examples are uncertain or of unknown etymology (and any oddity in an ending is usually explained as from just another ending). The same caveat applies to names, but something like: Many cases of K^r > sar would show -CR-> -CVR-(matching : Linear A ka-ro-pa3 , G. kálpē 'pitcher'
Greek, Latin, and Tocharian T > l in an Indo-European Context (Draft)2025
A. It is known that Greek words show alternation of l \ d, from either *l or *d : G. dik- ‘throw’, dískos, Perg. lískos ‘discus / disk / dish’ G. Odusseús \ Olutteus \ Ōlixēs < *wlkWo- ‘wolf’ or *luk- ‘bright’ G. *Poluleúkēs ‘very bright’ > Poludeúkēs ‘Pollux’ (like Sanskrit Purūrávas- ‘*very hot’) G. dáphnē / láphnē, NG Tsak. (l)afría, L. laurus ‘laurel’ LB ko-du-bi-je < *kolumbiyei (woman’s? name) << *kolumb- ‘dove’ (6) LB da-bi-to ‘place (name)’ < *Labinthos, G. Lébinthos *molHo- > L. mola ‘millstone / grains of spelt (& salt)’, G. môda ‘barley meal’ *polo-s > G. psólos ‘soot/smoke’, spodós ‘(wood-)ashes/ember/dust/oxide/lava’, spódios ‘ash-colored’, spoleús ‘loaf of bread’ G. kélados ‘noise/clamor / sound/cry/shout / twitter/chirp’, *kelalúzō > kelarúzō ‘murmur’ G. kálathos ‘basket with narrow base / cooler (for wine), *kadath-? > Arc. káthidos ‘water-jug’ *laHk-? > L. lacerna ‘a kind of cloak, worn over the toga’, *lVkk-? > G. lákkos ‘a kind of garment’, lókkē ‘short mantle’, lékkē \ dektḗ ‘upper-garment / cloak / wrapper, worn loose over the chiton’ but some also include th : G. alṓpēx ‘fox’, Pontic G. thṓpekas \ thépekas >> Ar. t’epek, MAr. t’ep’ēk \ t’obek ‘jackal’ G. dáptō ‘devour/rend/tear’, dáptēs ‘eater / bloodsucker (of gnats)’, Cr. thápta, Pol. látta ‘fly’ (Witczak 1995) which would fit if *ð > l and *l > ð were due to varieties of G. having *d & *th as fricatives much earlier than others. In other IE, ð > l is fairly common (Iranian). Some of these have been seen as loans from Anatolian languages (some of which had *T > l, though also not apparently regular), but if other IE branches had alternation of l \ d, this would be much less likely. B. Italic words also show alternation of l \ d. Latin irregularly changed both *d and *dh to l. Examples of *d > l : *H3od- ‘smell, stink, hate’ > L. oleō, odor, odī ‘I hate’, Ar. hot *mazdo- > I. maide ‘stick/staff’, L. mālus ‘mast’ *dH2ak^ru- > OL dacruma, L. lacrima, G. dákru \ dákrūma, Go. tagr *sodiyo- > OI. suide, Gaelic suidhe ‘seat, sitting’, L. solium ‘seat, throne’ *smeru- > OE smeoru ‘fat/grease’, NHG schmirwen, E. smear, OI smiur, TB ṣmare ‘oil/*oily>smooth’, L. melilla \ medulla ‘marrow’ and many more. Also *dh > l in *mizdho- > G. misthós ‘wages’, L. mīles ‘soldier’. It is likely this also shows *d(h) > *ð before *ð > l, especially because it’s very common in *zd(h), implying a change due to fricative-assimilation *zd > *zð. If there was optional metathesis of aspiration in *dng^hwaH2- > E. tongue, *dhng^waH2- > L. dingua > *ð- > lingua, *thǝŋgwa: > Umbrian fangva- (impied by U. *th- > f-), then this would be part of *dh > l instead of standard *d > l (optional *dh-g > l-g vs. *d-gh > d-g). These changes are just as clear now as they were then, whether due to Sabine influence or not. Prósper said, “the Sabine attribution [of d > l] is a modern myth, never explicitly found in the writings of the ancients.” Whatever the source, they are no more regular than in Greek. Prósper said that *da(:)- > la(:)- was regular, but many of the best examples are not before -a-. This seems old enough to be due to *d > *ð near *H, and, of course, most *a were caused by *H2 or syllabic *H. Though most linguists say all these words are from *d, some are of unknown origin. Since James Clackson argues for *kl > *kð in South Picene (kduíú (L. clueō), brímeqlúí and *brēmekdīno- > brímeidinais, qdufenio- >> L. Clufennius), it makes sense for Italic, or some sub-group if all Latin l \ d is due to foreign influence, to have optional alternation of l \ d like Greek. Indeed, some of these words are G. loans, in which the timing might allow l \ d in either language : G. thṓrāx, Ion. thṓrēx ‘corslet / coat of mail’, L. lōrīca ‘coat of mail / breastplate’ G. númphē, L. lumpa ‘nymph, (spring) water’, Oscan *dümpa > diumpa- (with dissimilation of nasals n-m > l-m) I think optional *kl > *kð in SPc and *d > l in Latin is part of this broad change of *ð > l and *l > *ð > d. Prósper also described L. d > Romance l as due to a stage with d > *ð. Depending on timing, *th > l might also exist. In L. ūvor ‘moisture’, ūvor ‘liquid/fluid/moisture’, ūlīgō ‘moisture’, ūmidus \ ūvidus \ ūdus ‘moist’, ūmēre ‘be moist’, ūmēscere ‘become moist’, several alternations seem to exist, but if statives in *-eH1- had aj. in *-H1to- > It. *-atho- (Rasmussen 2007, Whalen 2023a, 2024c), then it is possible that *u:wathos > ūdus, *ūd- > ūlīgō. Since *kl > *kð > kd is one of the last places you might expect to see *l > *d, is there other evidence for *Cl > *CT ? I think that *slaH2no- > OI slán, slántu ‘health’, L. sānus ‘well/healthy’ might show *sl- > *sθ- > s-. If not, sānus would be isolated, and its resemblance to slán is often noted. Any Italo-Celtic theory should examine such potential cognates carefully. C. Tocharian also seems to have *th > l (Whalen 2025a) : > Bb. G. has many -thmo-: porthmos ‘ferry/strait’, iauthmós ‘sleeping place (of wild beasts)/den/lair’, arithmós ‘number’. It is likely this corresponds to L. -timus < *-tmHo- with H-met. (Whalen 2025c) causing aspiration: *-tmHo- > *-tHmo- > -thmo-. This also has to do with a solution to Tocharian -lme. If from IE, what created *-lmos? Since Toch. shared features with Greek (like breaking related to H123, H1 > i, etc.), why not this too? It would show likely *th > l (common in many, including G. dáptēs ‘eater / bloodsucker (of gnats)’, Cretan thápta, Polyrrhenian látta ‘fly’; with each stage shown by the alternation). Both PT and G. would have the odd changes to *-tmHo- and some *th > l (likely dia. in G., maybe reg. in PT). Together, PT *-θmos > *-θme > -lme, acc. *-θmom > *-lm’äm > *-ln’äm > [ana.] > *-ln’e(m) > -lñe. An interdental stage would unite changes to PT *th and *s in a common stage. If *s > *θ adjacent to *s, *CsC > *sC, *θs > ts, *θ > l : *H2wes- > OE wesan ‘be/remain’, S. vásati ‘dwell’, G. aes- ‘spend the night / pasture’ *H2wes-sk^e-, G. aéskō ‘*spend the night’ > ‘sleep’, *wäθsk- > *wäθk- > *wälk- > TB woloktär ‘dwells’ (with Csk > Ck (as in many -tk- verbs) and the same developments as *kWelH1- > koloktär ‘follows’ ) > Since I said that *-om caused several TB alternations (Whalen 2025a), I consider the suffixes TB -(e)lñe & -(e)lme related, with *m-m > *ñ-m. Just as *-to-s & *-to-m ( > *-tem ) > -te & -ce, also *-thmo-s & *-thmo-m > -lme & -lñe. Adams also considered a “special phonetic development of of pre-Tocharian *-δn- in a nasal present” (1) : *lH1d-ne- > *lədne- > Al. lë ‘let’, *laðne- > *lalnä- > TB lāl- ‘exert oneself / strive for’, cau. ‘tire / subjugate’ Of course, a “special phonetic development” is simply an irregular change, however worded. It did not happen in his *moudno- > TB maune ‘avarice’, for example. Indeed, it need not be any more regular than *d(h) > d / l in some Latin words. He also had TB luwo ‘animal’ from OCS loviti ‘hunt’, SC lov ‘game animal’, but with “a cross of this etymon with a PTch *tsuwā ‘animal” (2). Why is such a “cross” needed if he already had some *-dn- > *-ln-, also not regular? Why include ‘game animal’ when ‘animal’ has all the features needed, and no *-s- in *lewo-, etc.? This would just be : *dhewHso-m > Go. dius ‘wild animal’, OE déor ‘animal’, E. deer, Li daũsos f.p. ‘upper air’, Sl. *dûxŭ ‘gust/breath/soul/spirit’, OCS duxъ ‘spirit’, OR duxŭ ‘air’ *dhewHos-s > *lewo:s > TA lu, lwāk p., TB luwo, pl. lwāsa ‘animal’ *dhewHos- > *dhowHos- > *dhwoHos- -> en-dhwoHos-s ‘having spirit inside’ > H. antuwahas n., antuhsan a. ‘(hu)man’ >> H. antūh Since *d > *dz > ts is usual (whether before front or back V), but some *d > t, the stages *d > *d / *dð, *dðe > *dðiä > *dð’ä > *dðä, *ð > *z \ *l can explain why not *lyuwo. In support, there are other ex. of *d > l, also optional. Since TB also had some r \ l (Whalen 2025b), I also see *d > l related to several examples of *nd > *nr. It is possible that when *d > *ð > l, *nð > *nr if these examples are complete & relevant, but it is possible that others have been missed or are unattested. Ex. : *dhewHos-s > *lewo:s > TA lu, lwāk p., TB luwo, pl. lwāsa ‘animal’ *leH1d- > G. lēd- ‘be tired’, Al. lodh tr. ‘tire’, *lH1d-to- > L. lassus ‘weary’ *lH1d-ne- > *lədne- > Al. lë ‘let’, *laðne- > *lalnä- > TB lāl- ‘exert oneself / strive for’, cau. ‘tire / subjugate’ S. saṁdhí- ‘junction, connection, combination, union with (+ instrumental) / association, intercourse with (+ instrumental) / comprehension, totality / agreement, compact / alliance, league, reconciliation’ >> PT *sanri > TB sārri ‘assembly’ *en-diwyos > G. éndīos ‘in the middle of the day’, *iänduwos > *enduwe > *endwe > *enrwe > *nerwe > TB ñerwe ‘today’ *H3ozdo- ‘branch’ > Ar. ost, G. óz[d]os, Go. asts, *oz(ä)do- > *esäle > TA asäl, TB esale ‘post’ *pezd- > L. pēdis ‘louse’, pazdu- ‘maggot’, *pozdo- > TB peṣte ‘worm? / maggot? / louse?’, peṣteu ‘worm/lice-ridden?’, peṣele ‘some kind of unlikeable insect’ (3) TB yälloñ < *Hed-lo- or *wid-lo- (since most *dC > C, *dl > ll would show a special outcome, fitting other unconditioned *d > l) (4) maybe also : S. padá-krama- \ krama-pada- ‘series of steps / pace / series of quarters of verses / ~method of reciting the Veda’, In. *krama-padyā >> PT *krämä-pädyā > *krämä-pälyā > TA klumpri, TB klampärya ‘~meter (4x18 syl., rhythm 7/7/4)’ (or *d > r, *r-r > *l-r later) *se-s(e)d- > *sezd- > G. héz[d]omai ‘seat oneself / sit’, Av. hazdyāt op.3s *sezd-ne- > Ar. hecanim \ hecnum \ hejnum ‘mount a horse / ride’, *siäzðmä- > *syäzmä- > *šämä- > TB ṣäm- ‘sit’, *syäzlmä- > *slyäzmä- > lyämā- pt., lyämäsk- cau. ‘set’, etc. This is not related to *lemb- > E. limp, S. lamb- ‘hang down’, TB läm- ‘cling to’ (5). In *sezdne-, needed for Ar., a change of *s-sCn > *sC-sn or similar would not be odd, so *T > l here can not be timed exactly. Clearly, there are enough cases of *T > l for this to be as clear as in Latin, even if not all are as certain as others. Since also...
Greek Intermediate Front Rounded Vowels (Draft)2025
Greek Intermediate Front Rounded Vowels (Draft) Sean Whalen [email protected] May 14, 2025 A. Many Greek words with alternation of ē \ ā are due to PIE *a: \ *aH > PG *æ: > Dor. ā, Aeo. ā, Arc. ā, Ion. ē (including Att. ē, but ā after r / i / e). However, other alternations of ē \ ā go back to PIE *e: \ *eH and only appear as ā in Doric. These have been considered examples of hyper-Doric ē > ā. That is, misapplied corrections by those ignorant of the real forms in dialects without *a: > ē (and their PIE etymology). Over time, some words have been given new ety. from *-a:-, and not all these supposed hyper-Doric words were really mistakes, as they were seen in the past (Buck, Liddell & Scott). Of the remainder, late and obvious ones must surely be real hyper-corrections, but most of the early ones (*dye:m > Zā́n) require some other explanation. There is no reason why hypercorrections would be made unless speakers of Ionic attempted to “fix” their words with ē to match Doric ones with ā, and this certainly goes against all evidence of their pride in their own speech vs. a rather low opinion of Dorians. In other dialects, there is little reason for words like Cretan Tā́n, Tēn-, etc., to be “fixed” in the first place. If speakers of Doric took so much pride in having ā vs. ē as a mark of their heritage, why would they change ē > ā against what they had inherited? These kinds of changes might exist in a literate & cosmopolitan society in which other dialects were well known to many, in which features of one were associated with higher status, etc., but this situation did not exist long ago. Why would Aeo. & Arc. not have the same? What some of the smaller dia. of Doric DID have was a late change of ē > ā (Elean). If this is known to be a sound change, why not ē > ā in related dia.? The only reason is that they are sporadic, but many other G. sound changes are, too. Looking for a cause should come first, not trying to deny any sound change at all. Most of these have one thing in common: the change is before or after P (including *w, which was likely *v in dia.). The most clear examples all are by P and I see no reason for them to cluster like this if they were mistakes (since misapplied corrections have nothing to do with sound changes & would equally affect any ē ). This includes acc. *-m > -n, so it points to an old change, since speakers would have no way to know that some -n came from *-m and apply a correction only to them. This resembles changes I’ve given in (Whalen 2024a, c) for Pu \ uP > Pi \ iP, Pa > Po, Po > Pō (none known to be regular in any dialect, which would match irregular ē > ā by P). In the same way for phlidáō, phludáō, -l- does not block it (plêthos > plâthos). Since this is obviously the same change as directly by P (LB mo-ri-wo-do ‘lead’, G. mólibos / mólubdos; kópsikhos / kóssuphos ‘blackbird’; *H2ukWno- > ipnós; stîphos- ‘body of men in close formation’, stū́phō ‘contract / draw together’), there are good reasons to see P as having an effect on ē > *ȫ > ā as well as on i > *ü > u. A rounding of Pē > *Pȫ and later *ȫ > ā would explain these similarities. It’s possible a few ex. are indeed “hyper-Doric” and just happen to be by P, but I will give all evidence I have. Most have good etymologies. For ē \ ā : *dyeus > Zeús *dyeum > *dye:m > G. Zēn-, Dor. Zā́n, Zā́s, Cr. Tā́n, Tēn-, Ttēn- (the acc. became the analogical stem in many dia.) *se:m-? ‘half’ > L. sēmi-, G. hēmi-, Dor. hāmi- *pe:d-? ‘foot’ > G. pēdós ‘blade of an oar’, Dor. pādos *pe:d-?, *pod-H2arg^ro- ‘swift-footed’ > G. Pódargos, Pḗdasos, Pḗgasos, Dor. Pā́gasos (all used for a swift horse, often in legends that seem related) *pleH1- ‘full / many’ >> G. plêthos ‘multitude / common people’, Aeo. plâthos *gWelH1- >> G. blētós ‘stricken’, Dor. ametá-blātos ‘unchanged’ *yeH1gW- ‘strong/mighty/young’ > G. hḗbē ‘(strength & vigor) of youth’, Dor. hḗbā, Aeo. ā́bā éphēbos ‘a youth’, Dor. éphābos dísābos ‘twice young’ *slH1gW- \ *slH2gW- ? > G. lambánō ‘grasp/seize’, lêpsis ‘seizing’, aná-lāpsis ‘recovery’ (probably *H2 anyway, but included just in case since some reconstruct *H1) *(s)new- ‘think / etc.’ >> noéō; noētós \ noātós ‘mental’ -mēsis \ -māsis -mḗtikos \ -mā́tikos B. G. also had many cases of *a > o near P (*madh-ye- > G. masáomai \ mossúnō ‘chew’; G. ablábeia, Cr. ablopia ‘freedom from harm/punishment’; *kapmos ‘harbor’ > Kommós; G. spérma ‘seed’, LB *spermo; *graph-mn > G. grámma, Aeo. groppa; *paH2-mn ‘protection’ > G. pôma ‘lid / cover’; lúkapsos / lúkopsos ‘viper’s herb’; (a)sphálax / (a)spálax / skálops ‘mole’; kábax ‘crafty/knavish’, kóbaktra p. ‘kvavery’; *H2merg^- > G. amérgō ‘pluck / pull’, omórgnūmi ‘wipe’). With 3 groups of V’s changed near P, it would be foolish to doubt it was the cause of one but not another. I also relate these to irregular changes to *a creating alternations a / ai / e (1). With P causing changes to i & ē, it is best to relate changes to a by P to the same cause. They have not because the outcomes are not round vowels & some of the C’s are not rounded at attested stages. However, since many languages lack front rounded vowels and can remove them in various ways that hide their older forms (ü > iw, o > ö > ü > i), this is not prohibitive. Thus, even if a > ɔ by P would be expected, G. had no short open ɔ later, so it had to have undergone some shifts. If some P caused *a > *ɔ > *œ > e in Ion. (G. psakás, Ion psekás), but *a > *ɔ > *œ > *ǝi > ai in Att. (and maybe others), it could explain these alternations in the same manner as those in part A. This subgroup of *a > *œ > a / ai / e was not found in the same environment as *a > o. Two ex. are by ph (laphússō, laiphássō; képphos \ kempós \ kaiphos), another two by ps (psakás \ psekás; psákalon \ psaíkalon). Since some dia. had ps > phs, I must assume that the cause of this subgroup’s separate change was that ph caused a different but related rounding. Since *a’s were lower than i & ē, it is likely that they were only rounded or raised in a more restricted environment in non-Doric dia. If p, b, m all caused a \ o, but ph caused a \ e \ ai, then it is probably that *ph > *f early in some dia., with any labials causing nearby *a > *ɔ, then only labials causing *ɔ > o. Both seem optional, but I can’t rule out regularity in a dialect that spread them to others. These were fairly early, since before *Pm > Tm (2). The ex. : *laH2P- \ *laPH2- > G. laphússō ‘swallow greedily’, laiphássō ‘swallow / gulp down’, laiphós, laîpos, *laîphma > laîtma ‘depth/gulf of the sea’ *spak-? > Li. spãkas ‘drop / point’, G. psakás, Ion psekás, -d- ‘raindrop / particle’ *spak-? > G. psákalon \ psaíkalon ‘newborn animal’ [as ‘drop > small thing’ ?] *ka-kub(h)H1- > S. kakúbh- ‘peak/summit’, kakúd- ‘peak/summit/hump / chief/head’ > *kabhukH1o- ‘beak(ed)’ > [k-dsm.] *kabhwo-s > G. képphos \ kempós \ kaiphos ‘storm petrel / stupid person’ > *kabhukH1o- = *kabhukR^o- > *kabhug^o- > Po. kobuz, OIc haukr, OHG habuh, NHG Habicht, Du. havik, OE h(e)afoc, E. hawk, It. *kabuks ? > Et. capu ‘falcon’ C. There is yet another group, which seemed to change *e:. However, since *a: > *æ: > ē in Ion., I’d also relate this change with with those in part B., as *æ: > *œ: > ai. These, however, are next to l. That this type seems to be by caused by both *ph & *l, which was not a round sound, but Ar. loans have G. l > Ar. l \ ł, indicating that some l > L (velar), which often turn a > ɔ or o in other languages. I’ve said that other changes near *l were due to *l > *L > *wl (like Ar.), with more ex. in (Whalen 2025b). Combined, these allow *ph > *f, *l- > *lw- > *lv-, with *a(:) rounded in this manner only near labiodentals. Ex. : *laH2k-? (3) > G. lēkáō \ laikáō ‘suck cock / wench / fuck’, lēkṓ ‘penis’, laikás \ laikastḗs ‘cocksucker / wencher’, laikástria ‘strumpet’ *laH2-tro- > G. láthrā av. ‘secretly’, *lāthr-algos ‘suffering from forgetfulness’ > larargos \ laíthargos ‘forgetful / lethargic / secretly? / treacherous?’, lḗthargos ‘forgetful / lethargic’, laíthargoi ‘treacherous dogs? (that bite unexpectedly) / dogs biting secretly?’, laithárgōi podí d. ‘secret / clandestine’ D. With this, I think that other changes near w & l can also be assumed to form a natural set. This includes alternations of a \ e found in old dia. (including LB), or those with little data. Some in unknown varieties in H. loans (presumably usually those in Anatolia). Since some of them also show some l > w (like Cretan), it is very likely that *l > *L(w) > w also existed here. Like *a > ai, these were also old (before opt. l > d, etc.) : *Labinthos > LB da-bi-to ‘place (name)’, G. Lébinthos G. Lasíā, Lésbos >> H. Lāzpa (*walto- ‘hair’ > OI folt, Li. valtis ‘yarn’, G. *wlatiyo- > *wlatsiyo- > lásios ‘hairy/shaggy/wooded’, *latswiyo- > Lasíā, Lésbos, >> H. Lāzpa) Cr. áxos ‘cliff / crag’, the Cr. city (by cliffs) *Waksos / *Weksos > G. Wáxos / Áxos, LB e-ko-so (*wa(H2)g^- > S. vaj-, G. ágnūmi ‘break / shatter’, agmós ‘fracture / cliff’) G. máleuron, LB *meleuro- ‘flour’ G. Aléxandros ‘Alexander’ >> H. Alakšanduš G. Boe. zekeltís ‘turnip’, Thes. zakeltís ‘bottle gourd’, Cr. zakauthíd- (also l / w, above) G. lakánē \ lekánē dish/pot/pan’, lékos-, L. lanx ‘plate’ < *lenk/lank ‘bend’ (Li. leñkti, lankas ‘bend/bow’, Lt. luoks ‘anything bent’)
Etymology of Albanian gjuhë, Greek glôssa, Ionic glássa, PIE *gWlH3-kiH2, *tng^huwaH2t- 'tongue' (Draft)2025
A. Albanian gjuhë, Greek glôssa, Attic glôtta, Ionic glássa ‘tongue’, glōkhī́n- ‘arrowhead / point’, glôkh-es ‘beards of corn’ are not regular cognates. I include Phrygian gloka (1). The variation in *lu \ *lH3 \ *l resembles the same in another root : *gWlH3- ‘swallow / devour’ > OE ceole, NHG Kehle ‘throat’, *gWl(o)H3mo- > G. blōmós ‘morsel of bread’ *gW(H3)l- > OI geilid ‘eat / graze’, geilt f. ‘grazing’, MW gwellt m. grass *gWlu- > L. ingluviēs ‘gullet / jaws / gluttony’, gluttiō ‘devour’, R. glotat’ ‘swallow’, Ar. kułx ‘gluttonous’, *glu- \ *gul- > klnum \ klanem 1s., ekul ao. ‘swallow’ I can not see this as coincidence. The *H vs. 0 could be due to laryngeal metathesis (Whalen 2025a), and *H3 vs. *u to *H3 > w (2). I say that : *gWlH3-kiH2 ‘small drinker / swallower’ > *gloH3khya > G. glôssa, Ion. glássa ‘tongue’ *gWlH3-kaH2 > *gWlH3kha: > *gluxa > Al. gjuhë, *glH3kha: > *glokha > *ghloka > Ph. gloka In addition to the changes mentioned, these show *gWl > *gWlu in Al. (like *wlkWo-s ‘wolf’ > G. lúkos, Al. ulk), *gW-xW > *g-xW in Greek (assuming H3 = xW or something similar, Whalen 2024a), *Hk > *(H)kh by pre-aspiration (Rasmussen 2007, Whalen 2023a). B. If words for ‘tongue’ show changes seen in other roots, due to an odd form, no tabooistic deformation is needed. In another, there is even more variation : *dng^hwaH2- > Go. tuggō, E. tongue, L. dingua \ lingua, *dhng^waH2-? > *ðǝŋgwa: > Umbrian fangva- *g^hndwaH2- > PT *käntwō > TA käntu, TB kantwo *tng^hwaH2t-? > Ct. *tangwa:ts, *tangu(H)t- > OI tenge, tengad g., *tangwa:ts > W. tafod *dng^huH-? > *dinj^huH-is > *inj^huH-is > OPr inzuwis *dng^huHko- > *dinj^huHko- > *inj^huHko- > OCS językŭ *dng^hwaH2- > *d^n^g^hwaH2-? > S. jihvā́ ‘tongue’, [dsm.] *zizvā > *sizvā > OP h(i)zbānam \ hazānam *dng^hwaH2- > *danðwa: ? > *dalthwa ? > Th. -dáthla (in a flowering plant, “cow’s tongue”; G. boúglōsson, Th. boudáthla) *leig^huwo- > Li. liežùvis, Ar. lezu ‘tongue’ The only really secure part is that liežùvis & lezu are contm. < ‘lick’. Though since many, not all, come from *d-, PIE *d- is assumed. However, in *dorusdo- ‘tree-sitting’, dsm. of *d-d > *t-d occurred in variants *trusdo- / *drusdo- / *stroz(u)do- ‘thrush’, etc. By this principle, Celtic *t-t from *tng^hwaH2t- could be older with *t-t > *d-t dsm. in most, but *t-t > *0-t dsm. in Balto-Slavic. If not, no reason for *d- > 0-. In most IE, fem. in *-aH2- were much more common than *-aH2t-, so most had analogy. This also allows an etymology to be found. Around 1998, I attended a discussion of a paper titled something like “PIE *(s)dlng^huH(t)- ‘the long-caller’”. I don’t remember all the details and can’t find any reference to it (likely unpublished), but the principle can be applied better to *tng^hwaH2t- as ‘the thin-caller’. If 1st a compound *t(e)nH2wo- + *g^hew- > *tnH2we-g^hu-t- (common in S. -_t cp.), metathesis *tnH2weg^hut- > *tng^huweH2t- > *tng^huwaH2t- would fit all data. This includes Ar. *-uwa: > -u, since *leig^hwaH2- would produce **lež- (like *k^w > *s^w > *s^y > š in *k^uwo:n > *k^wu:n > *syun > šun ‘dog’, *H1ek^wo- ‘horse’ > *ešyo > *eyšo > ēš ‘donkey / ass’). Note 1. Obrador-Cursach has Ph. G-229, “Handle of a vessel found in Building PPB and dated to the 5th or 4th c. BC…” mamutas sokposa mamutas itoiesgloka containing a name Mamuta-s (he compared “Mamoutēnós… a Greek ethnic attested in the lists of Xénoi Tekmoreîoi (from Roman Pisidia)”, which, for obvious reasons, should be divided : mamutas sok posa mamutas itoies gloka if (anyone) should see this (handle) of Mamuta’s may (he) know Mamuta’s tongue Clearly, tongue = language, know it to read this writing and know who to return it to. This is also a poem with simple structure and repeated V’s (a-u-a-o-o-a) with variation, simple due to the length and repetition. The words : *(s)pok^-aH2-t sj. *wid-oyeH1-s op. > *yi- (Ph. iman ‘memorial? / marker? / grave marker? / headstone?’, G. ídmēn ‘care / consideration’ < *wid-men- ‘knowing’) *k^od > *sot; tp > kp (as in *dhg^homiyo- > G. khthónios ‘under the earth’, Ph. *upo-tgonyo- > pokgonio- ‘(the) buried? / the dead?’) The 3s. endings *-t & *-s are found in other IE. I might have a more detailed analysis in the future. Note 2. Other ex. of w / H3 :
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 34-39 (Draft)2025
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 34-39 (Draft) 34. *(s)pi(H)k- *(s)pi(H)no- > L. spīnus ‘briar’, spīna ‘thorn / spine / backbone’, R. spiná ‘back’, TA spin-, OHG spinela *(s)pei(H)no- > B. poinɔ ‘sharp’ *spiH(o)n- > L. spiō̆nia \ spīnea ‘a kind of grape-vine’, OI sían ‘foxglove’, MI síon, Gae. sian ‘pile of grass / beard of barley’, OW fionou p., MW ffion ‘rose / purple foxglove’ *pinH- > Gmc *finno: \ *fino:n- > OE finn, NHG Finne, Sw. fina \ fime ‘fin’, Nw. finn ‘grass bristles’, MHG vinne ‘nail’ *(s)piHk- > ON spíkr ‘nail’, L. spīca ‘ear (of grain)’, G. pikrós ‘pointed/sharp’ L. pīcus, *spikto- > NHG Specht ‘woodpecker’ *spiHkalyo- > *sfi:kalyos > Sc. *fi:skalyos > Sic. Thìscali ‘a mtn.’ *piHk-piHk- > TB piśpik ‘woman’s breasts?’, *piHk-tr(o-m) > piśtär ‘goiter / boil?’ *piHk-tos- > L. pectus nu., pectora p. ‘front of the chest’ Some with loss of *H could be simplification of *-x^k- > *-k(^)- if H1 = x^ or R^ (Whalen 2024b). *piHk-piHk- > TB piśpik ‘woman’s breasts?’, *piHk-tr(o-m) > piśtär ‘goiter / boil?’ seem needed. If from *piHki-piHki or similar (Adams), what kind of form would it be? Why not then ** piśpiś ? If the dual of body parts could be indicated by doubling, then *piHk-s would match *pup-s ‘breast’ as a C-stem. In standard *i: > T. *äy > TB ī, likely that *-ykC- > *-yk^C-. If also *piHk-tos- > L. pectus ‘front of the chest’, then *pi- > pe- by analogy with *pes- (35). In *pinH- > Gmc *finno:, *nH > *nn likely; other ex. (Whalen 2024a) : > 2. *nomH1o- > G. nómos, Dor. noûmmos ‘usage / custom / law’ Dor. noûmmos used -ou- to spell /u/ vs. /ü/ in other dialects & shows o > u/n_m (G. ónoma, Dor/ Aeo. ónuma ‘name’); retained *H is seen in *mH > m(m) also in *kmH2aro- > ON humarr, NHG Hummer ‘lobster’, G. kám(m)aros, *kmH2ar-to- > S. kamaṭha- ‘turtle / tortoise’ (the same for *h from *s in *k(^)e\o-mus- > Li. kermùšė, OHG ramusia, OE hramsa ‘wild garlic’, G. krómuon \ krém(m)uon ‘onion’). Lack of regularity also seen in *tomHo- > tomós ‘cutting/sharp’, tómos ‘slice’, all derivatives of *domH2- ‘house’, etc. Something like this might also be behind some variation in *-mHC- > -m- / -mm- / etc.: *k^emH2-dho- > Gmc. *ximda- > E. hind, *k^emdhH2o- > *kemtho- > G. kemphás \ kem(m)ás ‘young deer’; *psamH2dho- > G. psámathos \ psámmos ‘sand’. Maybe the same for Gmc. -m(m)- in *b(h)remH1- > *brim(m)- > OE bremman; *ramH2-? > ON ram(m)r ‘powerful/mighty/strong/bitter’, OE ramm ‘ram’ (*raH2m- > OCS raměnŭ ‘severe’). Also for *nH, *g^onHeye- > S. janáyati, Go. kannjan ‘make known’. With many ex., I see no need for kannjan to be analogical to kunnan. That *g^noH3H1- ‘know’ really contained 2 H’s is seen by the need for n-present *g^noH3H1-ne- > *g^nH3neH1- > S. jānā́ti \ jānīté. A similar outcome in T. *knānā-tär > TB nanātär ‘appear/be presented’ > 35. *pstV(:)no- ‘(woman’s) breast’ Li. spenỹs, Lt. spenis ‘nipple / teat / uvula’, ON speni, OE spane ‘teat’, OI sine, S. stána- ‘female breast, nipple’, MP pestān, NP pistān ‘breast’, Av. fštāna-, TA päśśäṁ, TB; päścane du. OI bó tri-phne ‘three-teated cow’, YAv. ǝrǝdva-fšnī- ‘full-breasted’ These show differing *-V-, also long vs. short. If S. viśvá-psn[i]ya- meant ‘all-nourishing/ feeding’, it is unrelated (bhas-, bábhasti \ bápsati ‘chew / devour’, etc.). G. stḗnion \ stêthos ‘breast / breast-shaped hill’, Ar. stin ‘female breast’ don’t seem unrelated, but *pst- > pt- (like *pstr-nu- > Ar. p’ṙngam ‘sneeze’, G. ptárnumai, L. sternuere), so not directly. If PIE *stH2-eH1- intr. ‘stand up/out’ formed *stH2eH1-no- \ *stH2aH1-no- ‘what stands out / protrudes’ (with either H coloring *e), then later opt. dsm. of H > *stH2eno- \ *stH2ano- in some branches would fit all data. For others, a compound with *pes- ‘swell’ (*pes-no\ni- ‘penis’) for ‘woman’s breast’ could give *pes-stH2eH1-no- \ *pstH2aH1-no- \ etc., which would fit all data from the 1st group
Sean Whalen
