Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 67: 'woodpecker', 'parrot', 'pistachio nut' (Draft)2025
Several IE words for ‘flour / grain’ come from *pis- ‘crush / grind’, as ‘ground / what is to be ground’ : *pis-n(e)- > *pin(e)s- > S. pinaṣṭi ‘crush / grind / pound’, piṣṭá-m ‘flour’, L. pinsere ‘crush’, G. ptíssō / ptíttō ‘crush in a mortar / winnow’, ptisánē ‘peeled barley’, BS *piseno- ‘meal / wheat / millet’ Some say *tpis- to explain G. pt-, but this must be met. < *pist- or *pits-, or else *-s- > *-h- would be expected. Instead, *-s- is preserved and *sy merged with *ty & *ky ( > -ss-, Att. -tt-, etc.). Since -n-s- & -s-n- are seen in other cognates, it’s likely that *-sn- > *-tsn- or *-ns- > *-nts-. Though these would be optional, other optionality is seen (also by -i-) in *nes- -> *nins- > S. níṃsate ‘approach’, G. nī́somai / níssomai. Other IE also had *sn > *tsn or even opt. *sm > tsm \ šm in Hittite (Kümmel, Whalen 2025). This shift of meaning is also seen by the same stem being used for nuts (also often crushed) : *pisto- ‘crushed’ > S. piṣṭá-m ‘flour’ *pistako- > G. pistákion ‘pistachio nut’, met. > psittákia \ *fsittákia > phittákia, LB pitakes- *pístak- met. > *pí_taks- > G. píttaxis ‘cornel cherry fruit’ When met. of *-st- > *-_t-s-, the mora is filled in by double-linking of _C > CC. Since pistákion & psittákia could have no other relation to each other, this group is a good way to check how G. words could change next to various C’s with a known order of changes. For ps > *fs > *fh > ph, compare G. *CsC > ChC and other opt. ps \ *ph > ph in G. & Ar. : *H2ap-ye- > G. háptō ‘fasten / grasp’ *H2aps- > TA āpsā ‘(minor) limbs’, G. hápsos ‘joint’, haphḗ ‘(sense of) touch / grip’, Ar. *hap’ \ ap’ ‘palm of hand / handful’ (h- in *haph-haph- > hap’ap’em ‘kidnap’) *seps- > *heph- > Ar. ep’em, G. hépsō ‘boil’, *sepsto- ‘boiled’ > *hephto- > hephthós *dops- > *dopx- > top’em ‘beat’ *deps- > G. dépsō ‘work/knead with the hands until soft’, *depx- > déphō ‘stamp / knead / tan (leather)’, dépsa ‘tanned skin’, *dipstero- > diphthérā ‘leather / prepared hide (for writing)’, dipsárā ‘writing tablet’ This might also be seen in other LB words : G. húpsi ‘on high’, hupsēlós ‘high / lofty’, etc. LB *húpsi+jos > *hupsjos > *huphsjos > *huphjos > u-po-jo po-ti-ni-ja ‘high lady’ (with CjV written either CV-jV or Ci-jV) Also, G. síttē \ hítta \ hípta ‘a kind of woodpecker or nuthatch’, seems to come from *psitt- / *sipt(t)-, related to (p)sittakós \ *fsíttakos > *phíttakos > bíttakos ‘parrot’. Both could come from *ptíssa- > *psítta- (with C1-C2C2 > C2-C1C1 showing double-linking existed in the deep structure), in reference to using their beaks to crush/pound/peck. This is supported by the same stem being used for ‘nut’ in Uralic : *pistako- > *piǝštakö > *paštkï > PU *päškV ‘nut’ > Fc. *pähkä+, Ud. paš ‘walnut’, *päšk-puxe > paš-pu ‘hazelnut bush’, Mr. *pükš > E/WMr. pükš ‘hazel’, *päšt'ə > Mh. päšt'e \ päšte, Mh. päšte, Mv. pešt'e \ pešte \ pešče ‘hazelnut’, Z. paškan \ pačkan ‘rosehip’ PU *päškV-CV (most diminutives) > Mh. päšks, Mv. pešks ‘hazel’, Fc. *pähkäs, *pähkänä, *pähkele, *pähken \ *pähkeme-, *pähkenä, *pähkin \ *pähkime-, *pähkinä > F. pähkinä ‘nut / hazelnut’, pähkenä, pähkynä, pähkänä, päähkenä, päähkäin, päähkänä, Es. pähkel, pähkla\e\i g., pähel, pähke, pähen, pähknä, pähn, Izh. päähkänä, päähkenä, Liv. pē’gõz, Veps pähkim, Võro päheq, Votic pähtšene, (Kattila) pähtšenä, (Luutsa, Mati) pähtšänä, (Mati) pähtšinä The *-š- is likely caused by *st > *št. Hovers gives many ex. of *sp > *šp > PU *š, but I think this happened in *st & *sk also : *streg- > L. strictus ‘drawn together / bound tight’, Itn. stretto ‘narrow’, OHG strach ‘stretched tight / stiff / ready’ *streng- > L. stringere ‘draw/bind tight / press together’, G. strágx ‘thing squeezed out/drop’ *strengo- > *štriǝŋgö > *štr^ǝŋgï > *štyaŋgï > PU *šeŋkä ‘narrow / difficult’ > NSm. seaggi ‘narrow’ *skw(o)y- ‘thorn / needle (of plant)’ > Li. skujà ‘fir needle and cone’, Sl. *ks- > R. xvojá f., xvoj m. ‘needles and twigs’, *skwiyat-s ? > OI scé, sciad p.g. ‘thorn bush / hawthorn’, MW yspidat *skwoy- > *škwöy- > *šwoy- > PU *šoye > Sm. *sōje̮ > Pite Sm. suojja ‘needle’, Permic *šï > Z. šï ‘spike / spit / arrow’, Ud. šï ‘spike / spit’ G. stiphrós ‘firm/solid / stout/sturdy’, stuphelós ‘hard/rough/harsh/cruel / sour/acid/astringent’ *štiǝpRö > *štapkï > PU *šappï ‘sour / acid’ > Finno-Volgaic *šappa, Mari: *šåpə, *šapamə > Mv. čapamo, Mh. šapama, Finno-Permic *šappa(-ma) > F. *šappojmi \ *šappama- > F. hapoin, happaman g. It is hard to overstate how important many of Hovers’s ideas are. I will be working on this & other ideas about PIE > PU. Hovers was also surprised by how close PU was to PIE, like a daughter branch, and I see no reason why this exact relation would not be true. Tocharian also had opt. *sp > sp \ šp, branch-specific changes like st- > št-, and many others that make it seem like the closest relative (Whalen 2024). The need to avoid assumptions is impossible to follow all the time, but still should be emphasized. Seeing PIE > PU prevents the need for an Indo-Uralic stage that can not exist. Looking for a *C > PIE *s, PU *š, etc., only leads nowhere. It prevents looking for the conditions under which PIE *s > PU *š, thus finding a more general sound change.
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
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 25: 'marrow', 'whey', 'dip', 'swamp' (Draft)2025
In *mezgho-'whey' > OI medg, W. maidd, Gl. >> OFc mesgue, the distinctive form of the word shows its origin. There are many IE words for 'brain / marrow' & *mezg-'dip, immerse, submerge, sink' with similar shape, but w/o regularity (*g vs. *gh, etc.). If related, they would show 'move below the water's surface > liquid below the surface > liquid within (a bone)'. Since it is unlikely that these *mezg(h)-words would be unrelated when a semantic link exists, examining them in detail is needed. Though there is *mozgho-> OCS mozgŭ, Av. mazga-, NP maǧz 'brain / marrow', also *muzghen-> OPr musgeno, T. *mwäz'g'än-s > *mäs'k'wänts > TA mäśśunt. Traditional theory has no explanation for this, but if the expected 0-grade **mzgh-never appeared, it might not be from older *mezgh-at all. If *mw-existed, it could explain-e/o/u-as 0-grade *mwzgh > *muzgh-, etc., later *mwe-> *me-\ *mo-(maybe by ablaut, optional rounding near *w, or *mwe > *mH3e > *mH3o (1)). In IIr., there is instead *myajjh-\ *mayjjh-\ *mijjh-or with hmet. (3) *mhijjh-(Pj. mijjh, bhejjā, etc.), showing that *mw-> *my-dissimilation also existed (2). In others, r appears for no apparent reason (IIr. *myarjjhn-> *mhranjjy-> Ks.u. bhrānz). It makes little sense for *-w-& *-y-to appear "from nowhere" within a word. A glide that became-y- ,-u-or caused-e/o-alternation clearly points to *w, and *mw-would be the simplest way to "hide" it in most with *mw-> m-, with some having P-dsm. *mw > *my. This *mw-is not reconstructed out of nowhere. I have talked about the need for many more PIE *Cy-& *Cw-(which would be rare, if standard theory were right) in words like : *myewH-> L. movēre, S. mīvati *myewsH-> S. móṣati, *myuHs-> S. mū́ṣ-, Ks. mizók *myeH1-> *meH1-'measure / big', *miHw-> S. mīvāmi 'I grow fat', *miHwelo-> ON mývell 'ball', Sw. miggel 'snowball' *myazdhas-> S. miyédhas-\ médhas-'sacrifice / oblation' *myazdha-> S. miyédha-\ médha-'sacrificial rite / offering (of food) / holiness', Av. miyazda-'sacrificial meal', *imyazd >> Hn. imád 'pray' (1) S. myákṣati 'rests on/in', *my-> *makṣáya-'make sit/still/fixed' > Si. masanavā 'to sew, fetter, chain' and many more (Whalen 2025a). B. *mezg-2, etc., more C vs. 0 It is impossible to ignore that yet another root supposedly *mezg-'inner bark / bast / fibers used to make thread' (some also 'knot / joint / mesh') shares all these features: sporadic-r- ,-y- ,-w-. This is seen in *mozgo-> B. mɔzgɔ 'knot', Li. mãzgas 'knot / knob/bud of a tree', TB meske 'joint' but *-win *mozgwon-> OIc mǫskvi 'mesh', *mwezgo-> T. *mw'äzge > *mäzgw'e > *mäz'gwe 'joint / braid'-> TB mäṣkwatstse 'having a braid'; *-y-in *moyzgo-> MHG maische, OSx mā ̆sca; *-(r)-in OE mǣscr, mǣsc-wyrt, E. mesh, mash-wort, Sl. *me:zg(r)a: 'inner side of bark' > SC mézg(r)a. It is possible to have unrelated *mezg-, *mezg-, & *mezgh-with different meanings, but not for all of them to also have the same 3 C's appear at random. Again, 'below the water's surface > below the bark's surface' provides a link. In supposed *mezg-'dip, immerse, submerge, sink', there is also *mowzgā > OCS muzga 'pond', *mwozgā > Sk. mozga 'puddle'; *muzg-> R. mzga 'rot / mold / damp weather', mózglyj 'rotten / damp', mzgnut´ 'to spoil', možšit´ 'to steep'. Why are any of these reconstructed as plain *mezg-to begin with? It is only tradition. Also needed is *merzg-> L. mergō vs. *mezg-> S. májjati (since other *Vzg > V:g in L., and with *w from nowhere, why not r?). With no othere ex. of *-rzg-, it is likely that *murzg-> *murdg-> *murtk-> Ar. mkrtem 'immerse/dip/wash/bathe/baptize', *murkt-> mrtimn '*dabbling > teal' should be included. If not, there would be at least 7 distinct *m(w)(r)TK roots for 'dip' (with more below). In supposed *mergh-> Li. merga 'soft rain', *mregh-> G. brékhō 'wet / drench,' brokhḗ 'rain', hupó-brukha 'underwater', the-u-in G. is again unexplained. Likely *murgh-> *mrugh-> hupó-brukha, which surely follows rather than establishes a trend, however unseen before. This *mreg(h)-is also said to form G. brekhmós \ brékhma \ brégma 'top of the head', Ps. mǝrγaī 'temple of the head / front', OE braeg(e)n \ bragen, E. brain, in which 'sink' > 'marrow' is again seen, again with *g vs. *gh. Not to beat a dead horse, but there is also *merk-> Gmc. *mirh-> MHG meren 'dip bread into water or wine, Li. mer kti 'soak', Uk. morokvá 'quagmire, swamp', etc. Again unexplained is Ct. *mr̥ kis > *mrakis 'malt', in which my *mwr̥ kis > *mrakis would have a *w, needed to prevent expected **mrikis. Exactly like this but with *sk not *rk (like *zg(h) \ *r(z)g(h) above) is *mesk-, *mosku-> R. Moskvá 'a river', *dipping bread (as in MHG meren) > Cz. moskva 'raw bread'. C. swamp / water / mud Again, though most *mr̥-> mir-in Li., in mùr(k)šlinu 'wash', regularity would require *mwr̥ Hkse-. Since Li. mùršinu '*muddy > besmirch' seems related, this provides a way to find
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 94: 'dog' (Draft)2026
Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European *k^uwon-or *k^won-'dog' is widespread in IE, but there are two longstanding problems. 1. The C(u)w-variation in *k^uwon-or *k^won-. This hardly seems like much of a problem, but to linguists, even such a modest difference in pronunciation is apparently enough to cause consternation. For ex., Andrew Sihler questions why "real" *k^won-didn't become Greek **ppon-. 2. The Latin canēs \ canis 'dog' is almost certainly related, but no good path from PIE to Latin exists. Expected *k^uwon-H > **cuō or *k^won-H > **cō have no attestations, & weak stem *k^un-also can't become can-. It is possible that *kawon-or *kawen-would work, as in *sH2wel-> *sael > *saol 'sun'. I think these two problems point to the same solution. For finding what *k^Cw-could produce *k^uw-, *k^w-, & *k^aw-, consider the variation in : *k^H2aw-, *k^uH2-,*k^awH2-, *k^awk-[K-asm.?], etc. 'call, make noise (of many kinds)' *k^H2wo-\ *k^uwo-'calling, shrieking, owl, etc. > Celtic *kawannos \ *kuwannos > MW cuan, >> Late Latin cavannus 'tawny owl' The variation in Celtic *kawannos \ *kuwannos exactly matches Latin *kawon-> can-vs. expected *kuwon-> *cuon-, etc. Even the wide range of noises covered by *k^H2aw-might have included 'yelping, barking'. This could produce *k^H2wont-'barking' > *k^H2won(t)-\ *k^uwon(t)-\ *k^won(t)-. The *-t-is reconstructed for derivatives like E. hound, so presumably the nom. of both *ont-& *-on-could have been (*-onts >)*-ons, with most words having analogy to restore the nom. from the other cases. With this, Latin canēs might shed light on the origin of nouns in-ēs. The origin of many of these is unknown, but if some-ēs < *-es-s, stem *-es-, it would fit with, for ex., Greek words in-ēs. This would require analogy, in which the-s was seen as the mark of the nom., like *-os & *-o-. If so, a word like > *kawones-would have most cases with 4 syllables, subject to Exon's law deleting the 2nd. Thus, *kawones-em > *kaones-em > *kanes-em, etc. In PIE, why would *CHw-have 3 outcomes here? There is ev. for just as many outcomes of *CHy, depending on its position. The case of *CHy > *Cy, Pinault's law, applies in many cases, often in IE present verbs in *CeCH-ye-> *CeC-ye-. I also think that in *H2rg^i-ptH2yo-'swift-winged' > *H2rg^i-pt(i)yo-> *H2rg^i-p(i)yo-> G. aigupiós 'vulture', S. ṛjipyá-, Ar. arciw 'eagle' (compare G. ōkupterós, L. accipiter 'hawk') the-pio-vs.-pya-indicates optional change of *CHy > *C(i)y. It seems likely that its position at the beginning of one part of a compound is behind the discrepancy. In fact, I think that this is similar to various optional changes seen in *CHy-and *CHw-for *sk^H1yaH2 \ *sk^iyaH2 & *k^H2won-\ *k^uwon-, *k^H2wo-\ *k^uwo-. This leads me to propose : *CHw-> *CHw-\ *Cuw-\ *Cw-*CHy-> *CHy-\ *Ciy-\ *Cy-*+CHy-> *+Cy-\ *+Ciy-*-CHy-> *-Cy-(and *-Ciy-after heavy?) There are likely other cases of *CHw in the other 2 positions that match, no ev. yet. Though some outcomes are more common in some positions, I think it's likely that complete optionality existed. The difference in compounds, if real, might be from analogy to the base word. For other specific examples, & for post-PIE timing, see (based on https://www.academia.edu/116417991
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 28: 'dark / cloud / smoke' (Draft)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 :
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
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55: 'spider', 'skeleton', 'sulfur', 'feel weary (of)', 'croak' (Draft)2025
50. For many years, it has appeared that *araKsno- > L. arāneus ‘spider’, arānea ‘spider(web)’, G. árakhnos \ arákhnēs ‘spider’, arákhnē ‘spider(web)’, but no etymology could be found. I say that the verb phrase *H2ar- H2ak^os- ‘arrange/join with a needle / sew / weave’ formed a noun *H2arH2ak^sno- ‘weaver’, later ‘spider’ (as in many other IE). The other cognates : *Hak^u- > L. acus ‘needle’ *ak^Hu- > G. ákhuron ‘chaff’ *Hak^(o)s- > G. akostḗ ‘barley’, Li. akstìs ‘skewer’, Ar. hawasti-k` ‘tassels of a belt’ *Hak^os- > Go. ahs ‘ear of grain’, L. acus, *Hak^sno- > G. ákhnē ‘fluff / chaff’ 51. In a similar way, another group of words for ‘spider’ can also be <- ‘weaver’, if : *(H1)rek^- > S. raśanā́- ‘rope / cord’, NP rasan Gmc *rakkan-, ON rakki, Far. rakki ‘parrel / jaw rope / gaffe parrel’, OE racca, ON rekendi nu. ‘chain’, OE race(n)te f. ‘fetter’, OHG rahhinza f. *(H1)rek^-ne- > *(H1)renk^e- ‘weave’ *(H1)renk^wo- ‘weaver’ > Gmc *rengwó:n- > OE renge \ rynge ‘spider(web)’, Ar. *erinćwo > *erinčyo > *ernǰak, Axalc‘xa *ernǰak, Karin ɛrnǰak ‘spider’, Erznka ɛrunǰɛk ‘spiderweb’ Here, Ar. had *k^w > *s^w > *s^y > š as in *k^uwo:n > *k^wu:n > *syun > šun ‘dog’, *H1ek^wo- ‘horse’ > *ešyo > *eyšo > ēš ‘donkey / ass’. 52. Some IE for ‘skeleton’ <- ‘dry’ (like skeleton), so likely TB kwrāṣe ‘skeleton’ < *kaurä-še ‘dry’ <- *kaurä ‘dryness’ < *kaH2uro-m : G. kaualéos ‘parched / burnt up’, kauarón ‘dried/brittle/bad’, *k^aH2w-ye > kaíō ‘burn’, *k^aH2u-mn- > kaûma ‘burning heat’, *k^aH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun / day’, *k^aH2uno- > *k^H2auno- > S. śóṇa- ‘red / crimson’ In *kauräše > *kaurše > kwrāṣe, the “fix” of *-wrS- is also seen in 54. 53. In apparent *swelH2- > OE swelan ‘burn’, *swelH2as- > G. sélas ‘light / bright light (of fire or heavens)’, etc., I see the source of derived *swelH2-p- : *swelH2p- ‘shine / burn’ > PT *späläp- > T. sälp- ‘be set alight / burn / be on fire / blaze’ with opt. *w > p, *p-p dsm. (even if not, *sw-p > s-p would match In. *śvitira- > S. śvitrá- ‘white’, in compounds śviti- but śiti- near P). Other cognates : *swelpH2lo(s)- > L. sulp(h)ur, Gmc *swilbHla-z > Bav. Schwelfel, [l-l > 0-l] Go. swibls, OE swefl, *sweHbla- > *swe:bla- > *swæ:bla- > Du. zwavel ‘sulfur’ in which *pH > p(h), but in Gmc. it is also seen when H-met. created *VH > a long V (Whalen 2025a). It is important to know that *H survived in PGmc that long, even when between C’s. There is another close cognate, not usually recognized due to sound change (Whalen 2025b) : > In the same way, in Et. Sethlans ‘blacksmith/craftsman god’, the fact that Vulcanus was borrowed & many L. words in -anus appear as -ans in Et. makes a loan here likely. Vulcanus came from *wlk- (likely from *luk- ‘light’ with metathesis of w), and G. Hḗphaistos is derived from *phais-to- (*gWhais- > Lt. gaišs ‘bright / clear’, Li. gaĩsas ‘glow / gleam (of fire)’, gaĩsras ‘glow in the sky / (glow from a) fire / conflagration’, G. phaiós ‘grey / *bright > *clear > harsh [of sound]’) so another root of the same meaning is needed here. This would suggest *Selphanus ‘blacksmith god’ from *swelp- ‘shine / burn’, *swelplo(s)- > Go. swibls, L. sulp(h)ur. With this in mind, notice that some f / th in Sardinia came from *p(h) : G. Phórkos ‘sea god, father of Medusa’ >> Forco / Thorco ‘father of the legendary medieval Sardinian Medusa’ *prtu- > L. portus ‘port/harbor/haven’, *fǝrθ- > *farr- > Thárras (port city) *prtu- > E. ford, *fǝrθ- > *forr- > Thorra (at ford on the Torra River) *(s)piHk- > ON spíkr ‘nail’, G. pikrós ‘pointed/sharp’; *spiHkalyo- > *sfi:kalyos > *fi:skalyos > Thìscali (mtn.) Since ancient Sardinia was a source of copper, with many bronze figures of warriors known to have been made & the metal to have been exported, its proximity to Etruscan territory might show a loan of *Selphanus or *Selplanus from there. Sardinians also figure into some accounts of the origin of Talos, the man of bronze, moving to Crete. I also think some of the Sardinians moved to Crete ( https://www.academia.edu/126907768 ). If an inscr. in Sardinia contained sardof, saadof, dedikar, ōpeirari, iroukles, animeste, est, sano, sanomos, dea, ēdēs, seu, marf, etc., there would be no reason to see it as anything but Italic, so the same on Crete (with the travels of the Sea Peoples in mind) should not be treated differently. Other ev. might come in loans, seen in modern Sardinian : > 54. Adams had TB mrausk- ‘feel an indifference/aversion to the world’, etc. This seems like an odd meaning to have in one word and does not seem to be required in context, at least not in that very specific meaning. I certainly would question how talking to a king for a long time can make him ‘feel an indifference/aversion to the world’, instead of just making him bored or tired. Indeed, Krause & Slocum have TB mrausk- ‘feel/make weary / tire’. This seems to be much simpler, and has an IE source : *Hmarwo- > G. amaurós / maurós / maûros ‘withered / shriveled / weak / feeble’ *Hmarw(e)-sk^e- > *marwsk- > TB mrausk- ‘feel/make weary / tire’ This met. is like *kauräše > *kaurše > kwrāṣe above (52). If also ‘feel weary (of)’, it would basically fit Adams’ meaning, just not so specific. 55. H. āšku- is an animal that can jump from a wooden drain, and whose jump or appearance is a bad omen. Puhvel took it as ‘mole’, which clearly makes no sense. He was apparently eager to connect it to G. words, but how can anyone think a mole would jump from a drain? Clearly, a frog or toad makes more sense. With this, its ambiguous spelling allows *āzagu- < *wázagu- ‘croaking / frog / toad’ (with dsm. *w-w > *0-w in weak cases), related to (Whalen 2025c) : Iranian *wazagwa- ‘frog’ ( <- *waz- \ *fas- ‘make noise / buzz / etc.’ ) > Av. vazaγa- ‘frog’, NP vazaγ \ bazaγ, Taj. vezgag, Siv. mazze, Semn. varzaγ, Tal. vazax \ zavax, Xw. waγaz, ? >> Kh. boγùzu Seeing ev. for a related u-stem supports *-gw- not **-g-, and H. single k for *g is clear, supporting other parts of that older idea.
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 93: *daH2- 'wet' (Draft)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')
Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 70, 71: 'brother / sister', 'juice / blood / sap' (Draft)2025
70. In apparent *neg^no- > H. nekna-, Lw. *nana-, Lc. nẽni -e- ‘brother’, Kloekhorst said that no IE etymology could be found. However, though there is no fitting root *neK-, consider their resemblance to *g^onH1o- > G. gónos ‘offspring’, which could appear as *g^no- in old compounds (*newo-g^no- ‘newborn’ > G. neognós), with new compounds often turning *g^onH1o- > *+*g^onH1o- by analogy. If related to an older version of *en-g^onH1o- ‘in/of the (same) birth/family’ > G. eggónē ‘granddaughter’ (with similar cp. in ék\apó-gonoi ‘descendants’, pró-gonoi ‘ancestors’, etc.), it is entirely possible that metathesis could create it from *-ngn- in : *en-g^no- > *neg^no- > H. nekna-, Lw. *nana-, Lc. nẽni n., nẽne \ nene p.d.l. ‘brother’ +ašri- > HLw. nanasra/i- ‘sister’ ana.?; H. neka- ‘sister’ It is highly unlikely that H. neka- ‘sister’ is primary, or there would be no reason for *neg^no-sor- > HLw. nanasra/i- ‘sister’ to exist as a clear derivative of *neg^no- ‘brother’. In Proto-Anatolian, *neg^no- vs. *neg^naH2- would be clear, but when Proto-H. *-a- & *-a:- merged, a new way to distinguish ‘brother’ from ‘sister’ was needed. If both words had optional *n-n > *n-0, then it is possible that *neg^no- vs. *neg^naH2- & *neg^o- vs. *neg^aH2- existed in the past. If one type became prominent in each word slightly before *-a- & *-a:- merged, that could have become the new way to tell each apart. If *n-n dsm. was instead late, then it was used to create a new type of distinction afterwards. 71. The IE root *sek- ‘to flow (out/away), dry out (of water)’ supposedly had a nasal-infixed stem *snk- > Li. sunkiù 1s., suñkti inf. ‘press (juice)’, ELi. sunkà ‘juice / sap’, etc. With this meaning, I think it is also the source of *sokwo- \ *swoko- ‘juice / blood / sap’. Though traditionally reconstructed *sokWo-, the moving and disappearing *w here tells a different tale. I think *w > 0 was really *w > *H3 (A), since *H > 0 in most branches. Together : *swoko- > Lt. svakas *sH3oko- > Li. sakai ‘resin’, R. sok ‘juice / sap’, Al. gjak ‘blood’ *sokwo- ? > TB sekwe ‘pus’ *sokH3o- ? > G. opós ‘juice of plants’ Part of the uncertainty comes from whether H3 = xW; if so, later *kxW > *kW is also possible. *kw > TB kw is slightly more likely, since in many words PIE *KWV > TB kV, only some TB kwV (with no known regularity). Greek changed *Kw > *kWkW ? > kk / pp (*H1ek^wos > L. equus, *yikwos > LB i-qo, G. híppos, Ion. íkkos ‘horse’; *laku- L. lacus ‘basin/tank/lake’, *lakw- > G. lákkos ‘pond/cistern/pit’; *pel(e)k^u- > G. pélekus ‘(double-edged) ax’, *pel(e)k^wo- > pélekkon \ pélekkos ‘ax-handle’), so *kxW > *kW is better here. It is also slightly possible that when *kW was created, it was by *kxW > *kWx, since if later *x > *h, a stage *hokWhos > *okWhos could explain *s- > *h- > 0-. *snk- > ELi. sunkà ‘juice / sap’ & the range in *sokwo- ‘juice / blood / sap’ could also lead to the origin of Old Latin sanguen ‘blood’. A neuter *snk-mn would have 3 N’s, so dsm. would not be odd. The stages *snkmn > *sǝnkmǝn > *sǝngmǝn > *sǝngwǝn > sanguen would work (B). The traditional connection with *H1esH2rgW > S. ásr̥k, asnás g., mix > *HsHngW-n- does not seem very promising. Not only is there no ev. that -k came from *-gW, the series of analogies needed to create *HsngW-n- while a “normal” stem for ‘blood’ still existed seems too complicated. I also think it’s likely that *H1esH2r > H. ešhar, but also met. > *H1esrH2 > *éhara > G. íara, *HesrH > *HasrK > S. ásr̥k (Whalen 2025). If so, there would be no way for sanguen to be related. Notes A. *H3 > w is also seen in many other words in IE (Whalen 2025a, Note 1), including : *k^oH3t- > L. cōt- ‘whetstone’, *k^awt- > cautēs ‘rough pointed rock’, *k^H3to- > catus ‘sharp/shrill/clever’ *plew- \ *ploH3- ‘flow’, Gmc. *flōanaN ‘flow’, Go. flōdus m. ‘river’, E. flood *troH3- > G. trṓō \ titrṓskō ‘wound / kill’, *troH3mn \ *trawmn > trôma \ traûma ‘wound / damage’ *sk^oH3to- / *sk^otH3o- / *sk^ot(h)wo- > OI scáth, G. skótos, Gmc. *skadwá- > E. shadow *lowbho- ‘bark’ > Al. labë, R. lub; *loH3bho- > *lo:bho- > Li. luõbas *doH3- \ *dow- ‘give’ *dow-y(eH1) >> OL. duim sj., G. duwánoi op. (with rounding or dialect o / u by P / W, G. stóma, Aeo. stuma) *dow-enH2ai > G. Cyp. inf. dowenai, S. dāváne (with *o > ā in open syllable), maybe Li. dav- *dow-ondo- > CI dundom, gerund of ‘to give’ *dH3-s- ao. > *dRWǝs- > *dwäs- > TB wäs- B. Though most *n > L. en, other It. had *n > an (*dng^hwaH2- > E. tongue, L. dingua, lingua, Umbrian fangva-) and Sihler lists many L. words that might show the same (100.c; maneō, canis, tangō, frangō), indicating some kind of optionality. If sanguen is included, it would be 3 with -ang-. Some say that both maneō & canis are from *o near labials, but I’m not sure.
Proto-Uralic Vowels *a1 and *a2, *yK > *tk, *st- > s- / t-Finnic, t-elsewhere, it looks like a sound change. PU *st-would make the most sense, giving : *stulka 'feather' > F. sulka, Sm. *tolkē, Mh. tolga, Ud. tyly, Hn. toll, Mi. tovyl, CMi. towl, X. *tŏɣǝl > NX. tuhəł, Smd. *tuə However, there is another set of correspondences where s-appears in Finno-Lapp, t-elsewhere. It is unlikely that an oddity of nearly the same nature is unrelated. If due to a similar change, a related cluster would be needed. PU *str-would make the most sense (in that it is common, and others of the form *stC-are all less likely), giving : *strowe > *towe > En. to, Mi. tür, H. tó s., tavak p. 'lake', Kam. tu 'lake/river'; *sowe > Fi. *soo > F. suo 'swamp/bog/marsh/mire', Sm. *suońō If related to PIE, *srowo-'stream' > G. rhóos, etc., would certainly fit. Since PIE had many *styet Uralic has few cognates of s-vs. t-, it is likely that only secondary *st-and *str-( < *sr-) existed in PU. If a source of *stulka 'feather' can be found in an IE word that did not have *st-, but could somehow create secondary *st-, it would help support this idea. Based on PIE *skeido-'what cuts / blade / shoulder blade' > OI sciath m. 'wing', W ysgwydd f. 'shoulder', I think it's likely that : G. skáptō 'dig, delve', *skaptlaH2-> L. scapulae p. 'shoulders', PU *skawtla: > *skutla > *stulka 'feather' B. Zhivlov (2014) reconstructs Proto-Uralic vowels *ï ( > Samoyed *ï / *ë ) and a distinction between *a1 and *a2 (in final syllables of stems) in order to explain V-correspondences in words like PU *c^ïta1 '100' > F. sata, Hn. száz. He says : > The following correspondences can be established: 1) PU *a-a1, *ï-a1 > Mari CVCǝ nouns -Proto-Khanty low vowels^12 -Hungarian á -Proto-Samoyed second syllable *å (except *al/δ'a > *åjä) 2) PU *a-a2, *ï-a2 > Mari CVC nouns -Proto-Khanty high vowels -Hungarian a -Proto-Samoyed second syllable *ǝ (except *al/δ'a > *åjä) > Since some of these words are borrowed from IE, seeing that *c^ïta1 must be a loan from IIr. : PIE *tk^mtó-m '100' > IIr. *c^atá-m > S. śatá-m, Ir. *ćatə -m > Av. satǝ-m Its origin from Ir. *ćatəmakes it possible that if it was borrowed after loss of any contrastive stress in PU, it would be adapted as *ćatə ́ > *ćə ta. Either *ćïta was as close as speakers could get or *ï varied between /ï/ & /ǝ/ (not likely relevant here). Since this means *-a would cause lowering in Khanty, it makes sense that *-ï would cause raising. This removes the need for any new V's to be added to PU reconstruction. This might also provide some links with IE. Though IE having so many nouns in both *-aH2 and *-os would make looking for shared -V hard. For example, in PIE *g^hH2alghaH2 'stick / pole' > Li. žalgà, Gmc *galgō, PU *ćïlka, they are so close that an early loan from IE has been proposed by some, others say cognate. The Li. -à : PU *-a would support either, but Li. also has a variant -as < *-os. Since many nouns known to be cognate in IE can vary between a-& ostems, even within branches, this alone is not perfect evidence. However, in verbs like *khH2an-/ *khanH2-> S. khan-'dig', PU *kana-'to dig', the final *-a-suggests that *H2 > *a. If so, a close relation to IE is likely, since a-coloring is late. In the same way, PU *kalï 'fish', *kala-'to fish' is like L. piscis, piscārī. This is from PIE *-aH2-, which, again, only had *-afrom a late change. I also noticed that when IE cognates had *CH-, it seems that they > *CïH-. When *-H-> 0, *VV is fixed by either met. or V-deletion, which creates some of Zhivlov's exceptions where the V doesn't behave as expected : *wH2alg-> Gmc *walk-> OE wealcan 'to move round, revolve, roll, turn', ge-wealcan 'go, traverse', S. válgati 'amble, bound, leap, dance', PU *wïHalk-> *wïlka-'to go down' > Fi valkama 'haven', PMh/v. *valg-, Mr. *wåle-, Mi. *wï:γl-, X. *wāγǝl-~ *wï:γǝl-, Hn. vál-PIE *g^hH2algho-'stick / pole', Li. žalgà, Gmc *galgō 'pole', E. gallows, Ar. jałk 'rod, stick, staff, whip, switch (often for beating) / twig, branch', PU *j^ïHalgö > *j^ïlgʉ > *ćïlka 'sharp/ supporting stick' > PMh/v. *śalgǝ, Mh. sälgo 'stick', Mv. śalgo 'thorn / spine', Pm. *śol, Mi. *sï:γlā, NMi. sāgla 'lath / slat / splinter', X. *sāγǝl; [+tree/wood] PU *salka-puwe > Fi. *salkaw > *salko, F. salko 'pole', Sm. *ćuolkōj 'log', Hn. szál-fa *k^H2ank-> E. hang, S. śaŋke, PU *x^xank-> *x^ïxatk-> *ï(x?)kta-'hang up (a trap) / trap/ enclose' > Fi. *akta-, F. ahta-, Sm. *vuoktëńë, PMh/v. *avt-, Mr. *å/oktǝš, Pm. *ȯkt-, X. *ï:γǝt-, Smd. *ïtå-*pH2al-? > S. phal-'burst', PU *pïxal-> *pïlxa-> *pa/ïkka-'to burst' > Fi. *pakku-, X. *pāγ-, Hn. fakad-With this, and previous work (Whalen 2024a), some preliminary ideas on PU vowels can be made, also based on many *-we, many *Pu-, etc. : *o > *ö *e > *jï *ï > *u / *o near P (more specific conditions?) *jï > *ï (unless followed by (C)j ) *-ö > *-e if *o in the 1st syllable *wö > *we *öw > *ow *ö > *ε *-r > *-j *-n > *-j *-εj > *-ey > *-e *-ε-e > *-e-e *-ï-e > *-e-e more umlaut of several types *ε > *ʉ *-ʉ > *-a if *ʉ or *ï is in the 1st syllable *-ï > *-a if *ʉ or *ï is in the 1st syllable loss of contrastive stress stressed *ï > *a *ʉ > *ï C. Some PU words like *wete 'water' are so close to PIE that opponents of a genetic relation can only claim they were borrowed (which is unlikely for 'water', 'honey', 'bee', etc.). However, there are so many that don't look IE at all, some explanation is needed. I think several sound changes have changed the look of a few C's or CC's enough that those looking for simple correspondences don't notice them. I was working on IE branches with *y > d (Whalen 2025a), and I noticed that some proposed IE-U cognates showed *yK > kt. The PU forms are based on Helimski, Reshetnikov, & Starostin (with their numbers added for convenience), with my etymologies (except PIE *toygW-, PU *täktä 'bone', which they related on the basis of 'leg' in Altaic cognates) : *moyzgo-> E. mesh, PU 1823 *mäktV 'a kind of net; to spread a net' *H1oyko-> S. eka-'one', PU 147 *ükte *seykW-'sift / sieve', PU 916 *sokta 'to mix, sift' *(s)tigWno-m > OCS stĭgno 'femur', *(s)toygWo-> OI tóib 'side', Ar. t'ēkn 'shoulder', PU 1049 *täktä 'bone' (on basis of 'leg' in Altaic cognates) and *yKy > *kty > *kc^ > *c^k likely in : *loykWeye-'leave tr.', PU 456 *laćke-'to let go, release' and that *yKy > *kty > *c^k seems likely in : *loykWeye-'leave tr. / abandon', PU 456 *laćke-'to let go, release' With this, *laćke-seems to be related to *läkte-as tr. vs. intr., but no internal Uralic derivational system allows their differing -CC-to be explained. Knowing that changes next to *y, including metathesis, existed, it could be that *Ky and *Ty > *kt also existed. If so, *laćke-& *läkte-as relatives could be from PIE *-e-y-vs. *-o-ey-, which fit into the same scheme : *likW-ye-? 'leave intr.', PU 470 *läkte-, Finnish: lähte-ä 'to leave, go, go away, set off' *bhudh-ye-'to wake intr., notice', *bhoudheye-'to wake tr.', PU 1528 *pukta 'to wake (in)tr.', NSm. bǫk'te-'wake, awaken; disturb (sleep at night)', Mv. puvta-'to wake (someone) up, awake' *yekW-ye-, PU 199 *jukta-\ *jupta-' to speak, tell', F. juttele-'chat', Mv. jovta-ms 'to say, to tell a story', jovks 'tale', Hn. játsz-ik 'to play [all meanings]', játék 'toy, game' *yekWo-> L. iocus 'joke / jest / sport', *yekW-lo-> E. Yule *nuK-> LB -nu-ka 'stitching', *nuK-ye-> G. nússō 'stab / pierce', *neuK-ye-? > PU 1465 *ńüktä 'to pluck out' *matsyo-> S. mátsya-'fish', PU 585 *mükta 'a k. of fish', Mari müktǝ 'gudgeon / Gobio gobio', Z. mi̮ k 'Cyprinus leuciscus' A similar change of *nK > *tk in : *t(e)ng-> G. téggō 'wet / moisten', OHG dunkón 'soak / dip', *tokta 'diving bird' > X. taxtǝŋ, F. tohtaja \ tohtava 'Arctic loon / black-throated diver' *timka: ? > *tinka > L. tinca >> E. tench, PU *tïmkö > *tomke > *tonke > *totke > Mv. tutka, Mi. taxt-*k^H2ank-> E. hang, PU *x^xank-> *x^ïxatk-> *ï(x?)kta-Maybe the same for *dw & *kw > *kp > *kt : *laku-/ -w-'lake / pool', PU 458 *lakte 'bay' *kWe-dwoH3 ??, PU 229 *kakta ~ *käktä 'two' By adding several of these changes together, more specific oddities can be explained. If *nj > *j in : *gWhen-ye-'drive away / beat off', PU *kwïnjï-> *kwayï-'drive / hunt' *kauni-s > TB kauṃ 'sun/day', Turkic *kün(eš) 'sun/day', PU *kaunjï-> *ka(w)jï-'clear up' then *mj > *j might explain *medhyo-> PU *mjïtjï > *jotka 'middle' (with retained *j-j ). I've added some of these ideas to (Whalen 2024a), but I'll wait for a full revision until after I see what other sound changes seem to exist.
Sean Whalen
