Sanskrit k vs. ś, gh vs. h, PIE *K vs. *K^ (Draft 4)

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...

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

2026

Inspired by considering https://www.academia.edu/164591261 by Sebastian Kempgen, "etymologies of the Pontic rivers Don, Donec, Dnjepr, and Dnjestr. While it is clear that they all contain the ie. root danu 'river'", I decided to examine some problems in these & other cognates. PIE *daH2nu-> S. dāńu-'water', +dānu-'sprinkling', Av. Dānav-, etc., *dāṇu-> Degano ḍán 'pond, lake' (also nuristan.info/lngFrameL.html Katavari "ḍanʹoala 'rapids in water'") Ir. *zgrsna-daHnu-'round/loop-water' > Yidgha >> Kh. ǧerdānu \ ǧernánu 'loop in river', Kalasha gerdhán, [cont. *a:p] NP girdâb 'whirlpool' PIE *daH2mu-> Ar. tam(u)k 'moist, damp', also (?) Gaulish Damona 'consort of Apollo Borvo (hotsprings god) A. PIE *daH2nu-in IIr., irregularities The-dh-in Kalasha gerdhán implies that Ir. *H still existed at the time of borrowing, with other *H causing aspiration in Dardic (https://www.academia.edu/127220417) : *Hravo-\ *raHvo-> L. ravus \ rāvus, S. rāva-s 'cry/shriek/roar/yell / any noise', *Hraw > A. rhoó 'song' *Hrew-'to tear out'-> Sanskrit róman-\ loman-nu. 'body hair; wool, down'-> *Hlōmaka-'fox'-> fem. *-ī > Achareta luuméei, Palula lhooméi *maH2is-'sheep' > *mH2ais-, etc.; meḍha-> *mheḍa-> bheḍa-, etc. *meHmso-> S. māṃsá-m 'flesh', mh-in *mHamsa-> Achareta mhããś 'meat / flesh' *melH2-'crush, kill', *merH-\ *mHer-> *mHoreye-> S. māráyati , Achareta mhaar-, Kh. mari-'kill' (*merH seen in Armenian *merr-> meṙanim 'die' with *rx > *rR > *rr > ṙ like *derH2-> G. dérō 'flay/skin', Ar. teṙem, *drH2-> taṙatok 'cloak'; sim. to *dhoH3ro-> S. dhārā-'blade/edge', Gmc. *daHr-> *daRr-> ON darr 'spear' IIr. *dāṇu-as a variant recalls S. śāna-s \ śāṇa-s, etc., with *-Hn-having an optional effect (based on Note 7 https://www.academia.edu/127709618) : Both *H & *r can become uvular *R, often by dsm. or asm. Since *r could cause T > retro. even at a distance, the same for *H (optionally) could imply *H > *R : *puH(1?)-ne-> *puneH-> S. punāti 'purify / clean'; *puH-nyo-> *pHunyo-> púṇya-'pure/holy/ good' *k^oH3no-s > G. kônos '(pine-)cone', S. śāna-s \ śāṇa-s 'whetstone' (with opt. retroflexion after *H = x) *waH2n-? > S. vaṇ-'sound', vāṇá-s 'sound/music', vāṇī-'voice', NP bâng 'voice, sound, noise, cry' (if related to *(s)waH2gh-, L. vāgīre 'cry [of newborns]', Li. vógrauti 'babble', S. vagnú-'a cry/ call/sound')

2025

Those who work on Uralic-Altaic or other long-range studies are often accused of lumping any words that look alike together, regardless of meaning. Some joke that if any 2 words begin with the same C-, there’s someone who’ll put them together. Though these criticisms go too far, they are the result of some improper methods, and I want to argue against lumping based on form instead of meaning, and especially of taking the same C- as the most important. I assume most Uralic-Altaic proponents would say they don’t, but that is not relevant, since looking for meaning-based cognates with different C- can help find unseen sound changes, and also argue for a relation between Uralic & Altaic. To see what I mean, consider Uralic *ayŋe, Turkic *bäyŋi ‘brain’. These contain *-yŋ- & mean the same thing, so why aren’t they related by others? Because they don’t begin with the same C-? That is pointless when it is certain that many obscuring sound changes must have operated, if there was any relation between Uralic & Altaic. Starting with C- instead of -CC- might be justified, but as time goes on, looking for deeper changes is needed for any progress. Since *-yŋ- is odd enough, never common, yet reconstructed independently in 2 families (or branches), it seems justified in looking for common origin, rather than the unlikely event that it would occur in 2 unrelated words for ‘brain’ by chance alone. Starostin has Turkic *bäyŋi ‘brain’ related to Mc. *maŋlay > ‘forehead’ (on the basis of C-, since Tc. had few *m, and later *b > b, m suggests *m > *b, or a phoneme in free variation, or any similar path). These words also mean ‘temple’ & ‘head’, so ‘forehead’ as the original is possible. With all this, I don’t think a dispute is needed, because all parts point to the same origin. The pattern *? > *0 / *m / *b doesn’t require an odd *C that could become *0 or *m (later > Tc. *b / (*m)), but is likely caused by the following *-ŋ- nasalizing the *V, then the *C-, as, say, *χãŋl^öy > *ŋãŋl^öy, then dsm. of *ŋ-ŋ > *m-ŋ. With a form like this, it could be further related to PIE : *H2ant-i\yo\o- > S. ánta- ‘end / limit’, Go. andeis, H. hanza = xant-s ‘front / forehead’, hantiš p., TA ānt, TB ānte ‘surface / forehead’ *χantyo- > *χant^öy > *χaŋl^ey > U. *ayŋe ‘brain / temple’ > F. aivo(t), H. agy *χãŋl^öy > *ŋãŋl^öy > Mc. *maŋlay > WMo. maŋlai, Mo. magnay ‘forehead’ *maŋl^ey > *maŋyi > Tc. *bäyŋi > OUy. meŋi \ meyi, Tk. bäyni > beyin ‘brain’, Tkm. meyni \ beyni, Cv. mime, Dolgan meńī ‘head’ For *nt > *nl, I’ve said that PIE *T > PU *l in words like (Whalen 2024a) : *ud- > Go. ut, S. ud-; *ud-yo-? > F. ylä- ‘upper / high(er)’, yle-mpi *m(e)ntis > S. matí- ‘thought/intelligence/worship/desire’, L. menti-, E. mind, Li. mintìs ‘thought/idea/meaning’ *miïntyï > *menley > *meele > F. mieli ‘reason/understanding’ *staH2- ‘stand’ > *slax- > U. *salk- > Mr. šalγ-, Hn. áll- These might combine for *Tr > *lr & *rT > *rl to make other sounds if : *k^rd(a)yo- > S. hŕ̥d(aya)- ‘heart’, U. *c’urlayö > *s’üðäme S. putraká- ‘little son/boy/child’, putrikā ‘daughter’, *putriko- > *polr^ikö > *poyika > F. poika ‘son/boy’ These might also allow a better understanding of clear compounds with various dsm. : *H2aidh- ‘burn / bright’ -> G. aithḗr, Mac. adê ‘sky’ G. aithría ‘clear weather’, Mac. adraía S. idhmá- ‘fuel’, Av. aēsma- ‘firewood’ *ud-Haidhmo- ‘upper air / sky’ > PU *ul-aylma > *yulmala > F. jumala, Mr. jumo ‘god / sky’ *ilumala > *ilma(la) > F. ilma ‘air / weather’, Ilmari(nen) ‘God of Heaven’, Ud. inmar ‘God’ The stages of *tyo > *t^yö > *t^öy are to match Tocharian, which seems very close to other PU & PTc words (Whalen 2025a) : Some ex. occur in yo-stems, others unknown, suggesting that optional *-yos > *-yoš > *-yoy was common. Either it was reg. for *-os > *-oy, with some later analogy with other nom. in *-s, or it was optional after any V. PIE *-yos > *-yoy > *-oy \ *-yo would show later y-dsm. of either *y. Ex. : *loghyo- > OCS lože ‘bed / den’, *lögyö > *lököy > *lökäy > TA lake, TB leki / leke ‘bed / resting place’ *re(H1)k- > Go. rahnjan ‘reckon’, OCS rekǫ ‘say’ *reH1kyo- > OCS rêčĭ ‘word’, *re:koy > *re:käy > TA rake, TB reki ‘word / command’ *mati- > R. mot’ ‘lock of hair’, *mato- > Lt. mats ‘a hair’, mati p. ‘(head)hair’, *matyo- > *matsyo- > *matsoy > *matsäy > TB matsi ‘headhair’ Since *ty > *tsy before these changes, timing can be seen (thus showing the need for metathesis of *y here, since plain *t > ts would be unmotivated). Also in loans : Iran. *parya- > Kho. pīra ‘what is to be paid / debt’ >> PT *perye > *peräy > TA pare, TB peri Timing makes it likely that Iran. *a > PT *e first, however, if PIE *-yos > PT *-ye / *-äy already, with both endings found for obl. *-ye-, the nom. endings could be analogical even if the loan came into PT much later than *-oy > *-äy.

2025

A. There are several problems in words from supposed PIE *kubh- ‘bend’, also similar words *ku(m)b-, *kump-, *kamp-, etc. G. kûphos vs. kúptō with long vs. short V’s requires *-uH1- vs. *-H1u- (like others’ *bhuH1- ‘be(come) / grow’ vs. *bhH1uti- ‘being / growth / plant’), since G. turned *uH2 > *waH, *uH3 > *woH. Older *-HP- might have influenced the type of P, so *HP > p / b / bh seems likely. Some might be caused by *HP vs. *PH, and if *H was in free variation /x/, /R/, etc., it might either voice or aspirate adjacent C. Not only did *kuH1bho- vs. *kH1ubho- affect V-length, but *kH- > kh- is seen in Pk. khujja, S. kubjá- ‘humpbacked’, khubrá- ‘humpbacked bull’, etc. H-metathesis was far more extensive than most say (Whalen 2025a), and it can be seen in other words from *kuH1p- > *k(H)u(H)P(H)- ‘bent’ showing the same oddities of u / ū, k / kh, etc., as well as some with optional *kH1 > *k^h as kx^ > k^hx (*k^umb- > Al. sumbull, *k^(h)ubiko- > S. chúbuka- \ cubuka- \ cibuka-), giving more evidence of H1 = x^ (Whalen 2024b). In part : *kuH1bho- > G. kûphos ‘hump’, kūphós ‘bent/stooping’ *kH1ubh-ye- > G. kúptō ‘bend forward / stoop’, *k(h)H1ubh-ro- > S. khubrá- ‘humpbacked bull’ *kH1umbo- ‘curved _’ > G. kúmbos ‘vessel/goblet’, *kh- > Av. xumba-, *kumbH1o- > S. kumbhá-s ‘jar/pitcher/water jar/pot’ *kH1ump- ‘bend’ > Li. kumpas ‘bent/crooked’, Lt. kumpt ‘become crooked/hunched’, S. kumpa- ‘crooked-armed’ *kH1u(m)b- ‘bend (forward / down)’ > L. cubāre ‘recline / lie down’, cumbere, E. hump *kH1umb- > *k^umb- > Al. sumbull ‘round button / knob / leaf bud’ *kH1ub- ‘bent/curved _’ > G. kúbos ‘hollow above hips on cattle’, L. cubitus ‘elbow’, Gmc *xupiz > Go. hups ‘hip’ *kH1ubiko- > *k^(h)ubiko- > S. chúbuka- \ cubuka- \ cibuka- ‘chin’ >> TB w(i)cuko ‘jaw/cheek’ *kouH1po- > *koupH1o- > *kaupha- > Av. kaōfa- ‘hill’, OP kaufa- ‘mountain’, Ps. kwab ‘hump’ *kouH1pako- > Bal. kōpag ‘shoulder’, *koupH1o-H3sto- > *kauphaRṭha- > S. kaphauḍá- ‘shoulder-bone?’ B. As you see, there is already a great deal of variation in these words, most unexplained. Movement of *H1 to explain u / ū, k / kh, k(h) / c(h), is the simplest solution, since *uH vs. *u in PIE seems needed anyway, and the only source of ph is *pH (as generally accepted). This also exactly matches *ghu(:)b(h)- ‘crooked / bent’ in : *ghoubo- > OE géap ‘crooked’, gupan p. ‘buttocks’, OIc gumpr, Sw. gump ‘rump’, OCS *ghub-ne- > sŭ-gŭnǫti \ *ghu:b- > prě-gybati ‘fold’, SC pregnuti \ pregibati ‘bend’ These can hardly be unrelated, so *ghub- \ *ghu:b- < *ghHub- \ *ghuHb-. The *b vs. *bh (needed to explain lack of *ub > *u:b in Balto-Slavic) can also be *Hb vs. *bH > *bh(H). C. There are also several Uralic words that contain kamp- or kum- ‘bend’ (Whalen 2025d), with odd sound changes that I said were caused by PU *mf > Hn. mp (vs. *mp > b), *mf > F. m (vs. *mp > mp). If related to the IE changes, *kHamp- vs. *kampH- ( > *kamf- ?) could explain this : PU *kHumpï ‘rounded & swollen thing’ > F. kumpu ‘hummock / hillock / mound / high rounded wave’, X. xump ‘wave’, Hn. hab ‘foam / froth’ *kumPH- > F. kumara ‘hunch / bent posture’, kumea ‘convex / *askew’, kumo-llaan ‘one one’s side / tipped over’ *kampH- > Hn. kampó ‘hook’ *kamPH-ye- > Hn. kanyar ‘bend’ If *H was pronounced something like *χ in PU, usual *ka- > *xa- > Hn. ha- might have been blocked so as not to create *x-χ. But in another set, PIE *mb matches Hn. mb, requiring PU *mb : *tumbo- > G. túmbos ‘mound / cairn’, MI tomm, I. tom ‘hillock’; PU *tumbö- > *tuïmbʉ > *twombï > Hn. domb ‘hill / mound / hump’, *towmb > Mi. tō̆mp ‘hill / island’, Es. tomp ‘clod’ If these ideas are right, a 3-way distinction in PU *mP matching PIE would be proof of their relation (*mb > Hn. mb, *mp > b, *mph ( > *mf ?) > mp). D. These IE words also have many variants & derivatives that have never been explained. Some linguists say these are “expressive” variants that can not be analyzed. These include gumb- vs. kum-, skumP- vs. K(s)umP-, etc. I will look into solving these with *-H1- in the root in mind. I have given ex. of IIr. *PH1 > *PK^ (Px^ > PK^ ), which would explain why *kubhH1- > *kubhj- \ *khubj- in this root (Whalen 2025c) : *kubhH1o- > S. kubjá- ‘humpbacked’, *kubhjá- > *khubjá- > Pk. khujja, NP kûz ‘crooked/curved/humpbacked’ *kuH1bho- > G. kûphos ‘hump’, kūphós ‘bent/stooping’ *kH1ubh-ye- > G. kúptō ‘bend forward / stoop’, *k(h)H1ubh-ro- > S. khubrá- ‘humpbacked bull’ *ke-kub(h)H1- > S. kakúbh- ‘peak/summit’, kakúd- ‘peak/summit/hump / chief/head’ Since kubjá- from an unknown adj. suffix *-g^o- makes little sense (& for all others, no PIE *K^ is found in cognates), it seems clear that *H1 solves this problem also. E. A group of related words, supposed *kump- ‘bend’ vs. *kamp-, would likely be *kH2ump- & *kH2amp- (since PIE *a usually from *H2e, etc.). Just as some *kx^ > *k^x^, if *kx^ > *kx here, it would support H2 = x. Older *kH1ewmp- ( = *kx^ewmp- ) might explain all data, if *wP > *P was optional. This is also seen in : *kawput ‘head’ > Go. haubiþ, OE héafod, E. head *kaput ‘head’ > S. kaput-, L. caput, ON höfuð *kawp- > L. caupō(n-) ‘petty tradesman / huckster / tavern-keeper’ *kap- > G. kápēlos ‘local shopkeeper / tavern-keeper’ *lowbo- ‘bark’ > OIc laupr ‘basket’, OHG lo(u)ft ‘bark/bast’ *lewp- > *lep- > G. lépō ‘peel / strip off the rind’ Also see the same in m-less *keupH1- > *kepH1- \ *keH1p- > S. cāpa- ‘bow’, P. čap ‘*crooked > left’ (below, J ). F. However, these words also have other oddities. If *H was in free variation /x/, /R/, etc., it might either appear as *H > 0 or *R > r : *kH1ewb- > *kR^ewb- \ etc. > I. crúbadh ‘bend’, Gae. crùb ‘squat’, crùbach ‘cripple’, W. crwb ‘bent’, crwban ‘crab-fish’ *kH2amb- > *kRamb- > ‘wrinkled / shriveled’ > G. krámbē ‘cabbage’, krambaléos ‘dry’ *kRumb- > OE hrympel ‘wrinkle’, E. Shetl. krump ‘crooked back’, Sw. krympa ‘shrink’, ON kryppa ‘hump / hunch’, kroppr ‘a hump on any part of the body’, OI cromm, OBr crum ‘hunchback’, Br kromm ‘crooked’ G. Both k- vs. sk- & ks- in : *kH1umbo- > *(s)kumbo- > Sw. skumpa ‘limp’, E. hump *kH1a(w)mbo- > *(s)kambo- > G. skambós ‘crooked / bowed (of legs)’, *kambo- > OI camm ‘crooked’ This part alone is said by linguists to be due to s-mobile, an idea that words ending in -s before nouns in C- could turn *-s # C- > *# sC-, creating variants in later IE. There is no evidence for this, and it is unlikely in a language in which *-s as an affix was very common, making a wrong analysis in these cases hard to understand. If many IE had *H / *s (Whalen 2024c), then *kH- > *ks- > sk- would be the cause. This also explains ks- in others, which obviously aren’t due to s-mobile : *kH1umbo- > G. kúmbos ‘vessel/goblet’ *khH1umbo- > Av. xumba- *kumbH1o- > *kumbhH1o- > S. kumbhá-s ‘jar/pitcher/water jar/pot’ *kH1umbho- > *ksumbho- > S. kusumbha-s ‘water pot / safflower / saffron’ *kH1umP- \ *ksumP- > S. kumb- \ kump- ‘*umbrella > cover’, kúmba- ‘headdress for women AV / thick end of bone/club / thick petticoat’ S. kṣúmpa- ‘toadstool, mushroom’, Pk. khuṁpā- f. ‘cover made of grass to keep off rain’, Gj. khũpṛɔ m. ‘large screen for keeping rain off’ S. *kṣumbhī > khumbhī f. ‘mushroom’ Note that both groups have *mP > mb \ mp \ mbh. If kumbhá-s ‘water jar/pot’ & kusumbha-s ‘water pot’ were not due to H \ s, how could 2 such similar words exist? One with no IE source? Another variant seems to exist in : S. kuṣúmbha-s ‘venom-sac of an insect AV / safflower’, kuṣumbhaká-s ‘(venom-sac of) an insect RV’ [as ‘container / water pot’ ?] The cause of -uṣ- vs. -us- seems to be nearby P preventing *u > *ü (Whalen 2025b) : > *us > uṣ in S. but supposed *us in Nuristani. Though the failure of us > uṣ is said to be diagnostic of Nuristani as a separate sub-branch, it seems to be completely optional there and in all Dardic & Gypsy. Some languages seem to prefer us, but there is no full regularity: S. pupphusa- ‘lungs’, Ps. paṛpūs, A. pháapu, Ni. papüs ‘lung’, Kt. ppüs \ pís, B. bÒš S. muṣká- ‘testicle’, Ks. muṣ(k); B. muskO ‘biceps’, Rom. musi ‘biceps / upper arm’, L. mūsculus *muHs- ‘mouse’ > S. mū́ṣ-, Kv. musá, Kt. masá, Sa. moṣá, Ni. pusa, Ks. mizók, B. mušO, A. múuṣo, D. múuč ‘rat’ G. mústax ‘upper lip / mustache’, *muská- > Rom. mosko ‘face / voice’, *muxWká- > S. mukhá-m ‘mouth / face / countenance’ S. músala- ‘wooden pestle / mace/club’, *maulsa- > Kh. màus ‘wooden hoe’, *marsu- > Waz. maẓwai ‘peg’, Ar. masur ‘*nail/*prickle > sweetbrier’ S. trapusa- \ trapuṣa- ‘fruit of the colocynth’ >> NP tarboz(e) ‘watermelon’ >> Kx. tarmaz \ turmuz Sh. phúrus ‘dew’, phrus ‘fog’, S. (RV) busá-m ‘fog/mist’, Mth. bhusẽ ‘drizzling rain / mist’ S. busa- ‘chaff/rubbish’, Pk. bhusa- (m), Rom. phus ‘straw’ S. snuṣā́ ‘son’s wife’, D. sónz, Sh. nū́ṣ These also show u > û \ u \ i (Kt. ppüs \ pís, Kv. musá vs. Ks. mizók, etc.) with no apparent cause. These include seveal with b(h)u, p(h)u- and mu-, so labial C do seem to matter (if sónz is a separate ex. of s-s assim.). The failure of us to become uṣ after P being optional explains why not all p(h)us-, b(h)us-, mus- remained. Together with Pis- / Pus-, it would indicate that most *u > *ü in IIr. (causing following K > K^, as *luk- > ruś- ‘shine’), but this was prevented (usually?, preferred?) after P. Thus, only *i & *ü caused following *s > retroflex, hidden by the optional changes of *u / *ü and *Pu / *Pü. > H. Yet another, k- vs. kn- \ gn- in : *kRamp- \ *gRamp- > G. knámptō \ gnámptō ‘bend’, gampsós ‘curved / crooked’ might show that *R > *N near nasal m. Obviously, if no *kC- existed in PIE, there would be nothing to nasalize in later IE. I. S. kṣúmpa- ‘mushroom’ & BS *gumpa- ‘mushroom / bulge / growth’ are also remarkably similar to : PU *kampV ‘mushroom’ > Sm.Nw. guobbâr, Kola dia. kymbar, Ud. gubi, Mr. gůb, Z. gob >> OCv gümbä and another well-known match, often said to be a loan, is for PIE *(s)pHongo-s ‘mushroom/fungus/sponge’ > G. sp(h)óngos...

2025

Words for 'frog / toad / lizard / turtle' often alternate meanings in IE, with no direct way to find which was older. However, those for 'frog' often are derived from 'croak' or 'make noise' (also with many shifts of meaning), and when an origin in these roots is discernible (even when odd sound changes are involved), the original meaning is usually certain. 1. vazaγa-Iranian *wazaga-'frog' (<-*waz-\ *fas-'make noise / buzz / etc.') is not able to account for all data : Av. vazaγa-'frog', NP vazaγ \ bazaγ, Taj. vezgag, Siv. mazze, Semn. varzaγ, Tal. vazax \ zavax, Xw. waγaz, ? >> Kh. boγùzu With so many oddities, why would plain *wazaga-be reconstructed in the first place? I find it hard to believe that these come from a suffix *-g(h)o-when it would be unique for an animal name &-ka-is incredibly common in Iranian. Also, many V's and C's would alternate for no reason or appear "from nowhere" if *wazaga-was original (v-, m- ;-0- ,-r- ,-g- ;-a,-u). Siv. mazze could show it was *wazagwa-with *w-w > *m-w (like *vabzva 'wasp' > Mz. māz, Kd. moz, Baluchi gwabz / gwamz; Whalen 2025d). In support, Kh. boγùzu has-u, instead of *-a >-0, and loans often provide more data than native words alone. Though Strand does not list a single case of *-Cva->-Cu in Kh., there are many *-Cya->-Ci, providing a parallel (and Kh. has many words in-u, sometimes of uncertain origin). Strand : > àwi 'on the west side of the Chitral River', S. *āp-iya-'belonging to water' T. 1208 dàmi 'yearling colt', S. *dām-iya-'to be tamed' dišì 'anger; annoyance', S. *dūS-iya-'corruptible; wicked'-žèri 'child; young [of animal]', Ir. * ci(th)riya-'descended from' (v. Morgenstierne 1936: 671) > This suggests a loan of *wazagwa-> Kh. boγùzu, which would require a compound like S. Náva-gva-'*Seven Singers' < *+gH2wo-< PIE *gaH2w-'say / boast / rejoice / etc.' (G. gaûros 'boasting / exulting in', OCS govoriti 'make noise / chatter', SC govòriti 'speak/talk/tell/say' *gaH2udh-> L. gaudēre, *gāuthéō > G. gēthéō 'rejoice', Ir. *gaub-'call/speak/talk/tell/say/ praise/boast/etc.'). That such compounds could have a range of meaning, applying to (deified) priests like the Navagvas and croaking frogs alike will also be important below. The *gH could also explain devoicing of-x in Tal. (Whalen 2025b: *meg^H2-'big' > *maźH-> *maśH-> Av. mas-; *dhe-dhH1-'put', *de-dH3-'give' > *daðH-> Av. daθ-; *yaH2g^no-> G. hagnós 'holy', S. yajñá-'sacrifice / prayer', *yaźHna-> *yaśHna-> Av. yasna-). Though there are too many dia. of Tal. for me to know if this came from one with an odd change, others do not have final fricatives devoiced, and even show *x > γ in Tal. γaziya 'incident / bad luck' << Arabic qaḍiyya 'case / lawsuit' (Avchyan). If *H had been pronounced X / R (uvular fricatives) optionally, devoicing of *R > *X could have caused devoicing in many *CR > *CX. That the same happened in *waz-\ *fas-shows that this root is not just late onomatopoeia, but came from *wazH-. Indeed, the-r-in Sem. varzaγ vs.-gin Taj. vezgag shows *wazR-\ *wazγ-was needed. This uvular *R is fairly clear as a feature of Indo-Iranian (Whalen 2025e) : *melyo-? > S. márya-stallion', máya-'horse/mule', máyī-'mare' *prostH2o-> Kh. frosk / *fR-> *fx-> hósk 'straight', OCS prostъ 'straight/simple' *splendh-> L. splend-, Li. spindėti 'shine', TB peñiya 'splendor/glory' *sprend(h)-> OE sprind 'agile/lively', E. sprint, S. spandate 'throb/shake/quiver/kick' ? > *bragnaka-> MP brahnag, Os. bägnäg 'naked', Sg. ßγn'k ? > *braywar-'multitude/myriad / 10,000' > Av. baēvarǝ, OP baivar-, Sg. ßrywr ? > S. músala-'wooden pestle / mace/club', *maRusa-> Kh. màus 'wooden hoe' These words for 'frog' also resemble bábakoi 'frogs' in Hesychius, a word found "in Pontus". It could be < *woH3b-(OE wóp, E. whoop, ON óp 'shouting/crying/weeping', *woH3b-mo-s > OE wóm 'noise/howling/tumult/alarm') or variant *wobhH3-(Av. vaf-'sing (of) / praise', vafu-'prophecy / teaching / solemn words', ON Vaf-þrúðnir 'mighty in teachings/knowledge?', a wise giant who loses his head in a contest of knowledge with Odin). Since the languages once spoken there are unknown, & many later waves of speakers came, you could think that it was just a parallel form from a different root. However, if from IIr. *vābaka-, there could have been dissim. of *v-b > *v-d (as in S. kakúbh-/ *kakúb-> kakúd-'peak/summit'), then *dH > *zH as in (Whalen 2025b) : *wraH2dh-> S. vrādh-'be proud / boast', Av. urvādah-'*pride / *entertainment > joy / bliss', urvāz-'be proud / entertain' *khaH2d-> S. khād-'chew/bite/eat', khādá-'food', Pth. xāz-'devour', *xāza-> Kho. khāysa-'food' *swaH2du-> S. svādú-'sweet'

2025

A. Manaster Ramer disputes the reconstruction of Turkic *kulkak ‘ear’ based on Karakhanid qulaq, qulqaq, qulxaq, qulɣaq. These show every *kulKāk possible in Turkic, and one more, for no *x is reconstructed in Proto-Turkic. However, partly based on the work of Orçun Ünal, many new reconstructed sounds are being found or better understood. Where would x come from, if not *x? I see no theoretical reason why Proto-Turkic *x could not exist, or *kulxāk ‘ear’. Other’s attempts to have *k or *g become x have no real merit, since *-lk- is not odd, but *-lx- might have only this one example. In a word with 3 K’s, asm. or dsm. might be expected, explaining how *x > *g might happen. However, based on other evidence (below), it makes more sense for *x > *γ > *g to be optional or based on environment (no other ex. of *-lx-). This also, based on other Turkic word formation, almost requires *kulxāk ‘ear’ to be from *kulxa- ‘hear’ + *-Vk. It would be impossible to ignore that Uralic *kuxle- ‘hear’ (F. kuule-, Mi. kōl-, NMi. hūl-, etc.) is almost identical. The disputed nature of Uralic *x is essentially the same as the ignored existence of Turkic *x. If evidence for them in the “same” root existed, it would go a long way in proving both their existence and a relation between these families. The only reason not to have Tc. *x is that it would be rare. If *x > *g in most environments, then there would be no way to tell its origin without comparison with non-Tc. languages. If some *x > *ʔ (glottal stop, for convenience ’ in words), likely among others (see below for some *T > *ʔ ) then it might explain the origin of Tc. long vowels. These do not always behave as if from *V:, showing changes to adjacent C’s. If all or most V: were V’ (or some V’V ?), then ’ glottalizing or geminating some C’s might explain some changes, especially if V’C > VC’ were possible. Also, see below for *-m’r- > *-m’Vr- > -m(ü)r-, etc. Also, *kulxāk resembles PIE *k^lous- ‘hear / ear’ closely enough for examination. Since many IE branches turned *s > x \ h in many environments, often *VsV, it is likely that *k^lous-o\e- > *klusV- > *kluxV- > *kulxV- \ *kuxlV-. The motivation for metathesis is the absence of many (or maybe any) CR- in old Turkic & Uralic (see variants of ‘gnaw’ below). The resemblance of many IE words to Turkic are always considered loans, often from Tocharian (*kaH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’, Turkic *kün(eš) \ *kuñaš > Uighur kün ‘sun/day’, Dolgan kuńās ‘heat’, Turkish güneš ‘sun’, dia. guyaš; *work^wutko- > Ar. *worśyuθk > goršuk, Kd. barsuk, OUy. bors(m)uk, Kx. bors(m)uq, Ui. borsuq, Tk. porsuk ‘badger’; *ukso:n ‘ox’ > TB okso, TA opäs, Tc. *fökü:z > Karakhanid ökǖz, Uighur (h)öküz, Mc. *hüker; *udero- ‘belly’ > *wïdiǝrö > Tc. *vadiarï > *bagiara ‘liver / belly’ > Tkm. bagïr, Yak. bïar, Cv. pěver ‘liver’; *wrH- > H. warnu- / wahnu- ‘burn’, Li. vìrti ‘cook’, *werH-ro-? > *wraH-ro- > OCS varъ ‘heat’, Av. urvāxra- ‘heat’, Tc. *öRä:- intr. ‘burn / be hot’, OUy. ört ‘flame’, Cv. virt ‘burning / (steppe) fire’; *dhewbo- > Go. diups, E. deep, Tc. *dü:p ‘bottom / root’; more below). I can not believe that the long V in *ukso:n ‘ox’, Tc. *fökü:z can be explained by chance, let alone the rest. I also find it impossible to believe PT was so prominent that it could influence PTc. so much. It is not reasonable that all Turkic languages would or could have been able to replace so many native terms entirely with Tocharian loans. Other proposed loans, like Ir. *barsūka- > Kd. barsuk, etc., >> Tc. *borsuk (in their reconstructions) would not explain -m- in OUy bors(m)uk, etc. The Tc. data helps show that PIE *work^wutko- is needed in both IE & Tc. (Whalen 2025a) with opt. *w > *w \ m, *Cwu > Cu (also seen in *sülüwen ? > Tk. sül(üm)en ‘leech’; *syo’wxǝ-k \ *so’wxyǝ-k \ etc. ? > sömek, sögük, süwek, siwek, etc. (below)). -m- appearing “from nowhere” in expected *borsuk is not just something that can be passed over in silence (yet it has previously). The -o- corresponding to Ar. -o- also can’t be found in Ir. It would be impossible if *borsuk really had existed as an Ir. loan from something like barsuk, so why is this theory so prominent? It is only needed if all similarities between Tc. & IE need to be loans, however much they might not fit. If even ‘ear’ matches, these would be of far too wide a scope to reasonably be seen as loans. I say this helps show that Turkic was an IE branch. It is fascinating that Ünal has reconstructed so many of these matches and continues to call them “loans”. This is part of a major discovery. Ünal’s other work on PTc. sounds often create words very close to IE. If he recognizes them, he always says Tocharian >> Turkic. As I’ve said, this is simply too much borrowing, and the many words shared by PT & PTc. are often slightly different, just enough that borrowing in either direction can’t be made to work with known changes. Many have seen that *kaH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’ is related to Turkic *kün(eš) \ *kuñaš ‘sun/day’, but how? Some say PT >> PTc., others PTc. >> PT, but the details are never exact. Both show -n- vs. -ñ-, and Tc. *-eš vs. 0 could be from the PIE nom., so if *-is > *-yïš it would account for Tk. güneš ‘sun’, also dia. guyaš. If *au-y > *aü-y it would explain optional fronting by umlaut, then *aü > *au \ *äü > u \ ü, etc. The TB word has a good IE source in *kaH2w- ‘burn’. These could not show so many similarities with IE sources if a loan from Tc., so some genetic relation seems needed. It is similar to Tocharian, with both *e & *i > *iä, etc., but not exactly the same. Ünal (2023) also reconstructs Tc. *f that often matches PIE *p or *w. If most *p- & *w- > *v > Turkic *b, but *v- > *f- when followed by a fricative (unless *v-v existed, or in *v-sv- ?) it would explain this and *worswuk ‘badger’ > OUy. bors(m)uk, etc. Many of his examples of *p- > *f- > h- have cognates with w-s- or p- in other languages (that others see as Altaic, even in Yenissian). He said ‘borrowings’, but do so many of this type really make sense as loans? How could Tc. borrow so much from PT and loan so much into Altaic (or what would NOT be Altaic, in his mind). In other works, he added still more, and I can’t believe there could be so many loans (which would have to be out of a still larger group of loans unless ALL Tc. >> Altaic loans happened to exemplify *p-, *-ts-, etc.). B. In order to provide more support for some of the ideas above, other ex. of *kR- > *k-R-, *k \ *x > *g should be looked for. Good matches in PIE *skremt- \ *kremts- ‘chew / bite / gnaw / cartilage’ can explain oddities in Tc. : *(s)kr(e)mt- \ *kr(e)mts- > Li. kremtù 1s., krim̃sti inf. ‘bite hard / crunch / chomp / bother / annoy’, kram̃to 3s., kramtýti inf. ‘chew’, Lt. kram̃tît inf. ‘gnaw’, kràmstît ‘nibble / seize’, kramsît ‘break with the teeth / crumble’ *skr(e)mt-tri- > *xremsti- > Sl. *xręščь ‘cartilage’ > R. xrjašč, Cz. hrešč *(s)kr(e)mt-triH2- > *kremstliya: > Li. kremslė̃ \ kremzlė̃ ‘cartilage’, Ltg. krimtele, Lt. skrimslis These had *(s)kr- > kr- in Baltic, unexplained *x- in Slavic. Since some *s- & *sk- > Sl. x-, it is likely that *sk > *ks > x, *s > *ks > x (as in *H2awso-m > U. ausom, L. aurum ‘gold’, *aH2wso- > OLi. ausas, Li. áuksas). These odd alternations in IE can be used when parallel oddities exist in Tc. words of the same 2 meanings, already known to be related from studies within Tc. (*käm- ‘gnaw’, *kämük ‘cartilage / (soft) bone’). *kämük having the oldest meaning ‘cartilage’ is implied by the presence of another word for ‘bone’ (C). This provides an explanation for *sk- > Tc. *k-, *ks- > *x- > Tc. *g- (as opt. in *kulx- \ *kulg- > Karakhanid qulxaq \ qulɣaq) in *skremt- *> kriǝm’- > *käm- ‘gnaw’vs. *ksremt- > *ksemtr- > *xiǝm’r- > *gäm’ür- ‘gnaw’. PIE *-mt- is not common, and either > *-m’- or *-md-. If *kr- > *k-r- (as for *kl-, above), then new *-m’r- can insert a V : *kremt- > *kriǝm’- > Tc. *käm- ‘gnaw’, Tk. dia. gämä ‘(someone) with large teeth’, Tkm. gämä ‘mouse or species of mole’, gämmik ‘having gaps in one’s teeth’ OTc. kämdi- ‘to strip meat from the bones’, kämdük süngük ‘bone with meat stripped off’ *ksremt- > *ksemtr- > *xiǝm’r- > Tc. *gäm’ür- ‘gnaw’ > MTc. kömür-, Tkm. gemir-, Tk. g\kemir-, Uz., Oy., Ui., Kz., Kaz. kemir-, Tv., Tf. xemir- OTc. kämr-ük ‘crack(ed) / gap(py)’, kämr-ük ‘having gaps in one’s teeth or missing teeth’ Yak. kömürüö ‘spongy bone’ This *-m’r- can also be seen in Tg. *gïmra- > *gïra+ ‘bone (in cp.)’, *gïmra-sa > *gïram-sa ‘bone’ (see below for many cases of ‘gnaw’ -> ‘bone’ ). Just as in Baltic, this root also formed ‘cartilage’, with *-tt- > *-st- > *-št-, met. in the long C-cluster *-mštr-, etc. These can be partly observed even without Baltic data, since Tc. had so many variants : *(s)kr(e)mt-triH2- > *kremttri: > *kriǝmstri: > *kr^ämši:rt > Tc. *ke:čir > Kirghiz kečir ‘cartilage of the scapula’, Tf. kedžir ‘cartilage’ [no +v or +phar], Oy. ked’ir ‘trachea’ *kr^ämši:rt-äk > Shor kečirtke ‘cartilage’, Tatar käčerkä ‘*gristle on the shoulder (to be picked off) > small hair on the back of a baby’ *kr^ämi:rtš-äk > *kämürčäk > Ui. kömürchek, Uz. kemirchak, Tkm. gemirçek, Kyrgyz kemircek, Tt. kimerčäk dsm. > *kyämi:rtš-äk > *čämirčik > Kirghiz čemirček ‘cartilage of the scapula’, Kazakh šemıršek ‘cartilage’, Tatar čǝmǝy ‘knucklebone’, Oy. čamay ‘cheekbone’ There also was a new word for ‘cartilage / (soft) bone’ formed directly from the verb root, with common suffix *-Vk : *käm’ük ‘cartilage / (soft) bone’ > Chg. kämük, Oy. kēmik, Qm. gemik ‘cartilage’, Uz. kɔmik, Kirghiz kemik ‘spongy bone’, Tk. kemik ‘bone’, Mc. *kemi(k) > Mo. kemi ‘(bone with) marrow’, kemik ‘cartilage’, Tg. *xumān > Eki. umān ‘marrow’, Ne. oman, *xumnu > onmụ ‘metatarsus’, *xumākin > Man. umǝhaŋ, LMan. umχan ‘marrow’, umuxun ‘metatarsus’ These also resemble Japanese words, and those even “further” apart in normal theory : J. kamu ‘to bite’, Oki. kam...

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

2025

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 28: ’dark / cloud / smoke’ (Draft) Sean Whalen [email protected] April 28, 2025 A. Traditional theory has PIE *dhewH1-, *dhuH1- ‘smoke / ventilate / blow (on a fire) / cloud / be cloudy/dark’ , but there are many problems. *H1 is needed for G. thūmós (since *uH2 > *waH, *uH3 > *woH), but H. tuhhw(a)i- ‘to smoke’ retained *H (when *H1 > 0 is regular). This could be caused by older *CH1 > *H1 in most, but *CH1 > Anatolian *HH1, explaining its retention. *dhewH1- also seems to be the same as *dhemH1- (*dhemHro- > OHG timber ‘dark/black/somber’, G. thémeros ‘solemn’, etc.). In both, a *P can appear (*dhuHbh- > G. tûphos ‘smoke’, *dhumH- > Li. dùmti ‘blow’, *dhumpH- > Li. dùmpti ‘blow’, *dhuHp- > S. dhūp-). Another root mostly ‘dark’, but also ‘cloud(y)’, etc., also appears as *dhumbh-, *dhubh-, *dhum-. Adding a nasal infix is common, but not loss of *P in *mP. I can’t believe these are unrelated. If *dhumbh- formed *dhumbh-(e)H1- ‘be dark’ with the stative affixe, it becoming *dhwe(m)(P)H1- might be explainable by *mPH > *mH / *PH / *HP to simplify a long C-cluster. Another root mostly ‘cover’, but also ‘dark’ is very similar, *dhengWh- ‘cover’ & *dhngWh-alHo- > Gmc *dunkWá-la\ra- ‘dark’ > OSx. duncar, OHG tunkal \ tunchal, NHG dunkel. It is possible that, since many words for colors added *-wo-, *dhengWhwo- ‘dark in color’ > Ku. daŋbwa ‘dark’ (1), but in most IE *dhembhwo- by dissimilation of *W-w. Since Pw was not allowed later, this long C-cluster might also change, either met. *dhembhwo- > *dhwembho- or loss of *m or *P (just as above) before *w 1st (*dhembhwo- > *dhemwo- > *dhwemo-; *dhembhwo- > *dhebhwo- > *dhwebho-). All these variants are seen, many with odd changes even within a branch. For ‘ventilate’ > ‘fan a fire / raise smoke’ > ‘raise a cloud of dust / shake’, the semantics seem likely, but some might be contaminated with *dul-, *dewl-? \ *dwel-? > *del- ‘shake’, *dhwel-. B. Juho Pystynen has also told me that for *dhuHli- ‘spirit / smoke / dust’, Li. dúlis ‘mist’, “we have a quite reasonable-looking Uralic parallel in Fi. tuuli ‘wind’ with Mari and Permic cognates”. I disagree in the details, and would say that PU *towle ‘wind / storm’ & *tälwä ‘winter’ are related as ‘stormy season’. If PU *tawloy > *towle but *tawla:y > *talwa:y > *tälwä, it would explain both rounding in *towle and lack of it in *tälwä when *wl > *lw. The different -V could be due to PIE *-os vs. *-aH2 in nouns. I see Zhivlov’s *-a1 & *-a2, both common in nouns, as a result of this (Whalen 2025a). “In the same way, PU *kalï ‘fish’, *kala- ‘to fish’ is like L. piscis, piscārī.” In all : *dhewHtlo- ‘blowing thing / wind / storm’ > S. dhavítra-m ‘small fan / whisk’, G. thúella 'storm' [contamination with áella ?] *dhewïtLö > *dhiə́wïlLö > *dhawïlöL > *tawley > PU *towle > F. tuuli ‘wind’, Mr. tul ‘storm’, Mi. tol ‘cloud’ *dhewHtlaH2- > *tawla:y > PU *tälwä > F. talvi -e- ‘winter’, Sm. dal’ve, Mr. tel, Ud. tol, Hn tél, telet a., ? >> Nx. t’ulf If *-oy > *-ey > *-e but *-a:y > *-äy > *-ä, then my earlier example of an aH-stem > *-e would have to be o- or on-stem (Whalen 2025b). C. Michael Witzel talked about Kassite and Mitanni words of Indo-Iranian origin. Many end in -aš, making their IE origin clear (Šuriyaš, Buriyaš, Maruttaš, Kara-Indaš, Kara-hardaš, Karzibartaš, Kaštiliaš Karduniaš, Šuzigaš, Duzagaš, Aqriyaš, Urzigurumaš / Uršigurumaš, Tazzigurumaš, timiraš, laggtakkaš, bugaš, dakaš, simmaš, šahumaš, anakandaš \ akkamdaš \ akkandaš, massiš). It is not likely that so many words would happen to end in -aš if not a suffix; lack of many in -uš and -iš seems to show that a-stems existed, as in IIr. (common in men’s names). Names like Qariya & Aqriyaš ‘personal name from Nuzi’ would show that -š was an affix (CVC- vs. VCC- also in Kamulla, -Akmul; Buriyaš & -Ubriyaš, Šipak & Tišpak). For PIE *-os > -aš, Witzel compared : S. támisra- / timirá-, Kassite timiraš ‘a color of horses / black?’ S. rakta- / lakta- ‘dyed/colored/painted / red’, Iranian *raxtaka- > Xw. rxtk ‘red’, C. laggtakkaš ‘a color of horses / bay?’ (also see related NP raxš ‘spotted red & white’) In the past, C. turuhna ‘wind’ has also been related to *dhuH1- ‘smoke / ventilate / blow’. If so, *dhuH1mo- > S. dhūmá-, Ks. thum, Rom. thuv, etc., would support C. as an IIr. branch close to Dardic, with *dh > *th in the same root. I see the same *dhewHtlo- > *thuwHulra > > *thuwHunra > C. turuhna. For *l > r, *tr > *dr > *lr, compare Bactrian *dr > lr. For *lr > *nr, other IE languages with lr can turn it to dr (later Bactrian), or even *lr- > ln- (Marsian, Whalen 2023). D. These allow :

2026

March 13, 2026 A. There are various problems with similar-looking IE roots for *k(^)er-'grey, white, frost'. Pokorny included S. kirmirá-'variegated, spotted', & it would be hard to leave out the nearly identical kirbira-, or separate this from karbara-\ karvara-\ śarvara-\ etc. These also fit the same oddities in G. *'spotted > *dog' > Kérberos / Kérbelos, S. Śabala-. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sirms "Proto-Indo-European *ker-, *ḱer-, *ḱr̥-("gray color" simply gives the variants without a reason for their existence, & does not include all variants or oddities in them. At first glance, they'd include : PIE *k^rmo-> Lithuanian ši ṙmas, šir mas, šir ṽas 'grey', šir ̃vis 'hare', Albanian surmë 'dark grey' PIE *k^ermo-> Albanian i thjermë 'ashy, ash-grey' PIE *k^orm-aH2-> Lithuanian šarmà 'hoarfrost', >> *šärmä > Finnic *härmä 'hoarfrost', *harmaga 'grey' PIE *k^erno-> Slavic *sěrno-'white, variegated, varicolored; hoarfrost', Gmc *hirna-n 'frozen snow' PIE *k^ersno-> Germanic *xerzna-> ON hjarn 'hard snow-crust', Lithuanian šer kšnas 'hoarfrost', Russian.dia. serёn 'crust of ice', PU *k'eršnä > *keršn'ä > *käršńä \ *keršnä \ etc. 'snow-crust, ice crust, bark, etc.' ? >> Erzya šerže 'hoar, grey hair' *k^erbero-\ *kerbero-\ *kirbero-'spotted' > G. Kérberos / Kérbelos, S. Śabala-, śabála-\ śabara-\ śarvara-\ karvara-\ karbara-\ kirbira-\ kirmirá-'variegated, spotted' The problems include: *k vs. *k^, Al. s-(usually *k^w or *k^y > s vs. *k^ > th), *-H-vs.-0-(seen in Li. tones), front vs. back V's in Fi. *härmä, *harmaga. In https://www.academia.edu/128151755 I said that PIE *kyerb-would have 0-grade *kirb-; if *ky-optionally > *k^-or *k-, it would fit kirbira-, Kérbelos, Śabala-, etc. Older *y could also account for Uralic fronting (below). Based on IE alt. of *y \ *H1 (https://www.academia.edu/128170887 and many other drafts) I say that the cause of this was *ky > *kH1 > *kx^ > *kx \ *k^x^. The *H produced in this way could explain Lithuanian *k^Hrmo-> ši ṙmas vs. *k^rHmo-> šir mas (compare H-met. in PIE *H2auso-> *auH2so-> Li. áuksas 'gold'). This *k^y vs. *k^x^ could also give *k^H1rmo-> *k^yurmo-> Albanian surmë. This is not regular, but it is orderly & consistent. Many other words or roots show the same like : *H1ek^wo-s 'horse' > L. equus, Ga. epo-, S áśva-, Li. *ešva-Iranian *(y\h)aćva-> Av. aspa-, Y. yāsp, Wx. yaš, North Kd. hesp, ? >> Ar. hasb 'cavalry' B. Older *y could also account for Uralic fronting. This would be : PIE *kH1orm-aH2-> *kx^-> *k^y-> Lithuanian šarmà 'hoarfrost', *šjarma >> *šjarma \ *šjärmä > Finnic *härmä 'hoarfrost', *harmaga 'grey' For the change, compare certain fronting & loss of *j in loans, IIr. *a-kšaitra-> *akštajra > *äkštäjrä > *äkštärä 'barren, sterile' (Sanskrit á-kṣetra 'destitute of fields, uncultivated'). From Aikio