Diachronic Linguistics (Or Historical Linguistics)

This brief article presents the regular sound correspondences from Proto-Somali and Afmaay to to ancient Sumerian.The hypothesis proposes that Afmaay is a descendant of ancient Sumerian and proto-sumerian. It place afmaay and Sumerian within the larger proto-cushetic language family or protosomali from which Afmaay descended. It try to show that the sound changes between the two language stages are consistent, systematic, and replicable, in accordance with the comparative method. The focus will be given  the core sound correspondences that account for the majority of regular developments and are most straightforward to illustrate.
The proto sumerian lexicon are has mainly utilized  for this sound comparison.The proto-lexicons are best for sound comparison because they provide a pre-divergent baseline i.e whether original sounds existed in the parent language before it split apart and  allows sound comparison through the Comparative Method.Proto-lexicons focus entirely on the fundamental, stable sound-meaning pairings of early human populations, preventing subjective meanings from skewing phonetic data.Further it help to uncover deep ancestry:by isolating foundational phonetic anchors (like global roots for "mother" or body parts), researchers can trace linguistic roots tens of thousands of years into deep time, far beyond where traditional historical records exist.
The general patterns of sound changes from Sumerian to Afmaay will be examined in line with phonological principles that are familiar from other well-established language families. A table of the main correspondences is provided, followed by a series of lexical examples that illustrate how specific Sumerian/Proto-Somali phonemes evolved into their Afmaay counterparts. The comparison reveal a series set of sound correspondences that demonstrates the relationship between Sumerian and Afmaay is not merely typological or areal, but genuinely genetic.

JUAN CARLOS TLACUAPA QUIROZ mūxturu / mäkaturu s. tipo de biznaga tsa'thi s. lagartija safí ntxalo s. lagartija tx'andri s. fruta en forma de cuerno k'ani s. quelite dēsē s. capulín 'baxt'ä s. garambullo ngäähä s. espiga ngööhö s. espiga däxi s. jilote döxi s. jilote döngo s. chamorro ngōō s. carne ngo s. fiesta ïnte nada hmite s. máscara hmihte s. máscara nt'ëëni s. carnaval saha s. uña goxthi s. puerta bätsi s. niño bötsi s. niño böhtsi s. niño mehtsi s. niño varón 'wēne s. bebé ntxütsi s. niña ntxühtsi s. niña ntxüfri s. yegua matsē s. lombriz JUAN CARLOS TLACUAPA QUIROZ mahtsē s. lombriz gï'wë s. mosca manza s. plato mohi s. plato nt'atsi s. cuchara thü'yē s. rebozo thēxböhtsi s. ahijado thēts'i s. ahijado hne'ronjwa s. tomate he'nonjwa s. tomamte 'ñinjwa s. tomate dädi'maxi s. jitomate xits'o s. sauz hnëxt'i s. diarrea pū s. correcaminos hwi s. paloma tsimxi / tx'imxi s. caracol xäxi s. grano de la piel xöxi s. grano de la piel xingü s. vello xingri s. pelo de elote nōshmë s. tostada dulce 'maxhmë s. servilleta tortillas göhtū s. chuparrosa gätū s. chuparrosa götū s. chuparrosa txaxmagü s. chaxmagü o murciélago k'wamxi s. órgano jüthe s. cerveza

Niklas Metsäranta in https://www.academia.edu/143583675 compared many Uralic words with *š (alone or in clusters) and derived them from a "shubstrate". I do not agree that these are all loans (at least certainly not so very many). He uses variants to show that a non-Uralic word would be adapted in several ways. I think other odd clusters point to the same origin in loans. In 2 cases with *-Cŋ-, I think his criteria point to Baltic loans that did not have *-Cŋ-, but *-C(V)g-. If *-Cŋ-was created from foreign *-Cg-(if not found in native words) after the loss of *-V-, it would make sense. Since many other words with *ŋhave no possible source word with a nasal in nearby languages, but do with *-g-(Sm. *kësŋës 'juniper', *ašŋan \ *ašŋen-e 'perch'), this simple change is needed based on their restricted distribution within Uralic. Knowing the sources, I doubt that all others with *-ŋ-& unknown ety. are native. Some are obviously the same as IE words, with *g > *ŋ, a few others fit, but not as securely (a form attested in one IE group, a meaning in another; what would be a perfect fit, but no attested cognate in the needed branch, etc.). Ex. : A. Lt. kadags 'juniper' >> Fi. *kadaga(s), Sm. *kësŋës B. PIE *H2ogaH2-> Li. úoga 'berry', Sl. *(j)aga, *juogē ? >> *juŋe > Sm. *joŋë 'lingonberry', Finnic *joo-'bog bilberry' C. OPr assegis 'perch' >> F. ahven, *ašŋan \ *ašgen-e \ etc. (some ŋ-n > k-n dsm.?) > Sm. *vuosŋōn ? D. PIE *yuH3ro-> Latvian jūra 'sea', *juγro-> *jürg-? > Sm. *jërŋë 'open water' E. *dw(e\o)igho-, Gmc *twīga-N, Al. degë 'twig, branch', Li. dveigỹs 'two-year-old animal', Baltic *dvigỹs ? >> *dwigis > *dügis > Sm. *δëŋës 'twig' F. Norse *rǫggwō 'coarse coverlet' >> Sm. *roaŋvō 'blanket made of hide' G. *kraHk-(t)liyo-> Li. kr(i)oklỹs 'waterfall' (kriõkti 'to grunt', rel. *kroHg-> G. κρώζω 'to caw, croak', ON hrókr 'crow', *kHorg-> S. khargálā 'a kind of night bird'), **kraHgas ? >> Sm. *keavŋēs 'big rapids, waterfall' H. *sr(e)g(h)o-> *frigo > Breton fri 'nose', *+ig > Cornish friic \ frîg 'nostril', *? > Sm. *sieŋë 'nostril' (Hamp, more in https://www.academia.edu/71028306) I. PIE *seg-'attach, join, marry, swear; oath', *? >> Sm. *soaŋō 'marriage proposal' J. Li. sègti 'to fasten, pin', S. sájati 'to cling to; be attached or fastened, adhere', OP haj-'hang' *? >> Sm. *suoŋēr 'rack' K. Germanic *skawwōnaN 'to look, see, watch; display, show', Slavic *čùti 'to sense, feel', ? Norse *skj-> *sčǫggwi-? >> Sm. *čuoŋvë 'light (rays)' L. PIE *yeguno-(H. eguna-), PU *jäŋe 'ice' Details A. Baltic *kadagas, *kadegjas, etc. > Li. kadagỹs, Lt.dia. kadags, kadȩgs 'juniper' *kadaga(s) > F. kataja, Es. kadakas 'juniper' *kadgas > Sm. *kësŋës > Sm.S gasnges, Sm.N gaskkas 'juniper' Since Es. kadakas & *kadgas > Sm. *kësgës 'juniper' are so close to Baltic (and with-s in non-Uralic words usually a mark of IE loans), their origin should not be in doubt. Variation of *-V-vs. *-0-is common (https://www.academia.edu/145374471), & both these Baltic words show variation in-V-(1 also-0-) anyway, so *-deg-vs. *-dg-is not odd. Since I'd expect *-dg-in 'juniper', *dg > *zg > *sg, or any similar path. B. PIE *H2ogaH2-> Li. úoga 'berry', Sl. *(j)aga, *juogē ? >> *juŋe > Sm. *joŋë 'lingonberry', Finnic *joo-'bog bilberry' The BS words have a slightly unclear IE origin, but there is no relevance to this ety.; some *V-> *jVor *vV-(no regular cause). C. *H1eg^h-ago-? > Balto-Slavic *e(H)žag(j)as? > Li. ežgė̃ \ ežegỹs 'ruffe', OPr assegis 'perch' OPr assegis 'perch', *ašgan-? >> F. ahven, *ašŋan \ *ašgen-e \ etc. (some ŋ-n > k-n dsm.?) > Sm. *vuosŋōn ? Since Sm. *vuoskōn \ *vuosvōn might fit, ŋ-n > k-n dsm. might be needed. My*H1eg^h-ago-is based on PIE *H1eg^h-in words for 'hedgehog' (both fish sp. are spiny, & other IE words are derived from

West, Martin Litchfield (2007) Indo-European Poetry and Myth > There is another Greek goddess who has 'mother' incorporated into her name, much as 'father' is in the name of Jupiter. This is Demeter, in the older form of her name ∆ᾱμάτηρ, with a Lesbian variant ∆ωμάτηρ. As the mistress of cereal crops she clearly had a close association with the earth, and some in antiquity made the equation ∆ημήτηρ = Γῆ μήτηρ.42 The ∆ᾱ-, however, cannot be explained from Greek. But there is a Messapic Damatura or Damatira, and she need not be dismissed as a borrowing from Greek; she matches the Illyrian Deipaturos both in the agglutination and in the transfer to the thematic declension (-os,-a). (It is noteworthy that sporadic examples of a thematically declined ∆ημήτρα are found in inscriptions.) Damater/Demeter could therefore be a borrowing from Illyrian.43 An Illyrian Dᾱ-may possibly be derived from *Dʰĝʰ(e)m- .

This study presents a longitudinal corpus of 21 months of verbal production from a monolingual Brazilian child, compiled from naturalistic speech data. This empirical dataset, collected in a city in northeastern Minas Gerais, Brazil, originates from the corpus of the research team CIL (Longitudinal Child. Since its inception in 2015, the CIL project has documented the
spontaneous speech of Brazilian Portuguese-speaking children. The present
dataset spans March 2016 to February 2018 and is analyzed through an
unpublished, taxonomic framework for Brazilian Portuguese verbs. This paper aims to share data to be explored by further empirical investigations into the acquisition and deployment of verbal diatheses in early child language.

Soikkola Ingrian (Finnic) provides rare multiple phonological evidence for the trisyllabic foot, so the contrast between one-foot [ˈmurkˑinɑ] 'breakfast', ending in a short vowel, and two-foot [ˈmurk̬ iˌnɑː] 'breakfast:PRT', ending in a long vowel, is categorial. Phonological distinctions, including a contrast between secondary stress (as in [ˈmurk̬ iˌnɑː]) and unstressedness, often lack clear phonetic boundaries in speech. In Finnic, lexical stress cues are longer segmental durations and intonational high pitch anchoring. The paper explores fine phonetic details behind the categorial distinction between one-foot and two-foot trisyllabic words. We examine: (a) 2 nd syllable long vowel (V2ː) duration in such pairs; (b) pitch contour and 3 rd syllable vowel (V3) duration as functions of quantity-related structural factors in 21 trisyllabic foot types. Longer V2ː duration in bi-foot trisyllabic words than in trisyllabic feet is confirmed, while other findings are surprising. Greater vocalic quantity in V2 correlates with longer V3 duration, and increased vocalic and consonantal quantity in the 1 st syllable correlates with occasional pitch reset in the 2 nd syllable. We interpret these results as signs of phonetic graduality underlying a categorial distinction between one-foot and two-foot words.

A. PIE *H2arg^-'white (goat) / bright (silver) / flashing (like lightning) / moving quickly' is common, but *H2ag^-& *H2ayg^-exist with the same meanings. I also think the changes in S. rajata-, OP ardata-'silver' are not isolated. If I'm right in identifying Thracian *razyo-> razea nu.p 'bright' or 'golden' (modifying 'necklace', supported by the existence of a golden necklace https://www.academia.edu/11590361) is related, maybe met. *H2arg^-> *raH2g^-(compare *H2ak^mon-s > Slavic *kaHmo:(n)). In support of this, Th. NĒSKOA '(golden) ring' was related to OI nasc 'ring', S. niṣká-'golden ornament for neck/breast', so these 2 words both appearing in S. & Th. might show that raj-& raz-are from a common change. This would be similar to G. ēléktōr 'shining', ḗlektron 'amber, electrum' if *H2erg^-trbecame *H2reg^-tr-(to "fix" *CCCC, similar to *k^erd-'heart'-> *k^red-dheH1-'put heart/faith (in) > trust, believe'), then *r-r > l-r. That some *HC-> *VHC-> V:C-in Greek, for whatever reason, is seen in *H1leudh-s-> G. eleúsomai 'come / go', *H1ludh-s-ti-> *VH1lutstis > G. ḗlusis 'step / gait'; more in https://www.academia.edu/127283240. I've also compared the ending to *gWhl-tor-'shining' > Lithuanian giñtaras 'amber'. It has no clear ety., but since *gWhl(e)H1so-> Gmc *glasa-\ *glǣsa-'glass, amber', etc., it makes sense if from dsm. of l-r > n-r. There is no known way to relate *H2arg^-, *H2ag^-, & *H2ayg^-. However, if *H was uvular & sometimes pronounced *R, it might alternate with *r, cause dissimilation, etc. (https://www.academia.edu/115369292). With *H2arg^-sometimes *Rarg^-, *razyo-> razea might be from *R-r > *r-r > *r-0 (with no way to choose between these ideas). In others, the opposite *R-r > *R-R \ *R-0 (*H2ag^-). What would *Rg^ become in some branches? If some had assimilation > *R^g^, it is possible that *R^ > *y (*H2ayg^-). This is a large number of changes, but the importance in examining these alternations is that when a root, or several similar roots, varied *CeCC1, *CeCC2, *CeCC3, the common explanation is that C1, C2, C3 were affixes or extensions. This can not be done when the varying *C existed within the root. This appears in *H2aRg^o-> *H2ag^o-> S. ajá-'goat' and *H2ag^yo-> Li. ōžys. Similar in *H2aRg^o-> *H2aR^g^o-> *H2ayg^o-> G. aîx 'she-goat', *H2rg^o-> *H2ig^o-> Iranian *Hidza-, etc. I also wonder if some of these show *H2aR^g^o-> *H2ag^R^o-> *H2ag^yo-(incl. Thracian *razyo-> razea ?). B. Greek árguros 'silver' vs. Sanskrit árjuna-'light, white' might be dsm. of *r-r > r-n (similar to *ghltor-above). Is Latin argentum, etc., from *H2arg^r-to-? If 1st *H2arg^r-to-, then S. rajata-, OP ardata-, Ar. arcat' (most *nt > n(d)) would be irregular. If 1st *Rarg^r-to-, then dsm. of R \ r would be expected, leading to *R-r-r > *(R)-r-n \ r-0-n, etc. It is much easier to explain loss of *r-(r) than of *r-(n). Usually contamination from erkat' 'iron' is used to explain *n > 0 in Ar. arcat', but all these ideas start with *n, when nothing prevents *r in both *H2arg^r-to-& *H2rg^ro-(& *-uro-). The ending *-ro-is common, *-uro-much less. If S. kharjura-'silver', G. árguros 'silver' are from PIE *H2arg^uro-not only suggests that H2 = x and there was optional *x > kh in Sanskrit, but that *H2arg^uro-& *H2arg^ro-were related. Are the endings-ro-&-uro-likely to be from different sources when they form the same meaning when attached to the same root? A root with-r-having many derivations with a 2nd-r-seems unlikely when so many IE affixes of all types were available. Loss of *-V-in many IE cognates seems common (https://www.academia.edu/128052798), seen in some with-V-, others with-0-. This allows *H2arg^uro-s > *H2arg^ro-s.

Kroonen had 'bright > joy(ous' : > *glīwa-n. 'joy'-ON glý n. 'id.', OE glīw, glēow n. 'jesting; fun; game', E glee => *ghlei-uo-(WEUR)-Olr. glé adj. 'bright' < *g*lei-uo-. Also cf. ON gljá, Far. glíggja, Nw. gl(j)å w.v. 'to shine' < *gliwēn-< *ghli-u-eh1-and-with a different suffix-*glīman-. > Beekes instead compared Greek χλεύη \ khleúē : > χλεύη [f.] 'joke, jest, mock, scoff (h. Cer. 202, Lyr. [IV*], Ph., Luc.). <IE *ghleu-'be merry, joke'... ETYM The retention of antevocalic-eu-seems to point to a lost following consonant... corresponds to OE gléo [n.] 'cheerful conversation, convivial pleasure, joy' < IE *ghleu-o-, OE glīw = ON glý [n.] 'id' < IE *g'leu-io-... > I say that *ghleu-> *ghleu-wo-in both (*-w-> 0 in G.). The Gmc. *gliuwa-n likely had dsm. > *gli:wa-n. It could be that *eu only optionally > *iu before *w, but this seems like the only example. B. Amber Lithuanian giñtaras 'amber' has no clear ety., but since *gWhl(e)H1so-> Gmc *glasa-\ *glǣsa-'glass, amber', etc., it makes sense if from *gWhl-tor-'shining'. Though dsm. of r-r > r-n, etc., is fairly common, l-r > n-r is less so. However, it still exists, and if not the answer, then what? The somewhat odd use of *-tor-in one 'amber' would support G. ēléktōr 'shining', ḗlektron 'amber, electrum' being IE. I say *H2erg^-'shine' formed *H2erg^-tr-> *H2reg^-tr-(to "fix" *CCCC, similar to *k^erd-'heart'-> *k^red-dheH1-'put heart/faith (in) > trust, believe'), then *r-r > l-r. That some *HC-> *VHC-> V:C-in Greek, for whatever reason, is seen in *H1leudh-s-> G. eleúsomai 'come / go', *H1ludh-s-ti-> *VH1lutstis > G. ḗlusis 'step / gait'; more in https://www.academia.edu/127283240. C. *g^hloH3-vs. *gWhloH1-? The supposed Proto-Indo-European root *g^helH1-, *g^helH1wo-'bright / yellow / green' has some problems. It regularly gave Gmc. *gilwa-> OE geolo, E. yellow, Italic *xelawo-> L. helvus 'bay / tawny', O. heleviis, Celtic *gelawo-> *-a-a-(likely loaned > L. galbus 'yellow ? / pale green ?', but also did not fit all cases. A nearly identical *gWhelH1-, *gWhloH1-seems needed : *gWhelH1wo-> W. gwelw *gWhelH1-n-> L. fel, fellis g. 'gall', etc. *gWhl-> G. phliarós \ khliarós '(luke)warm' *gWhl(e)H1so-> Gmc *glasa-\ *glǣsa-'glass, amber' *gWholH1o-> G. χόλος \ χολή '*yellow > gall, rage, fury' *gWhloH1-w > Gmc. *glō(w)anaN 'to glow', MW glo m. 'charcoal' *gWhloH1ro-> Ph. glourós 'gold', G. khlōrós '(greenish) yellow, pale (green)' Also, a few seem without *-H-: *gWhelswo-> Li. gelsvas 'pale yellow', *-to-> geltas 'yellow, blond' and there are related *g(W)hlend-'look; shine, gleam, glint', *g(?)hleid-'shine, sparkle', etc. The alternations of g^h / gWh and H1 / H3 can hardly be unrelated. Since I think H1 = x^, H3 = xW (or similar), both shifts could result from metathesis of features, g^h-xW / gWh-x^ in these terms. There is also *-win *g(?)hlowH-(Gmc. *glūnǣn-'to stare, peer', *glawwa-'sharp-sighted, clear, shrewd', OI gluair 'clear, clean') & Gmc. *gluntǣn-'to peer, clear up'. Since this matches *g(W)hlend-'look; shine, gleam, glint', I have to assume that something like *ghlowH1-is original, with met. & asm. or dsm. K-w-K^ \ K^-w-K^ \ KW-w-K^ \ K^-w-KW. Since which is older isn't always clear, who can say more? The *-w-vs. *-y-might be from the same change, & *ghw-> *gWh-might be one way *w disappeared. D. Greek glaukós 'gleaming / bright / blue-green / blue-grey' has the look of *g^helH3wo-/ etc., but no perfect explanation has ever been put forth. It would likely be Macedonian, or a similar dialect, with usually had *kh > g, some *o > a (or *o > *O, written a by others). Some IE had *H > *K (https://www.academia.edu/115369292), so *ghlowH-> glauk-might work.

In this article I argue that second person vision imperatives undergo intersubjectification diachronically, as evidenced by the co-expression of four historically related meanings in the Ancient Greek vision imperatives ὅρα/ὁρᾶτε and βλέπε/τε. Originally, they expressed visual perception, subsequently acquired mental perception meaning ("consider"), and from this meaning came to encode novel intersubjective meanings, of respectively intersubjective thought "[you should know this]" and apprehensional awareness "see to it that not X", through the semanticization of pragmatic side-effects. Using a diachronic corpus study of these imperatives from Archaic to Post-Classical Greek (VIII BCE-III CE), I demonstrate that this intersubjectification pathway does not only recur within the same language, but the pragmatic side-effects which semanticize into novel intersubjective meanings seem to be surprisingly stable. Finally, I suggest that apprehensional meanings are co-expressed by vision imperatives cross-linguistically and are in need of further diachronic typological examination.

Stonggnyen, an obscure Tibetic dialect spoken in 'Dabpa County of Sichuan, diverges sharply in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary from other Tibetic varieties spoken in the county. Drawing from extended fieldwork, this study offers an in-depth examination of Stonggnyen phonology and the sound changes that led to its formation. To assess Stonggnyen's genetic affiliations relative to its neighbors, its representative sound laws and selected distinctive lexical items are evaluated against comparative data from selected Tibetic dialects distributed in the environs. A lexicon of 1,200 core vocabulary items with Classical Tibetan etymologies is supplemented to vindicate the phonological analyses offered herein.

Ikisiri Makala hii inashughulikia mandhari katika ujenzi wa usaliti katika diwani ya Wasakatonge ya Muhammed Seif Khatib ambayo ilisomwa na watafiti na mandhari zote zilizosawiri usaliti 3 kudondolewa kwa kuzingatia lengo la makala, yaani kuchambua jinsi mandhari zinavyojenga usaliti katika diwani teule. Mandhari zilizotumiwa na mwandishi kujenga usaliti katika diwani teule ni pamoja na Afrika, ufukweni, sehemu za ibada, ikuluni na hospitalini. Uwasilishaji na uchambuzi wa data uliongozwa na Nadharia ya Uhalisia. Mbinu kuu ya ukusanyaji wa data ilikuwa usomaji makini na uchanganuzi wa data ulifanyika kwa kutumia mbinu ya kitaamuli. Matokeo yanaonesha kuwa mandhari zinapotumiwa kwa ustadi mkubwa huunda usaliti kama tendo linalofichwa ndani ya hisani, tendo linalokumbatiwa katika kivuli cha uongozi, tendo linalotumika kutekeleza mauaji, tendo lililofichwa ndani ya mwamvuli wa dini, na tendo linalotumika kuendeleza matabaka. Makala hii imeongeza maarifa katika fasihi kupitia ushairi wa Kiswahili kwa kupanua uga wa uelewa wa kipengele cha mandhari katika kazi za ushairi kama ilivyo katika tanzu nyingine za riwaya, tamthiliya na hadithi fupi.

Latin orbis m. 'circle, ring; disc; orb; a rotation, circuit; etc.'; orbita 'a track or rut made in the ground by a wheel; a circuit, orbit', Umbrian urfeta No established root is known, but this is similar to a group of IE roots with *werP : *werp-'spin', *werbh-'enclose, wrap around' (Li. virbìnis 'loop, noose, snare'), *werb-'to turn, twist, bend', *+n > *wremb-(Greek ῥέμβω \ rhémbō 'turn round and round, in circles', ῥόμβος \ rhómbos 'anything which may be turned or spun, top, bullroarer'). In many other IE words, there is alt. of H3 \ w (https://www.academia.edu/128170887), which makes it almost certain that *worbhi-> *H3orbhi-. This is likely the reason this group is "isolated" in Italic: it only appears so, since only here did *w-> *H3- .

Zair, Nicholas (2014) The Future Perfect in Oscan and Umbrian, and the Ō-Perfect in South Picene > Oscan and Umbrian have a future perfect suffix-us-/-ur-. Although various sources for this suffix have been suggested, none satisfactorily explain its origin. This article evaluates these previous attempts and makes a new proposal: the Oscan and Umbrian future perfect can be identified as a perfect suffix *-ō-plus the future suffix *-s-. The perfect suffix *-ō-, although not directly attested in Oscan and Umbrian, is found in the related language South Picene. The origin of the *-ō-suffix is traced back to inherited perfects of the type 3sg. *Ce-CoH-e, e.g. *de-doh3-e 'gave' > *dedo ? Umbrian terust '(s)he will have given', with subsequent reanalysis of the root vowel *-ōas a suffix. A parallel for this development is found in Gaulish. > I agree with many parts, but the details don't seem to fit. I think that since forms of 'be' in Italic often had their endings (or the whole words) added to verb tenses by analogy, it makes the most sense if PIE *bhe-bhwoH1-> It. *fefwo:-(Tortoran fufuwod, fufwodo pf.sj.3p? 'that they have become?' https://www.academia.edu/116289179 with rounding of *fef-just like *theth-in fufuhud, below) was the direct source. This might have been helped by other perfects in *CoH-, but this allows the same analogy in Latin, with V-stem verbs gaining a perfect *-V-wo:-. Later, the endings in *-o:(C) were changed to match C-stem verbs, except for still containing *-Vw-. Previously, I've said that *H lasted into Italic longer than most think, &-h-in many inscr. stood for *h (not length, a break between V's, etc.). If so, it was *-oH-that was extracted at this stage. I think this allows *HopesaH-oH-t > *opso:xt \ *-xk > South Picene opsút \ opsúq 'he made?' (or *opso:xt > *-kt >-q \-t ?). If not, the change of normal-t >-q after what would have to be a V makes no sense. This stage allows even those stems with *-oH-to become *-oH-(w)oH-(in fufuhud) by gaining the ending of *fefwoH-, & a better analysis of an inscr. on a pot (from Capua?, ancient Italy) https://www.academia.edu/116248853 : niumsies tanunies est paplam tensatriiam fufuhud niumsis tanunis eise sulsu dunum dedum-(this) is niumsis tanunis' (pot) niumsis tanunis made (this) drinking vessel; I give (this) gift to the goddess Sulsu Clearly, *dhedhoH1-> *thethoH-> fufuh-, but-ud implies that perfect *-(w)o:t < *-(w)oH(-t) was added to all verbs, even those already ending in *-oH-. This would be unlikely if *-oH-had been merely analogy from ALL in *-oH-, instead of specifically from *fefwoH-. This is more likely if it was *-woH-that was added, at least in several sub-branches (whether some languages had regular *Cwo: > *Co: or *Cu:, I can't say, & 2 similar forms of analogy in related languages in contact is always a possibility). In this case, I have no way to tell if fufuhud better reflects *thethoH-woH-t due to sound changes, since there are no other examples. In the same way, I suspect that paplam is related to L. pōculum, & came from *pH-tla:m (say, *HtC > *HthC, *th > *f, asm. *p-f > p-p), but no ev. is likely to arise in support. If future forms like *thak-se\o-existed in Italic, why would *-o:-se-be favored over *-s(o)-o:-? This would make the future & future perfect dissimilar. Such changes may seem trivial, but consider how it might shed light on other odd future forms. L. futūrus 'about to be' has always seemed odd to me. If *bhuH1-formed a future *bhuH1-se-ti, etc., then forms like *ama:tos *fu:seti 'he is about to be loved' might have contracted to *ama:tu:seti it would create a model for-tūrus & the Osco-Umbrian future perfect suffix *-o:-u:s-> *-o:us->-us-/-ur-. Some of these categories might have once applied only to V-stems, etc., or been lost later (after they provided the analogical source for other attested categories). I'm not aware of any problems with the changes needed for this path, but any similar sequence might work. After contraction of *ama:tu:seti > *ama:tu:sti, etc., the Oscan future perfect suffix *-o:-u:s-ti >-ust could be formed. I think it more likely that this is the model for the change in the plain future,-iest instead of expected **-ie:t(i) (< IE optative *-yeH1-t). In O. sakrvist 'it will become sacred?', from stem *sakr(o?)-uye-(Buck), a sound change of *-yiest > *-yi(:)st, then *-wy->-v-, might explain-ist vs.-iest. In Latin, *-yeH1m > *-yeham >-iam seems likely (with *-m > *-am after *H similar to how syllabic *CH often became aC by labials; each part is present in each case, just in different parts (*m being both labial & syllabic)).

May 16-18, 2026 eA. PU *tarna 'grass', PIE *tŕ̥ no-'grass, straw, thorn'-Called a loan; Holopainen, Sampsa (2019) Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic. However, F. tarna \ taarna should come from PU *tarxna instead. There is no way that could come from Indo-Iranian, but IE cognates do have *-H-. Wiktionary has, "*tŕ̥ no-nominalization of *tr̥ nós 'sharp, stiff' ", which came from *(s)t(e)r(H1)-'stiff'. I say :-PU *tarxna > F. tarna \ taarna 'sedge / Cladium mariscus', Komi turun 'grass, hay'-PIE *tŕ̥ no-, Gmc *þurnaz \-uz 'thorn, briar', Balto-Slavic *tírnas, OCS trŭnŭ, S. tŕ̥ ṇa-m 'grass, blade of grass, straw, herb', Kho. ttarra-'grass', MP tarrag 'wild chive'-*(s)t(e)rno-> OCS strŭnĭ 'stalk, blade', G. térnax 'artichoke' [or *tH1rno-]-*sterH1-> G. στερεός \ stereós, 'firm, solid, rigid, stiff', *stor(H1)o-> Gmc *stara-'stiff'-*streH1-> G. στρηνής \ strēnḗs 'hard, sharp, harsh', L. strēnuus 'brisk, prompt, active; vigorous,

This paper compares two products of the language contact in the history of Spanish: Mozarabic, the hybrid language emerged at the dawn of ibero-romanic languages from the contact between Romanic-Andalusian and Arabic-Andalusian, and Spanglish, the ongoing phenomenon which stems from the contact between American Spanish and American English in the US. Firstly, historical origins and sociocultural conditions in which Mozarabic and Spanglish respectively developed are analysed. Secondly, the two hybrid phenomena are compared from the strictly linguistic point of view. Finally, some predictions about Spanglish's future are considered in the light of the Mozarabic's end.

Among the languages that grammaticalize the apprehensive domain, some use a subordinator like English lest (‘Don’t run, lest you fall’); others have an appre­hensive mood in their verb system (˜‘Don’t run, you might fall!’). The Oceanic languages of north Vanuatu, whose apprehensional strategies are quite diverse, fea­ture both strategies. This study will focus on Mwotlap and its apprehensive mood. This modal marker appears to imply a form of interclausal dependency; yet rather than being due to syntactic subordination, this dependency effect is arguably prag­matic in nature. Indeed, by exposing an event as a risk to be avoided (e.g. ‘you might fall’), the apprehensive clause serves to justify a certain request (‘don’t run’). Sometimes, only the apprehension is made explicit (‘You might fall!’), leading the hearer to reconstruct the intended order. The apprehensive mood thus reflects the grammaticalization of an indirect speech act: one where explicit apprehensions can stand for implicit instructions. The pragmatic effect created by this indirect request is sometimes exploited for politeness strategies, or for its humorous potential.  ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________
Alexandre François. 2026. Explicit apprehensions, implicit instructions: An indirect speech act in the grammar. In Martina Faller, Marine Vuillermet & Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds.), Apprehensional constructions in a crosslinguistic perspective, 423–460. Berlin: Language Science Press.

A. Latin nūbs \ nūbēs 'cloud' seems to come from IE *neubh-s (related to *(s)neu-/ *(s)naHu-/ *(s)neudh-/ *(s)neug^h-, etc. 'wet'). The plural form would be commonly used of clouds, since a lone cloud is more rare, then becoming sng. by joining the ē-stems after plural *-es >-ēs (analogical to pl. *-eyes of i-stems). This allows Sanskrit nābhas f.p 'clouds' to come from the same source. If *neubh-s \ *newbh-s became *neH3bhs by alt. of w \ H3 (https://www.academia.edu/128170887), then it would fit many other examples. There is no difference in meaning between *newbh-and *nebh-, *nembh-, *nem-, etc., all '(rain)cloud / sky / etc.' (G. néphos 'cloud', OCS nebo 'sky', H. nēpis, OI nem 'sky, heaven', L. nimbus 'cloud', MP nam(b) 'moist'). These words show oddities that suggest to me that *nebhis not a good rec. anyway. I assume that *newbh-> *nwebh-, mostly becoming *nebh-but also some *nwebh-> *nmebh-\ *nembh-(mef-, MP nam(b)). The *nw-also might explain *nw-> *nH3-> *dH3-in some. Maybe some other path, like *nw-> *nm-> *db-(& *db-b(h) > *d-b(h)), or a similar sequence. This might be supported by the same group having din '9' (when Khowar nyof suggests *nyewN, likely the same as *H1newn with H1 \ y (https://www.academia.edu/128170887)). Since Latin nūbēs vs. Sanskrit nābhas requires some loss of *w (or an unknown change), it makes sense that *ne(m)bh-also lost *w through a similar process, or turned it to *m. Not all-N-are due to nasal infixes. The loss of *-wand gain of *-m-should be related, considering clear w / m elsehwere. The (irregular) change of *w > m near W / w / u is common in IE (*-went-> S.-vant-/-mant-, L. vehere 'lead/bring/travel', *vehevent-> vehement-). These irregularities are concentrated in *ne(w\m\H)bh-, so a phonological explanation makes more sense than several types of analogy that happened to affect the same word in similar ways in different branches. The alternative of several types of analogy here would look more possible if both BS and Anat. didn't have *n-> *d-, for no apparent reason. There is little reason for *nebhos-to become *nemos-in Celtic under the influence of identical *nem-'bend, bow', etc., as '(holy) grove' just because both it & heaven might be sacred. Less likely still when *nembh-exists, since a sporadic change of *-b(h)->-m-in Old Irish would have nothing to do with them in other IE, or n-> m-, *-w-vs. *-0-\ *-H-, etc.. The specifics of these changes below. For *neHbh-> S. nābh-as p. 'clouds', HLw. tipas-(*e: > i needed, if not from controversial rules that might affect *nebhós-, not seen in cognates, Kloekhorst), *H3 would be expected to color *e > *o, but this could be *w > *H3 after V-coloring ended. If H3 = xW, *xWP > *xP might also work. It is also possible that *nebhH1lo-> G. nephélē 'cloud' is older & requires a root *newbhH1-, *H1newbh-, etc., with some met. of *newbhH1-> *nweH1bh-. Some IE roots with *-(H1)-might come from stative *-(e)H1-being added to some derivatives, but I will go through both versions as they would be if *H1 were original or not. I feel that the version with *H1 is easier to accept, as it requires less metathesis, & some words seem to contain 2 H's. It is also possible that *H1 > *s in *newbhH1-\ *newbhs-> *snewbh-, etc., with many other IE words showing variants with *H vs. *s (https://www.academia.edu/128052798). B1. If from *newbh-*newbh-s > L. nūbs \ nūbēs 'cloud' *neH3bh-s > S. nābh-as f.p. 'clouds', HLw. tipas-*newbh-> *nembh-> L. nimbus 'cloud', MP nam(b) 'moist' (or *nw > *nm 1st) *nwebh-> *nmebh-> L. mefītis 'poisonous gas from swamp/volcano' *nwebh-H1lo-> G. nephélē 'cloud', *nibula-> Dutch nevel 'mist', OSx neßal 'fog, darkness' *nwebhos-> G. néphos 'cloud', S. nábhas-'cloud, fog, mist', OCS nebo 'sky', H. nēpis 'sky/heaven' *nwebhos-> *dH3ebhos-> *debhH3os-> Li. debesìs, Lw. tappaš-'sky, heaven' (if *bH > pp) *nmebhos-> *n(m)emos > OI nem 'sky, heaven' (P-P asm. ?) or? *nwebhos-> *nebhwos-> *nebhmos > OI nem 'sky, heaven' (if Pm > m early ?) B2. If from *newbhH1-, *H1newbh-, etc. *H1newbh-s > L. nūbs \ nūbēs 'cloud' *nweH1bh-s > S. nābh-as f.p. 'clouds', *nH1-> *dH-> HLw. tipas-*H1newbh-> *nembh-> L. nimbus 'cloud', MP nam(b) 'moist' (or *nw > *nm 1st) *nwebhH1-> *nmebh-> L. mefītis 'poisonous gas from swamp/volcano' *nwebhH1-lo-> G. nephélē 'cloud', *nibula-> Dutch nevel 'mist', OSx neßal 'fog, darkness' *nwebhH1os-> G. néphos 'cloud', S. nábhas-'cloud, fog, mist', OCS nebo 'sky', H. nēpis 'sky/heaven' *nwebhH1os-> *dH3ebhH1os-> Li. debesìs, Lw. tappaš-'sky, heaven' (if *bH > pp) *nmebhH1os-> *n(m)emos > OI nem 'sky, heaven' (P-P asm. ?) or? *nwebhH1os-> *nebhwos-> *nebhmos > OI nem 'sky, heaven' (if Pm > m early ?) C. If IE *newbhH1-> *newbhs-> *nwebhs-> PU *nw'eps-\ *mw'eps-, then the same n-vs. m-in 'damp, cloud' would be seen in Uralic. I say *nw'eps-> Finnic *nepsä 'moist, damp', *nepsä-tä-'to get moist, damp; drip, leak, ooze, seep' > *nepstä-> *nestä-, F. neste 'liquid, fluid'. For *-C(C)-tasimplifying, see https://www.academia.edu/166207772 part cO (*wox'e-ta-> *wotta-, etc.).

The type of *H in PIE *dhewH-is disputed. One theory has PIE *dhewH1-, *dhuH1-'smoke / ventilate / blow (on a fire) / cloud / be cloudy/dark', but there are many problems fitting cognates together regularly for any version of *-H-: *dhuH1mn > G. thûma, Lac. sûma 'sacrifice / victim' *dhuH1mó-s > S. dhūmá-, Kalasha thum, Romani thuv, Kusunda d(h)imi, OCS dymŭ, Li. dū́mai p.tan., L. fūmus 'smoke', G. thūmós 'spirit (liveliness/energy)' *-či: > Nišei-alâ dümüč 'fog' One problem was mentioned by Tore Rovs Kristoffersen (https://www.academia.edu/167363870) : > For this development ("laryngeal breaking"), cf. especially Olsen (2009): *-uh₂-, *-ih₂-, *-uh₃-, *-ih₃yields Gk *-ū-, *-ī-when accented, but *-u̯ ā-, *-i̯ ā-, *-u̯ ō-, *-i̯ ōwhen unaccented... The primary counterexample to this sound-change is θῡμός < *dʰuh₂mo-. For this, cf. Kristoffersen (in press): θῡμός (and Lat. fūmus) rather reflects *dʰou̯ (h₂)mo-(= PGmc * dauma-> Far. deymur 'strong smell', MDu. doom 'mist, haze', OHG tuom 'vapor, haze, fume') with regular monophthongization of the diphthong *-ou̯-> Gk *-ῡ-before a labial consonant in Greek. > This involves two disputed changes. The Saussure Effect is stated in various ways (see below), but in its simplest form it describes loss of *H near *o in Greek, and seeks to find regularity in its cause(s). For ex., *bremH1-> bremetḗs 'roar', *brom(H1)taH2-> brontḗ 'thunder'. However, there are many exceptions (https://www.academia.edu/119795308) : *H2meigW-> G. ameíbō '(ex)change', amoibḗ (not *moibḗ) *leipH2-> *H2leiph-> G. aleíphō 'anoint', aloi(m)mós '*oiling > polishing/plastering of walldecoration' *p(y)elH1-> ON felmta 'be frightened / tremble', G. pelemízō 'shake / cause to tremble', ptólemos \ pólemos 'war' *klH3mo-> Old Saxon holm 'hill', *kolH3mon-> L. columen > culmen 'top / ridge of house', G. kolophṓn 'summit'

A. Standard PIE *p(e)is-'crush, grind, pound, hurt' is sometimes rec. *tp(e)is-to account for Greek ptis(s)-. However, it is very similar to *pi(e)sd-'press, squeeze, hurt'. If these were identical, met. *pisd-> *pdis-would be needed. Some say < *(e)pi-s(e)d-'sit on, press down'. I say *(e)pi-sisd-& *sesd-(with reduplication known from other words from *s(e)d-) fits better, & might explain that new *s(s)d would sometimes move the voicelss *s(s) away from *d. This also allows *pdis(s)-> G. ptis(s)-& *pis(e)sd-> G. piezd-, etc. For ev. of this in 'sitting down / seat > butt', see https://www.academia.edu/129105991 with "*p(e)izd-> OPr peisda 'arse', Li. pyzdà, OCS pizda 'vagina', NP pīzī 'arse, anus' ". Note that Dravidian has some interesting matches for all these roots. If related in IE, their similarity makes sense, but why would 2 groups of such separate meaning appear similar in another? It would not be odd if they were both related, so common origin for both would be needed (if not pure chance of a very specific nature, and one of (what would need to be) many if the language families of the world are related but distantly).

ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ:

С.И. АЛАТОРЦЕВ. Процессуальное существительное с предлогом unter в функции обстоятельства сопутствующего действия
В.Д. АТКИН, А.Х. ГИРФАНОВА. Отрицательные формы глагола в удэгейском языке (в сравнении с другими тунгусо-маньчжурскими языками)
Ш.Р. БАСЫРОВ. Немецкие собственно-рефлексивные глаголы
Л.А. БИРЮЛИН. Императивы в акте речи
И.В. БОЙКОВА. Группы однопереходных субстантивных лексем, управляющих при помощи предлога over, в сопоставлении с их русскими эквивалентами
Д.-Э. Й. ВАЛАЙТИТЕ. Предложения с существительным-подлежащим в начальной рематической позиции (на материале современного немецкого языка)
О.Г. ВЕТРОВА. К вопросу о системных отношениях элементов с вокативной семантикой
М.Д. ВОЕЙКОВА. К анализу бытийных ситуаций с элементом качественной характеризации (на материале русского языка)
А.Х. ГИРФАНОВА. Об индикативных формах глагола в удэгейском языке
П. ДЖАМШЕДОВ. Некоторые наблюдения над выражением результативности в отдаленно-родственных языках
В.Н. ДУДАРЕВА. Связи субъектно-объектных глаголов с обстоятельствами в современном немецком языке
С.М. КИБАРДИНА. Валентностная характеристика глагола leben
Ю.П. КНЯЗЕВ. Причастия на -н, -т от непереходных глаголов (в русском и других славянских языках)
В.В. КРАЧИНСКАЯ. Социофункциональная обусловленность лексики – базы реализации идентифицирующих синтаксем
И.А. ЛЕБЕДЕВА. Обобщенное грамматическое значение девербативных конструкций и система функционально-грамматических ориентиров (на материале немецкой научно-технической литературы)
А.А. МАЛЕНКОВ. Объектная релятивная синтаксема в предложениях научно-технических текстов
К. МАМУРОВ. О синтаксической семантике сочетания существительного с предлогом without
К. МАМУРОВ. Сочетания существительного и герундия с предлогом without
Л.Ф. МАЧНЕВА. Сочетания существительного и герундия с предлогом without в предложениях современного английского языка
Е.С. МОРОЗОВА. Безобъектное употребление переходных глаголов в эллиптических конструкциях
А.М. МУХИН. О некоторых функциях формы Past Indefinite в тексте
З.Д. МУХТАРОВ. Вариантность лексем
Н.С. РАХИМОВА. О вариантах казуальной синтаксемы, выраженных предложными сочетаниями в современном английском языке
И.Д. САДОВНИКОВА. Семантика абстрактных существительных, сочетающихся с инфинитивом, в немецком языке
И.Н. СМИРНОВА. О зависимости семантики нелокализованности действия во времени от степени генерализации субъекта (на материале русского языка)
Л.К. ХАКИМОВА. Акциональные значения глаголов процесса и состояния в древневерхненемецком языке
А.Н. ШАМАНАЕВА. К вопросу о лексико-семантических группах древнеанглийских глаголов, управляющих дательным падежом
Л.В. ШАРАПОВА. Латинские заимствования в албанском языке (имя прилагательное)
Т.Н. ЩУГОЛЬ. К вопросу о фразеологических вариантах синтаксем

Contrariamente ao que tem sido proposto por parte da literatura gerativa, que vê a perda das construções com o chamado se-passivo no português brasileiro como resultado do enfraquecimento da concordância dos verbos transitivos, este artigo argumenta com base em dados empíricos de que a perda das construções com se-passivo na história do português brasileiro está crucialmente associada à perda de uma projeção funcional mais alta que T, nomeadamente: FP. Essa é a posição em que o verbo dessas construções estabelece concordância com o argumento interno no português europeu (RAPOSO; URIAGEREKA, 1996). Arrolamos esse achado às mudanças na gramática do português brasileiro desencadeadas pela perda de FP previstas por Pires (2006). Paralelamente, argumentamos que o surgimento das construções com sujeitos nulos indefinidos de 3ª pessoa singular, como em "Vende casas", também não está associada à perda da concordância nos verbos transitivos e ao desuso do clítico se (passivo ou impessoal), como se tem tentativamente argumentado, mas, sim, à perda do traço-D de T, o que permitiu o português brasileiro-assim como outras línguas de sujeito nulo parciallicenciar sujeitos nulos indefinidos de 3ª pessoa singular.

This article discusses two processes common to natural languages, namely, variation and change, from generative linguistic framework, which conceives the capacity of the human species to acquire languages ​​as a genetic endowment. More specifically, this article provides a generative analysis of the theoretical assumptions involved in the concepts of variation and change, presenting the treatment and development of these concepts and parallel concepts in two stages of generative frameworks: the Principles & Parameters theory and the Minimalist Program. Against theoretical models that defend the possibility of irregular linguistic transmission and a certain gradualness in the process of syntactic change, the arguments of this work are much more completely in harmony with a view of discontinuity for the process of syntactic change than those which conceive an imperfect language acquisition for explaining syntactic change.

Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) are elements or expressions that typically survive in negative or other specific environments, namely non-veridical contexts (cf. Giannakidou 1998, 1999; Zeijlstra 2022). Although NPIs are attested in all languages (Giannakidou 2011: 1661; Zeijlstra 2022: 17), Coptic (an Afro- Asiatic language) NPIs have largely “slipped through the cracks,” remaining under-researched even within descriptive Coptic grammars.
This talk aims to provide an overview of NPIs in Coptic and their diachronic development, based on a study of a diverse corpus of over 800,000 words, spanning various genres from the fourth to the tenth century CE.

Yukaghir shows *l > *n in :
Yr. *solqə- / *sölkə- 'stiff; get hard, numb', *solx-čə- > *sončə- 'get numb'
Since Yr. *q came from PU *x (in ex. of proposed Uralic cognates), this would be ev. for *lC > *nC
except for C = fricative. Other ex. of lC > nC at appear at every level when compared to PU (so valid
even if loans) :
PU *pol-ta ‘to burn (transitive)’, Yr. *pentə-
Tungusic *ńure, PU *ńëCle, Yr. *nol- 'arrow' (only in *nol-d-awjV > non-d-awje)
PU *elä- 'live, dwell, stay; *be', Yr. *elc'- > *enc'- 'live' (note that PU *elä- also has many cognates
with suffixed -C-)
Also, if Yr. *solqə- / *sölkə- 'get stiff, numb' is cognate with PU *śure- ‘to die, go numb, wither', some
*r > *l. I say that that PIE *sterH1- 'stiff, numb', *sterH1-bh- > *stH1erbh- 'stiff, dead, etc.' are related,
with *H > *R causing *rR > *lR > *lq. In support, all these happen in :
PIE *doH3- 'give' > PU *toxe 'bring', Yr. *tax-ta- > *taRt- > *tant- 'give'

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 109: 'sparrow, starling' PIE *spH2ar(H2)(g)w(y)o-?? > IE *spH2arwo-> Gmc. *sparwa(n)-'sparrow', TB ṣparā-yäkre 'sparrow-hawk?' IE *spraH2wó-> Ct. *sprawa: 'crow' IE *sprayH2wo-> Dutch spreeuw 'starling' IE *pH2arH2s(w)o-> Mac. paraós 'eagle', Umbrian parfa 'sea-eagle?', L. parra 'a bird of ill omen, ?' IE *psH2ar-> G. ψάρ, Ion. ψήρ 'starling', MHG sperilig IE *spH2arH2gyo-? > Hsx. (Mac.?) σπαράσιον \ sparásion a. IE *sp(e)rg(H2)o-> OHG sperk, G. (σ)πέργουλος, σποργίλος \ sporgílos, Σποργίλος, OPr spurglis, spergla-wanag[is ?] There is no known way to reconcile these. However, some say *dorusdo-'tree-sitting > perching' > variants *trusdo-\ *drusdo-\ *stroz(u)do-'thrush'. If so, the resemblance of these to *sprH2go-'branch, shoot' makes it likely that *sp(e)rH2g-H2wi(yo)-'perching bird' existed. Clearly, the fact that this compound has H2-H2 matching the H2-H2 needed in, say, sparásio-& paraós, is significant. In fact, every part of this is found in all or some.

This article explores the indigenization of English in Pakistan in Kanza Javed's English novel 'Ashes, Wine and Dust'. This exploratory and interpretative research employed a close reading of the novel to analyse lexical borrowing in Pakistani English, utilising a note-taking technique to identify incorporated Urdu words, examining linguistic features such as semantic fields. The analysis following established frameworks that focus on lexical borrowing and variation as reflections of socio-linguistic practices. The research aimed to explore two key questions regarding lexical variation in this novel. First, the study examined how Javed incorporates various lexical borrowing in her novel. These include words related to food, living styles, clothing, forms of address and titles, religious terms, Indo-Pak history, traditional wedding events, ethnic identity, languages representing cultural identity, and places symbolizing cultural heritage. Each of these categories reflects the rich cultural and historical

Morphological productivity is explained as the capability of a specific word formation process in producing the highest distinct word forms. Moreover, it refers to the availability of that process in the language and to make new words continuously. So, comparing the three processes [derivation, compounding, and conversion] established upon a dictionarybased corpus is seen as need for the linguistic domain analysis in general and morphological field in particular. Thus, this paper aims at investigating about the

eA. PU *tarna 'grass', PIE *tŕ̥ no-'grass, straw, thorn'-Called a loan; Holopainen, Sampsa (2019) Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic. However, F. tarna \ taarna should come from PU *tarxna instead. There is no way that could come from Indo-Iranian, but IE cognates do have *-H-. Wiktionary has, "*tŕ̥ no-nominalization of *tr̥ nós 'sharp, stiff' ", which came from *(s)t(e)r(H1)-'stiff'. I say :-PU *tarxna > F. tarna \ taarna 'sedge / Cladium mariscus', Komi turun 'grass, hay'-PIE *tŕ̥ no-, Gmc *þurnaz \-uz 'thorn, briar', Balto-Slavic *tírnas, OCS trŭnŭ, S. tŕ̥ ṇa-m 'grass, blade of grass, straw, herb', Kho. ttarra-'grass', MP tarrag 'wild chive'-*(s)t(e)rno-> OCS strŭnĭ 'stalk, blade', G. térnax 'artichoke' [or *tH1rno-]-*sterH1-> G. στερεός \ stereós, 'firm, solid, rigid, stiff', *stor(H1)o-> Gmc *stara-'stiff'-*streH1-> G. στρηνής \ strēnḗs 'hard, sharp, harsh', L. strēnuus 'brisk, prompt, active; vigorous,

This thesis examines the semantics and textual functions of the Russian converb (deeprichastie) in texts from the second half of the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, framed as a contribution to the history of the modern syntactic norm. Combining synchronic and diachronic perspectives, the study investigates the internal linguistic mechanisms that generate anomalous — that is, norm-violating — converb constructions, situating these deviations within the grammatical categories of taxis and subject.
The first chapter surveys the history of the converb norm in Russian syntactic scholarship from Lomonosov through twentieth-century descriptive and explanatory grammars, tracing how the co-reference constraint — the requirement that the converb's subject be coreferential with the nominative subject of the main clause — was progressively formulated, contested, and refined. The second chapter analyses the interaction between the converb and the category of taxis, focusing on constructions in which the requirement of a unified temporal period is violated: cases drawn primarily from historical narrative (Karamzin) and biblical texts in which spatially or temporally distant events are linked through converb constructions, functioning as a kind of narrative montage. The third chapter examines the category of subject, addressing the conditions under which the converb may legitimately relate to an inanimate subject, a subject in an oblique case, or an implicit modus subject (the first-person speaker). It is argued that co-reference with a modus subject — rather than with the nominative subject — accounts for the largest share of norm violations in both historical and contemporary texts, and that such violations reflect a semantically motivated pattern rather than simple error. The fourth chapter analyses converb functions across specific text types — historical discourse, literary prose, poetry (including Eugene Onegin), classified advertisements, and travel writing — showing how genre conditions the range of permissible converb constructions.
The study draws on data from the Russian National Corpus and concludes that converb anomalies are not arbitrary but systematically conditioned by the interaction of temporal, subjective, and textual factors, making them diagnostically valuable for understanding the grammar of the form.

This study investigates the acquisition of the Russian converb (deeprichastie) in the ontolinguistic perspective, examining how children and adolescents develop command of this exclusively book-written grammatical form across the full period of schooling. Drawing on a corpus of written texts — compositions and retellings — produced by pupils from grade two through grade eleven, the study traces both the gradual increase in converb use and the qualitative shift in the semantic types employed. Early converb constructions are predominantly taxis-based, encoding temporal and causal relations between two predicates. By grade five, interpretive constructions emerge, in which the converb does not denote a second situation but instead frames or evaluates the main predicate — a structure the study links to the development of abstract thinking in the sense of Vygotsky's "algebra of speech." Metatextual converb constructions, typical of argumentative writing in senior grades, appear latest of all. The study then analyses anomalous constructions, focusing on violations of the co-reference constraint — the rule requiring the converb's subject to be coreferential with the nominative subject of the main clause. It argues that the majority of such errors reflect the ellipsis of the first-person modus subject, a pattern rooted in spontaneous oral speech and inner speech, where egocentric elements are systematically omitted. The findings suggest that the converb functions as a sensitive indicator of written language development, tracking the child's growing capacity to construct semantic hierarchies, maintain addressee perspective, and integrate multi-planar syntactic structures into linear written discourse.

Francis-Ratte said that Old Japanese kedamono \ kemono 'beast' is from *kay-(nǝ-)mono 'hairy-one', with *n-m > d-m (or other sporadic change). This is completely pointless based on his own etymology for OJ ke, MJ ké 'hair' related to MK kǎlkí 'mane'. If Altaic : OJ ke, MJ ké, Turkic *kɨl(k) 'hair', MK kǎlkí 'mane', Mongolic *kilga-su(n) 'horse's hair, tail hair' which require *kVlKV (maybe *kVlxV if the k vs. 0 in JK is similar to Francis-Ratte's *x). If so, JK *kalx > PJ *karx > *kayx > ke, PK *karx > *kark-i (diminutive). With this, *kayx-nǝ-mono > *kaydǝmono > kedamono shows that *xn > *ɣn > *ɣd > d (or similar).

A. PIE *bherH1-\ *bhH1er-instead of traditional *bher-is seen in several words, like : *bhrH1o-> Gmc *bura-> Gothic baur 'son' *bherH1-tro-m > S. bharítra-m 'arm', L. ferculum 'bier / litter', G. phéretron, *bhH1er-tro-m > phértron *bh(o)rH1-taH2-> *phortha: > L. forda 'pregnant' The range of meaning is broad, as seen in IE : *bhH1orno-'child' *bhorH1on-> OHG baro 'man, husband' *bhrH1no-> Albanian burrë 'man, husband' I also say : Persephónē < *Perse-phórnā 'corn girl', PIE *bhorno-'child' https://www.academia.edu/128676692/Etymology_of_Persephónē *bhrH1o-'son'-> *bhrH1-H2rter-> *bhrH2ter-'brother' This *bhH1-> *b(y)-might allow better rec. for Semitic : *bar-'(young) child, boy, young man, son, daughter' > *b(y)a\ur-*bin-'son, brother, person' > *byurn-https://www.academia.edu/167196649/Notes_on_Proto_Semitic_bin_bir_bar_son_Draft_ B. Names of family members with *-H2ter-should be rec. from r-r dsm. of *H2r-ter-'member (of a group)', *H2ar-'join, fix, etc.', *H2aryo-'community'. I say : *bhrH1o-'son'-> *bhrH1e-H2rter-> *bhrH2ter-'brother' *poti-'husband, master'-> *pti-H2rter-> *pH2(i)ter-'father' (opt.-i-in Avestan; surely not an Indic loan) *mH2arti-'maiden, bride (> wife)'-> *mH2arti-H2rter-> *mH2a(i)H2ter-'mother' *dhugh-iH2-'girl'-> *dhughiH2-H2rter-> *dhughH1Hter-'daughter' For *dhugh-'milk' > 'nursing child > girl', see *dheH-'milk' & its derivatives. The opt.-i-in 'father' also caused *ghi > *gh \ *g^h (https://www.academia.edu/127351053). The path, if H2 = x, H1 = x^, was *iH2H2 > *ixx > *x^x (*Kx^ > *K^x was opt.). C. If the pair S. Yádu-& Turváśa-/ Turvá-have a connection witih 'twin', related to yād-'join?/embrace?', yā́ dura-'joining?/merging?', in the same way that S. Yama-'twin of Manus', yamá-'twin' << yámati \ yácchati 'hold (up) / support / stretch out / fix / be firm', yantrá-'bond/restraint' (https://www.academia.edu/167016618/Indo_European_Myth_The_Divine_Twins_Horse_Brothers_D raft_), then *yedu-could form *iduno-'twin' > 'Ymir the giant, a giant' > Germanic *itunaz 'giant'. Gmc. variants for 'slug, maggot' might come from 'joined > attached > clinging > sticky'.

Germanic *hnuts f. 'nut', Latin nux f. 'nut, a fruit with a hard shell or rind', Celtic *knūs f. 'nut' Latin naucum 'nutshell; a trifle', naugae \ nūgae f.p.tan 'jokes, jests; trifles' In Latin, alt. of c \ g points to *n(a)ug-, with nom. *n(a)uk-s occasionally spreading *k. Likely < *nH2(a)ug-or *naH2ug-. Germanic *hnuts could be < *knug-with K-K > K-T dsm. Celtic *knūs could be < *knūks < *knuHg-s with K-K > K-0 dsm. Though *kn-> n-in Latin, K-K > 0-K dsm. is also possible. These establish IE *knuH2g-, *kneH2ug-> *knaH2ug-, etc. (or *k^, *g^, etc.). Is the meaning 'fruit with a hard shell' older? Reasonably, this or a nut could be named from 'hard' or 'shell'. With few fitting roots, I say that *kH2am-'bend, arch, cover' (also *kH2am-\ *kamH2ar(t)o-'arched, domed, shell(ed) > tortoise, lobster') formed *kH2(a)mnu-'covering, shell', then *kH2(a)mnu-g^H1-s > *kH2mnuHg^-'shelled fruit, nut'. The 2nd from *g^e(i)H1-'bloom, blossom, sprout, germinate', rel. *g^embh-'bud, berry; germinate', etc. Adjectives often have-e-vs.-0-, so this could explain nuc-vs. nauc-. The changes to initial *km-vs. *kmn-, etc., could be dsm. (just as *H-H > *H-0 \ *0-H here). It is also possible that *kH2(a)mno-> *kH2(a)mn-g^H1-s > *kH2(a)un-g^H1-s by nasal dsm., with the other details the same.

These two papers (NABU 2026/1 08-09) examine the possibility that /ř/ was originally a post-alveolar or spectrally similar affricate, roughly [ʧ] and that /r/ had a voiceless allophone at least after obstruents. Since a non-sibilant fricative is a preferred realization of voiceless allophone of the rhotic consonant, in some contexts /ř/ and /r/ might have been pronounced similarly to each other.

May 4-14, 2026 dA. Irina Nikolaeva compared Yr. *onučə to PU *oňča : > 1685. *onučə T onuče quillback fish (Cyprinus labeo) U *oncV 'nelma (Coregonus Njelma) (UEW 339) >-This fish is now classed as Hemibarbus labeo. If so, it would be quite a match, but the exact PU rec. is unclear (*oňča, *aňča, *aŋča, *jëŋča have been made, & some seem to apply to only one branch). The simple way to reconcile *ňč with *ŋč is older *nkč, & *onučə then implies *onukča. The *jvs. *0would work if *onukčja > *onkčja \ *jonkča. Some of the V-alt. is seen before (PU *joŋtse \ *jëŋtse 'bow', etc.), but not with *a.-PIE words that contain o vs. a, like *(H)o\anuK-, are already known within Uralic (though said to be loans) :-*H2ankulo-s > OHG angul 'fish hook, sting' *H2ankato-s > OI écath 'fish hook', OCS ǫkotь 'hook' *H2onko-s > Latin uncus 'hook, barb', Greek ὄγκος \ ónkos 'bend, curve, angle; barb, grapple, hook', Sanskrit aṅka-'hook', FP *oŋke '(fish)hook, fishing pole'-Since 'fish _' is so common in PU, it is easy to think that IE > PU *onku-\ *anku-'fishing pole' formed *o\anku-ta-'to fish' > *o\anukta-(for similar changes when-ta-was added, see cN, cO). This would also match IE *skwalo-> PU *kwalë 'fish'-> *kwal-(t)a-'to fish' > *kul-\ *kal-ta-, etc.-If PU derived nouns from verbs with *-j-(as IE *-yo-s), then it could be :-*H2anku-s \ *H2onku-s 'hook' > PU *onku-\ *anku-''(fish)hook, fishing pole'-> *o\anku-ta-'to fish' > *o\anukta-> *o\anuktja 'a game fish' > *o\anukčja \ etc.

A. Proto-Semitic *bin-'son' vs. *byurn-, flawed method of standard reconstruction Robert Cerantonio's idea that Afroasiatic is the source of IE ( ) has led to some good speculation, but I can't agree with many details. I've talked to RC about standard Proto-Semitic really being too bad for any detailed applications : It's more a problem of method than any one rec., but I could go on. The same site has Proto-Semitic *bin-'son', but I say *byurn-is needed ( single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fsemet&text_number=9&root=config ) for *yu > u: \ i:, *rn > r \ n, etc. If I'm right after looking at the data for a few minutes, how would this compare to a rec. made by experts that has lasted 100 years? It is clealry only *bin-because it matches a few languages important through history, but surely can't explain all data. Proto-Semitic is supposed to be the BEST rec. branch of Hamito-Semitic, so how can you convince me that any present rec. is good enough to show whether it's the source of IE?

Dear all, please find attached the programme of the international workshop “Thinking Indo-European: Meaning and Form in Historical Linguistics and Comparative Reconstruction” which will take place on May 19-21, 2026, at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan.
Download the Book of abstracts here: https://www.academia.edu/165917788/
Online participants will receive a Microsoft Teams link.
Organizing Committee: Erica Fratellini, Riccardo Ginevra, Eleonora Litta.

Dear all, please find attached the poster of the international workshop “Thinking Indo-European: Meaning and Form in Historical Linguistics and Comparative Reconstruction” which will take place on May 19-21, 2026, at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan.
Download the Book of abstracts here: https://www.academia.edu/165917788/
Online participants will receive a Microsoft Teams link.
Organizing Committee: Erica Fratellini, Riccardo Ginevra, Eleonora Litta.

There are several unsolved problems about the oldest form of Old Japanese karasu, Proto-Ryukyuan *gara(su(ya)) 'crow' (Tokunoshima gárà, Kikai garasā, Okinawan gàràsì), etc. Starostin related it to Turkic *karga 'crow', Mongolic *kerije 'crow, raven', Tungusic *kori 'a mythical bird (mediator)' : > Proto-Japanese: *kara-su crow Old Japanese: karasu Middle Japanese: kàrásu Tokyo: kàrasu Kyoto: kàràsù Kagoshima: karásu Comments: JLTT 439. Accent relations are quite unclear. ... Turkic *Karga crow Azerbaidzhan: Garɣa Turkmen: GarGa Khakassian: xarɣa Shor: qarɣa Karakalpak: qarɣa, ɣarɣa > It seems that the problem with k-vs. gin karasu, *gara(su(ya)) is reflected in Turkic. The Karakalpak qarɣa \ ɣarɣa shows assimilation of k-g > g-g (also in Tc. *kobga 'pail, bucket' > qawɣa \ ɣawɣa, etc.). That OJ karasu was once *karga \ *garga seems to provide an irrefutable link. In both, there was optional k-g > g-g, with the *-g-later lost in Ry., hiding its cause. That *rg might > *rɣ > *r in PJ has no counterevidence (since all voiced sounds in PJ are so closely associated with Altaic, I doubt that traditional linguists would ever rec. this in the 1st place).

Constantine of Preslav’s Učitel’noe evangelie was written at the end of the ninth century but came down to us in only four full, much later, copies from the twelfth (the single East Slavonic manuscript [S]) to the fourteenth century (the other three South Slavonic manuscripts [G, H, W]). Copies are both scarce and distant in time and place as well as different in script from their lost (Glagolitic) protograph, with the result that scribal errors are inevitable, yet not always noted. The article proposes three methodological approaches to reconstruct some of the lexemes distorted by the manuscript tradition, even in passages without an attested Greek source text. The first approach relies on variant readings in situations that lack a Greek parallel. In cases that lack variant readings, the second method is applied, which considers references and allusions to Biblical or patristic texts to elucidate the meaning behind sometimes incomprehensible phrases. The third approach counts on the very meaning of the respective portion of text (i.e., the direct context of a word) and the rhetorical techniques used in it.

Many Austronesian languages display categorial ambiguity and unexpected pat-
terning across major word classes that are oſten more strictly delineated in other
language families. The Austronesian family comprises over 1,200 languages spo-
ken across Maritime Southeast Asia and the Pacific, from Madagascar in the west
to Polynesia in the east. Various languages within this family, specifically the
western Austronesian languages known as Philippine-type and the Polynesian lan-
guages, are well known for their lack of clear morphological distinctions between
canonical lexical categories (see Starosta, Pawley, and Reid 1982; Himmelmann
1991; 2005; Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992; Broschart 1997; Vonen 1997; Mosel
2023). This morphological ambiguity could be interpreted as null conversion or
inherent precategoriality, and has consequently generated significant debate in the
literature (e.g. Gil 1994; Kaufman 2009a; Ross 2009; Foley 2014; Chen 2017).

This chapter is structured as follows: Section 14.2 reviews four types of cate-
gorial ambiguity (noun–verb, verb–adjective, verb–adverb, and adjective–noun).
Sections 14.3 and 14.4 overview such ambiguity in Tagalog and several Indonesian
languages, and discuss variation in categorial ambiguity in Austronesian. Section
14.5 discusses how these patterns of ambiguity may be understood as conversion
from a broader typological perspective and outlines diachronic approaches to the
ambiguity and issues for further research. Unless otherwise specified, the data
come from fieldwork on Tagalog, Hiligaynon, and Puyuma.

The present work describes and analyzes all the possible segmental sequences within the Mazatec languages at the level of the syllable. The basic template is CV, although in native words a complex onset of fricative and plosive is possible (consonant clusters of [+continuant][-continuant] segments). This simple syllabic structure is maintained despite a high level of laryngeal complexity, realized as secondary features. It is this analysis that determines to a large degree the possible syllabic structures of these systems. This research is based on a large corpus and linguistic documentation resulting from the Nanginá Project. We depart from the proposal that the Mazatec linguistic group consists of 10 languages, or intelligible zones, and 20 linguistic variants. This dialect proposal is illustrated with a large number of examples

В рецензии рассматривается монография А. В. Белякова – Симеон Бекбулатович: пример адаптации выходцев с Востока в России XVI в. СПб.: Нестор-История, 2022, посвященная просопографическому исследованию уникальной фигуры позднесредневековой Руси Симеона Бекбулатовича (Саин-Булата). Авторы рецензии подчеркивают, что работа восполняет долговременную лакуну в историографии и отличается новаторским подходом: сочетание анализа скудных письменных источников, данных археологии и вещественных памятников позволило визуализировать статус и степень интеграции Симеона в русскую аристократию. Подробно освещается структура монографии: от деконструкции мифов о происхождении Саин-Булата и статуса Касимовского «царства» как специфического пожизненного кормления до интерпретации «посажения» на московское правление, обстоятельств опалы, пострига и ссылки. Отмечен вклад автора в пересмотр ряда устоявшихся сюжетов (ослепление, условия содержания в монастыре).

In many myths, the (gods of) Sun and Moon are related, siblings, spouses or both. Many stories about them seem to be attempts at explaining why they are separated (one during the day, the other mainly seen at night). These stories give human features and desires to aspects of nature, assuming that the movement of stars is deliberate on their part, as they go about their human-like lives.  It is important not to read too much into the culture of the past from their actions in these explanatory myths. When the son of the Earth and the Sky bloodily cut them apart, he wasn’t a model of men in a Pre-Greek culture.  The Sun and Moon are also sometimes seen as siblings, often man and woman, though this varies. Males twins were popular in America, & the Mayan Hero Twins.  The Indo-European Divine Twins were men (sometimes with one shared wife, who might be the same as the Dawn) and might represent the sun and moon. They were widely worshipped but often nameless, & are known to have some connection to the morning- and evening-star (both Venus), and were often described with sky-imagery (having a flying chariot, likely the one that pulled the sun and/or moon in other Indo-European myths ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaethon )). They were often part horse, or able to become horses; one knowing medicine and the other boxing/wrestling; one immortal, the other mortal (and dying, and/or restored to (partial or recurring) life when the other shared his immortality, born at the same time but of 2 different fathers, etc.). This assumes the one with recurring life was like the changing moon, disappearing and then reborn, with love reuniting them in the sky instead of dividing them by day and night.

This article examines the intricate relationship between morphological complexity and cultural context in the family of Turkish languages, highlighting how agglutinative structures shape textual complexity, communicative efficiency, and sociolinguistic identity. Drawing on theoretical and empirical research, the study analyzes how sequential morpheme addition, vowel harmony, and derivational processes encode layered semantic and cultural information, simultaneously enriching expressive capacity and increasing cognitive processing demands. The discussion extends to receptive multilingualism, illustrating how structural similarities and shared cultural narratives facilitate mutual intelligibility between closely related languages such as Turkish and Azerbaijani. Furthermore, the paper explores morphological innovations in Turkish literary modernity, demonstrating how contemporary authors leverage agglutinative flexibility to articulate complex social and existential themes. From a pedagogical perspective, the study emphasizes the critical role of morphological awareness in literacy development and advocates for culturally responsive teaching strategies that integrate word-formation analysis with culturally contextualized texts. The findings underscore that effective comprehension and instruction of Turkish languages require a holistic approach bridging linguistic structure, cultural meaning, and cognitive processing. Future research directions include longitudinal studies on morphological pedagogy and cross-linguistic cognitive processing among diverse learners.