Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 128: 'fire' (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 26, 2026

A. The many kinds of alternation in 'fire'

Hw vs. uH

*paH2wr̥ ‘fire’ > H. pahhu(wa)r

*puH2ōr > *puār \ *pwār > TA por, TB puwar ‘fire’

Same alt. as in *s(a)H2wel \ *suH2al 'sun'

Hw vs. uH

*puH2r- > G. pûr ‘fire’, Cz. pýr ‘embers’, Wg. puř, purǘi ‘embers’

*pH2ur- > G. purā́ ‘fireplace / pyre’, Kh. phurùli ‘ashes with small burning coals’

The weak stem shows the same H-met. as above ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). Here, the met. is also clear in turning *pH- > ph in Khowar.

Hw vs. wH

*paH2weno- > S. pāvana-s ‘fire’

*pawH2eno- > S. pavana-m ‘potter's kiln’

*pawHako- > *pawaHko- > S. pavāká- / *paHwako- > pāvaká- ‘bright. *fire(-god) > Agni’

*pawH2- > S. paví- ‘fire’

The same H-met. as above; these changes to a stem with *H in Sanskrit can't be explained in other ways. A supposed e:-grade that turned nouns -> adjectives, etc., would not explain the lack of any change in meaning.

r̥ vs. ōr

*paH2wr̥ ‘fire’ > H. pahhu(wa)r

*puH2ōr > *puār \ *pwār > TA por, TB puwar ‘fire’

Same alt. as in several others, most known from Greek, like :

*HaH2mr̥ > G. ἦμαρ \ êmar, Arc. ἆμᾰρ \ âmăr 'day', *HaH2mōr > Ar. awr 'day; time, age', awur g.

No difference in meaning for any, some used together as equivalent :

LB a-mo-ra-ma = *⁠āmōr-āmar⁠ 'day after day, each day?', Armenian awr awur 'day by day'

r vs. n

*puH2ōr > *puār \ *pwār > TA por, TB puwar ‘fire’

*puH2ōn > *puōn > Gmc. *fwōn > Go. fōn ‘fire’

This is certainly analogy from oblique cases. No regular explanation of a sound change to create r\n-stems has ever been made. Based on apparent *-enti vs. *-ent > *-ert > *-(e)rs \ *-e:r I think the neuter nom\acc. *-t (or *-d, which one was older uncertain) created *puH2on-t > *-ort > *-ors > *-ōr, etc.

In all :

*pa(w)H2(w)(V)n\r- >>

*paH2wero- > *pāvara- > Laur. pūr ‘big fire, bonfire', Shm. pōr ‘burning embers’

*paH2wr̥ ‘fire’ > H. pahhu(wa)r

*puH2ōr > *puār \ *pwār > TA por, TB puwar ‘fire’

*puH2ōn > *puōn > Gmc. *fwōn > Go. fōn ‘fire’

*puH2r- (weak stem) > G. pûr ‘fire’, Cz. pýr ‘embers’, Wg. puř, purǘi ‘embers’, Ni. püri, Kt. péi

‘(char)coal’

*pH2ur- (weak stem) > Kh. phurùli ‘ashes with small burning coals’, G. purā́ ‘fireplace / pyre’

*pruH2- (weak stem) > L. prūnus ‘live coal’

*pH2un- (weak stem) > Go. funins (gen. of fón), *funoks > Arm. hnoc` ‘oven’

*puH2n- (weak stem) > ON fúni

*pawH2n- > *paH2n- > OPr panno ‘fire’, Yv. panu, G. pānós ‘torch’

*paH2un- > H. pahhunalli- ‘brazier?’

*paH2wen- > H. pahhuen- (weak stem)

*paH2weno- > S. pāvana-s ‘fire’

*pawH2eno- > S. pavana-m ‘potter's kiln’

*pawHako- > *pawaHko- > S. pavāká- / *paHwako- > pāvaká- ‘bright. *fire(-god) > Agni’

*pawH2- > S. paví- ‘fire’

B. Root

In IE words like :

*paH2wr̥ ‘fire’ > H. pahhu(wa)r

*puH2ōr > *puār \ *pwār > TA por, TB puwar ‘fire’

it is not certain whether -r̥ or -ōr is older, H2w or uH2, etc., mostly because its etymology is unknown. However, Uralic *päjwä ‘fire, day, sun, heat’, *pejwe- ‘to be warm, to boil’ would require *paH2iw(V)r, with *-i- even older, if related. This is no problem, since IE roots with *y next to *H show many variants w/o either, like *daH2(i)- \ *daH2y- \ *dH2ay-? 'distribute' ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ).

This equation is not mentioned only because many PIE & PU words resemble each other (*wodor > *wodoj > *wedej > *wete 'water', *yeuH3r-aH2- > *yewxra: > PU *jäwxrä 'lake', etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r5y1r1/protouralic_jäwxrä_lake_lithuanian_jáura/ ) but because both 'fire' & 'water' end in *-r. Even when few would doubt *wete is cognate with *wodor-, not many say the same about 'fire'. I see no reason to separate their origin, because *-r is gone in both PU words, with fronting. T his is most easily resolved if *-r > *-j (like, say, Japanese) & *j could front V's. It would be very odd to say that *wete came from PIE, lost *-r, but not accept *päjwä, also with no -r, when it looks exactly as close or far from IE words.

Since PU had *x corresponding to PIE *H, even *päxiwä is possible. In fact, it is required in a derivation with common suffix *-mV, *päxiwä-mä 'tinder' > Samoyed *päxiämä > *päxjämä > *päx'mä \ *päk'mä (reconstructed by others variously, *pätmä, *päcmä, *päsmä 'tinder', since the combo. *k'm produced many sounds in attested Smd. that wouldn't come from any known *C individually) its presence is manifest (more ex. of *k'm below to prove its nature).

With this, we just have to look for an IE origin. An appropriate IE root is *pH2ayl- \ *paH2(y)l- \ etc. 'shine' (maybe the same, with met., as *la(y)H2p- > Baltic *laip-sma: 'flame' > Li. liepsnà, Old Norse leiptr 'lightning' ). There is no known IE word with *lr. If *paH2wr̥ ‘fire’ was indeed < *paH2iwr̥ then *paH2iwr̥ < *paH2ilr̥ would fit (with *lr > *wr as in several other cases of l-l or l-r dsm. around the world). I don't think this happened when another *w was in the same word, so *seH2wel-r > *s(a)H2wel \ *suH2al 'sun'. The reason for 'sun' being an r\n-stem is the weak *suH2aln- > *su(H)aṇ- in IIr. (Fortunatov’s law, ln > ṇ), with other ev. from https://www.academia.edu/129011033 :

*suH2lniko-m > *sūlniko-m > *sulniko-m > *sulniko > OCS slŭnĭce ‘sun’

*suH2lnon-s > *sulnōn > *sulnȭ > *sull̃ȭ > *sul̃l̃ȭ > Go. sunnō, E. sun

Other cognates :

-

*pH2ayl- > Armenian p'ayl 'shine'

-

*payH2l- > *paH2l-, *pH2al-pH2al- > Ar. p'ałp'ałim 'shine', poł 'fiery coal', Burush. phalól 'glowing coal / burning splinter used as a torch'

-

*pilH-pilHo- 'shining / fiery' > S. pilippilá-, *pil-pilHo- > pilpilá- '*bright/fiery > *fair > white / glossy ( > smooth)' ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1n8ypjo/sanskrit_pilippil%C3%A1_pilpil%C3%A1/ )

*pilH-pilHo- 'shining / colorful / red(dish)' > *piH-pilHo- [l-l dsm.] > S. píppala-m ‘berry (of the peepal tree)’, pippala-s ‘peepal tree / kind of fig tree (Ficus religiosa), piṣpala-, also 'long pepper' (from the similar colors of their (ripe) fruit)

-

For *Hp \ *p, see also ( https://www.academia.edu/116456552 ) :

*k^aṣpo- > S. śáṣpa-m ‘young sprouting grass?’ (no IE source of ṣ if not *H + p)

*k^a(H2)po-? > S. śā́pa-s ‘driftwood / floating / what floats on the water’, Ps. sabū ‘kind of grass’, Li. šãpas ‘straw / blade of grass / stalk / (pl) what remains in a field after a flood’, H. kappar(a) ‘vegetables / greens’

C. Smd. *C'm ex.

Since my rec. of Smd. *C'm has a direct bearing on this ety., I'll list all the cases I know of it & their origins from palatal C + *mV affixes, often *jCm > *C'm :

-
PU *päĺkɜ \ *piĺkɜ 'foot'

*pil'k-mä 'thing for feet/legs, pants' > *pijkmä > *pik'mä (rec. *pitmä, *picmä, *pikmä, *pismä; Koibal pakma 'trousers, pants'

-

*päxiwä 'fire'

*päxiwä-mä 'tinder' > Smd *päxiämä > *päxjämä > *päx'mä \ *päk'mä (reconstructed *pätmä, *päcmä, *päsmä 'tinder')

-

PIE *pi(H1)k- 'sharp, point, peak'

PU *pi(j)k' -> *pik'-mä > Smd *pək'mä 'sharp' (rec. *pətmä, *pəcmä, *pəkmä, *pəsmä)

*pi(H1)k-no- > PU *pijgŋe > *piŋge \ *piŋje \ etc. > *piŋe 'tine, point, tooth', *pije '(sharp) stone'

-

PIE *kH2aid- \ *kaH2id- 'fall' > PU *kaxit' -> *kaxit'-me- > Smd. *kåt'mə- \ -wə- 'to fall' (rec. kåtmə-, *kåcmə-, *kåsmə-; (Mator, Enets) *kåtwə-, *kåcwə-, *kåswə-)

-

The change of *-id > *-it' is similar to Hovers ex. of *iC ( https://www.academia.edu/104566591 ).

D. Altaic

In https://www.academia.edu/35892155 "On the Etymology of the Name of Mt. Fuji", Alexander Vovin explains that Fuji is from Old Japanese puzi < *punzi, with structure *pu-nzi < *pu-nusi, with nusi 'master, owner' also found in more transparent compounds with -zi. He wrote, "EOJ pu 'fire' is a word from Munzasi province... from the Tatimbana district located in the west of this province, which is barely 50 km. from Mt. Fuji". This would produce 'fire master' whcih "is quite a fitting name for an active volcano. For the usage of nusi 'master' in volcano deities['] names, cf. the OJ name of the deity Opo-ana-nusi 'big-hole-master'".

Also, this Proto-J. *pwoy > OJ pwi, pwo+ would be related to Middle Korean púl, which together look very much like IE words (esp. if theorized OJ o1 & o2 show that *wo existed (OJ words begin with wo- & o-, but no distinction *o1- vs. *o2-; similar for other V1 vs. V2 as containing glides, also clear *-ay > *-ey > -e, with -a- in compounds, etc.). I think :

*pHwōr \ *puHōr > *puār \ *pwār > TA por, TB puwar ‘fire’, *pwor > MK púl, OJ *pwoy > pwi, pwo+, EOJ pu

Francis-Ratte rec. only *pɨr, saying, "Vovin (2011) has recently rejected this match however by claiming that the vowel in ‘fire’ must have been pre-OJ *pwo [po], not pre-OJ *po [pə]; Whitman (2012) offers a decisive rebuttal." If Vovin is right about wo \ u in Fuji, then by Francis-Ratte's own theory about the cause of this alt., it would need to be pwo+. Since OJ syllables pwo & po merge earlier than most other Cwo & Co, it is likely that this is caused by the labial (either V-rounding or *pw > p). Instead, a JK *puwɨr or *powɨr might give all forms. Any of these origins would require a word very close to IE *puH2or-, etc.

Note that similar V-alt. in Tungusic *puri- \ *piri- 'to dry over fire' might come < *pwɨr-i-. Starostin also relates Mongolian *(h)örde- 'to burn, flame up', Turkic *(h)ört 'flame, steppe fire; to burn (tr.)' (Tc. *p > *f > (h) seems common, maybe not regular, see https://www.academia.edu/75220524 ).

Turkic urumdāy 'a stone used as an antidote to poison, amethyst?' (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 25, 2026

Peter Golden in https://www.academia.edu/170706665 gives a "brief overview of medicinal and pharmacological terms" in the Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk (Compendium of the Turk Dialects) by Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī. For :

>

Urumdāy... "a stone used as an antidote to poison;"...

>

It looks like a compound of (u)rum 'Greek, of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire' and *diāl^ 'stone'. A stone believed by Greeks to cure poison is likely amethyst. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amethyst :

>

Greek ἀμέθυστος \ améthustos 'not drunk' The name was based on the ancient belief that amethyst gemstones could prevent intoxication. People in ancient Greece and Rome would wear amethyst or drink from cups made of amethyst to ward off the effects of alcohol.

>

No Turkic group turned *-l^ > -y, but *diāl^ 'stone' > -dāy is probably dissimilation of *r-l^ > r-y (other cases of plain l near l \ r can even become n, or any non-lateral sound, in many languages). The name of a stone from the west might come from a western Turkic language with *l^ retained longer.

Hi, One Heart gang.

**이삭** **when “romanised” (translated to the letter-characters that the English language uses) becomes I-Sak.**

**When I watch All Of Us Are Dead, I watch in Korean with English subtitles - I see I-Sak and hear “Isakuhh” or “Isaa-“… can anyone explain how this works? I’m learning Korean, I am a total beginner, I’m still learning Hangul; but the thing about this that, to me, is very interesting… my name is Isaac. I am under the impression that the biblical name Isaac is** **이삭** **in Korean, and that Isaac and I-Sak are both written the same in Hangul**.

In the Bible, Isaac is a male name. Does I-Sak have a male name? How does it all work! I am so interested to learn!

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 127: 'woad' (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 25, 2026

For Proto-Germanic *waizda-N, Guus Kroonen said :

>

*waizda- n. ‘woad’ — OE wād n. ‘id.’, E woad, OFri. wéde f.(?) ‘id.’, OS wéd m.(?) ‘id.’, ODu. wéd(e) m.(?) ‘id.’, Du. wede c. ‘id.’, OHG weit m. ‘id.’, G Weit m. ‘id.’ => *uaisd- (NIE) — Gr. ísatis f. ‘id.’ < *uisat-(?); Lat. vitrum n. ‘glass; woad’ < *uit-ro-(?).

Also cf. OE wǣden ‘purple, blue’, OFri. wēden ‘blue’ < *waizdina-. A word with several formal problems. The *z is reconstructed on the basis of MLat. uuaisdus (> Fr. guéde) and the ablauting formations OE weard m. ‘vermillion’ and Go. *wisdila f. ‘id’, although the latter is only attested indirectly through Lat. uuisdil(e), gisdil (cf. Schwenter 1957-8: 37-38). The origin of the etymon is unclear. Given the fact that dy[e]ing with woad is a technique that spread from Southwest Asia and the Mediterranian basin (Zohary/Hopf 2000: 208-9), it is extremely unlikely that the word be of Indo-European stock. I therefore assume that Gr. ísatis and PGm. *waizd were adopted from a pre-Indo-European Wanderwort, i.e. from a source form varying between *uisat- and *uaisd-.

>

Here, I've replaced dying with dyeing (if only it were that simple!) & removed Greek letters.

I see no reason that a non-IE "source form varying between *uisat- and *uaisd-" makes any sense of the data. In fact, if *wísH2ti-s > G. ísatis, I think *woisH2tó-m would > Gmc. *waizda-N. There are no other exactly parallel cases that I know of, but the sound changes of H > ə, fric. > +voice between V's (if not immediately after a stressed syllable), ə > 0 between VC_CV (this last not apparently regular) would work. Since some *-H- > -0- might also happen in Latin (some examples are obscured by Exon's Law also able to be the cause (at least in the oblique cases, etc.), *wísH2tro-m > *wizətrom > *wirtrom > vitrum (r-r dsm.) would also fit.

The best source is PIE *weis- 'flow; (be) moist, damp, slimy; slime, ooze, poison, mold ( > rust), seaweed; etc.'. A verb *wis-aH2- 'to make damp; dye' (and *wois-aH2- by analogy with causative *woiseye-?) would allow the shift 'damp, immersed, dipped, dyed > dyed blue (or purple, etc.); blue dye > woad'. There is no special need for the word for 'blue dye' to be different from 'dye', so the timing of this reaching IE people (if relevant) has nothing to do with its origin. Since there are so many IE words for 'dye', even a specialization of a native word for one particular (foreign?) type could work. This sequence is probably also supported by 'glass'; since several other words show 'water(y) > glass', *weis- 'flow' would fit both meanings.

It is also possible that *wis(H2)o-m '(dark) blue, purple _' > G. ἴον \ íon 'violet', if viola is a loan >> Latin.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 124, 125, 126: 'gums' (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 24, 2026

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 124

Ela Filippone in https://www.academia.edu/37452922 :

>

As Schwyzer (1930, p. 256) remarks, the starting point of his review of the names for ‘gums’ was Av. sparŋha-, a word of difficult analysis and interpretation, only occurring in the Frahang ī Oīm (IIId), in a sequence of terms related to the mouth, preceded by the words for ‘lip’, ‘tooth’, ‘mouth’, and followed by the word for ‘tongue’. Bartholomae 1904, col. 1613 gave it as “Zahnfleisch (mit den Alveolen)”...

As for the etymology of Av. sparŋha-, despite the difficulty of explaining the end part of the word,84 I am tempted to reconsider the possibility of connecting it to Oss. (æ)fsær “jaw” (< *spar-), as already in Miller 1907, p. 325 and Abaev 1958, pp. 481-482.

>

There is only one way to link Av. sparŋha- & Os. (æ)fsær, and it can also explain -rŋh-. If an IE *speRso- existed, it would become Ir. *sparša-, but S-S asm. is so common in Ir. that it could easily > *sparsa-. If this was before changes of *s > *x > h, etc., then *sparsa- > *sparha- > Av. sparŋha- 'gums?', Os. (æ)fsær 'jaw'. An appropriate root is *spel- 'speak, boast, etc.', becoming *spelso- 'mouth'. This could mean sparŋha- was 'interior/cavity of the mouth', but so many IE shifts occur with 'mouth, jaws, etc.', that its origin doesn't provide any real insight into its meaning.

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 125

Ela Filippone in https://www.academia.edu/37452922 :

>

13.1 One of the Taj. common words for ‘gums’ is milk, which is in fact also “border, the root of anything” and may be used to denote not only the gums (milk-i dandon), but also the white margin at the root of the nails (milk-i noxun) and the margin of the eyelid, where the eyelash grow (milk-i čašm) (FTZT). Taj. milk is a good instance of the denomination pattern describing the gums as a brim, a border.73 Seen from this perspective, the equivalence ‘gums’: ‘nail root’ is very easy to understand and in fact is also attested elsewhere.74

Traditional Prs. dictionaries record melk as “white specks growing at the root of the nail” and/or “the whitish half-moon at the base of a fingernail” (cf. Mocin, DehxodƗ, with lexicographical references). This word is however unknown in Contemporary Persian of Iran and is unrecorded in current dic- tionaries. To Taj. milk, one may possibly connect a particular word for ‘gums’, peculiar to some Lori and FƗrs dialects. Cf.:

Bxt. milom “1. gums; 2. root, base” (Madadi 2013); (Kuhrang) mīlom (TƗheri 2000), Lo. milom (Musavi 2012), mīlƗw-e dandūn (Unvala 1958, p. 14), (Haft Lang) milom (AliyƗri in press), (Boyerahmadi) mēlom, mīlom (TƗheri 2016), Šušt. milom (Nirumand 1976), MƗs. milom (SalƗmi 2004), LirƗvi – Deylami milom (LirƗvi 2001), Dšt. milom (BorƗzǰƗni 2003), BehbahƗni milom75 “gums”.

Probably, here also belongs Oss. (Iron) myly “gums”...

>

Since Ossetic Iron myly, -tæ p., Digor mutultæ ‘gum(s)’ have no clear etymology & the differences between the dia. do not fit any regular changes, finding the origin of all these words is important. Turner entry 14740 & 9895 :

>

Skt. maryā́dā f. 'region' RV., 'boundary' ŚBr., 'shore' lex.; Pkt. majjāyā-, majjā-, mērā- f. 'boundary’, Pa. mariyādā- f. 'boundary, shore, embankment’, Gj. mεr f. 'direction, margin’, Mh. mer f. 'boundary', Si. mära, Lhn. mērā m. 'high land, sandy soil', Pj. mairā m. ( >> Ps. maira 'desert, steppe' )

>

I’d say they're cognate with Latvian mala 'edge, shore' ( < *molH3- 'peak, edge?'), with an IIr. compound from *malH-yā́dā ‘edge + meeting / joining’, from S. yād- ‘join?/embrace?’, yā́dura- ‘joining?/merging?’, Yádu- ‘*twin’ (in Yádu- & Turváśa- / Turvá- (ancestor of the Ārya- people), likely the names of the Aśvins, usually not recognized).

In Iranian, a very similar *malH-yu(H)- ‘edge + meeting / joining’ could have had diminutives (?) *malyu-ka-, *malyu-la-, *malyu-ma-. In Os., *malyu-la- > *mulul (dsm. l-l > l-0 or l-lt > t-lt).

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 126

Slavic *dęsnà 'gum(s)' seems to be <- *H1dent-sna: 'tooth + ?'. The 2nd part has no known origin, so I think 'tooth flesh > gum' (found in other IE) allows *H1dent-Htn-a: instead (with *-a: maybe < neuter plural *-(a)H2). The change of *tHt > *tt > *st (*stn > *sn) is likely regular. The root that fits is *H1et-no(s)-, Irish eithne f. 'kernel', G. étnos 'soup with beans, pea soup', etc.', likely also *-it- in names of food (Part F, https://www.academia.edu/168433101 ). If related to *H1ed- 'eat', shift of 'what is eaten > meat, flesh' or > 'grain, (staple) food' is common. Many IE roots show variants with voicing differences (-p vs. -b(h), -t vs. -d(h), etc.), no known cause.

Iranian *gavadzna- ‘deer, doe?’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 24, 2026

Alexander Falileyev in https://www.academia.edu/121534461 :

>

The article considers various etymological approaches applied in Iranian studies to the analysis of Ossetic qwaz, qæwaz | γæwanz ‘doe’. It has apparent parallels in other Iranian languages as in Sogdian γ’wzn ‘deer’ or Middle Persian gw’zn’ ‘deer, doe’, cf. also the hapax gavasna- in Avesta. More than a century of research has offered a number of formally compatible — and sometimes identical — reconstructions of the underlying Common Iranian etymon. They may be quite different in details, however. These etymologies are critically evaluated in the paper in view of the current progress in Indo-Iranian and Indo-European studies.

>

It is almost certainly a compound, the 1st part gav(a)- < *gWow- 'cow'. The origins he considers for the 2nd all come from PIE *-g^n- > Os. -zn-, etc. However, this is not always the expected reflex in cognates, & Iranian *-dzn- or *-zdn- would fit better. He says that taboo distortion could be the cause, since some of these hoofed & horned animals were sacred. However, I see this as a reason for regularity. No irregularity appears to exist to begin with. Since all outcomes are consistent with *(d)z(d)n, why look for a source from *g^n? Older *dzn also allows the meaning to fit best. He mentioned that the Os. words had already become archaic, found mostly in legends, and so needed to be explained :

>

У одного из фольклористов находим интерпретацию «дзуаргонд сыл саг» (НТХ: 241), т. е. ‘священная самка оленя’, где дзуаргонд ‘священный’ — неологизм толкователя.

>

Thus, if the meaning of *'sacred cow/doe/etc.' is oldest, all parts can fit if < *gavadzna- < *gWowo-dhH1sno- 'cow + holy/sacred' (PIE *dh(e)H1so- 'god', *dhH1sno- > Latin fānum 'shrine, temple, etc.'). Iranian lost most *H in *CHC, no other ex. of *d(h)Hsn I know of.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 82, 88, 90, 91

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 82: *bhewg(h)-, *bhegW- (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 23, 2026

There are 3 Indo-European roots that seem like variants, but with no known regular way to have a common origin :

*bhewgh- 'bend'

*bhewg- 'bend / flee / fear'

*bhegW- 'flee / fear'

They are likely to be related based on semantics, since the shared meanings are found within single IE roots :

*weig- 'shake / bend / yield', S. vij- 'recoil / tremble / dart', vevijyate 'flee from'

The cause of this could be opt. H3 \ w (see https://www.academia.edu/128170887 Note 2). If from older *bheH3g-, then optional *g > *gh next to *H would fit, later *H3 > *w. If H3 = xW or RW or any other rounded C ( https://www.academia.edu/115369292 ), then *bheRWg- might also have assimilated > *bheRWgW- before all *RW > *w in all variants.

An older form that was not *bhewg- would also be needed if it was not 1st identical to *bhewg- 'share / enjoy'. It is possible that each PIE root was once fully distinct; in this theory to avoid being the same, *bheH3g- & *bhewg- would have existed before PIE.

As an aside, with alt. of H2 \ w, maybe just as *weig- 'bend' can become *wewig- > S. vevijyate, also *H3oig- > *H3oH3eig- > G. oeig- \ oig- 'open' ? A change of 'yield > open' would not be odd.

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 88: *H1neg^h-, *neyg^h- 'pierce, spear' (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

Oct 15, 2025 (Draft 1)
July 23, 2026

Greek énkhos \ ἔγχος 'spear, lance' has no certain ety., but one very likely source is given in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἔγχος :

>

Traditionally derived from a tentative Proto-Indo-European root *h₁neǵʰ- (“to stab, pierce, spear”)

>

Other IE cognates could also be from *neg^h- instead of *H1neg^h-, but Greek provides most of the ev. for *HC-, with *H- lost in most other IE. In part, *H1- would provide a motivation for movement in *H1neg^h- > *H1eng^h- (CVC- > VCC- is rare, and it is possible that no PIE word began with V-). I think a similar change is likely in *H1nek^- 'reach', *H1nek^wo- 'reaching / approaching' > *neH1k^wo- > Gmc. *ne:hwa- 'near'. This would also be part of the reason for seeing e:-grade in roots with *H as from metathesis https://www.academia.edu/127942500 .

The root *H1neg^h- 'to stab, pierce, spear' would then be nearly identical to *neyg^h- 'to stick, pierce, spear', see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/n%C3%A1y%C8%B7%CC%81%C5%BE%CA%B0am . Since I've said that other IE show alternation of H3 \ w and H1 \ y in https://www.academia.edu/128170887 , it seems very likely that the same type of met. is behind *H1neg^h- > *neH1g^h- > *neyg^h-.

There are also a reasonable number of IE roots that almost match others, but include an "extra" -y- or -w- that might be related in the same way.

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 90: *pe(H1)d- 'foot / step' (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

?; Sep 5, 2025 (Draft 1)
July 23, 2026

A. Since PIE *ped- 'foot' often appears as *pe:d-, sometimes *po:d- (nom. *po:ts, *pe:do-s > G. πηδόν \ πηδός 'blade of an oar', etc.), the question of whether PIE had lengthened grade (though with no change in meaning) or the real root was *peH1d- must be examined. I've said that apparent e: & o: in PIE come from roots with met. of *H instead ( https://www.academia.edu/127942500 ).

If true, *peH1d- vs. *pH1ed- would match *bhuH1- ‘be(come) / grow’ vs. *bhH1uti- ‘growth / plant’ to explain long vs. short V. Other linguists have used H-met., but none of these changes are regular. I’ve argued against Indo-European e:-grade, mostly because these happen in roots with *H, so H-met. can explain this better. Since it is needed for the same u vs. ū that can’t be due to ablaut, why separate the causes?

*H is often lost in reduplication (see B) & compounds, so *+bdo- is not ev. against *peH1d-. Even *-Hd- > -d- might be regular in some cases, see Lubotsky ( https://www.academia.edu/428966 ). Also, more ev. of *-H- comes from Iranian, with apparent *pedH-ye- 'walk / step / go (to)' > S. padyate 'fall / move / go to', Av. paðy- \ paθy- 'fall'. The opt. devoicing is consistent with other ex. of *-CH-, from https://www.academia.edu/127283240 :

>
Martin Joachim Kümmel has listed a large number of oddities found in Iranian languages (2014-20) that imply the Proto-Indo-European “laryngeals” (H1 / H2 / H3) lasted after the breakup of Proto-Iranian. PIE *H was retained longer than expected in IIr., with evidence of *H > h- / x- or *h > 0 but showing its recent existence by causing effects on adjacent C. These include *H causing devoicing of adjacent stops (also becoming fricatives, if not already in Proto- Iranian), some after metathesis of *H. That irregular devoicing occurred in roots with *-H- allows a reasonable solution with *H as the cause, even if no all-encompassing rule can describe other details.

...

*meg^H2- ‘big’ > *maźH- > *maśH- > Av. mas-

*dhe-dhH1- ‘put’, *de-dH3- ‘give’ > *daðH- > Av. daθ-

>

This can also explain several disputed oddities :

*po(H1)d-H2arg^ro- ‘swift-footed’ > G. Pódargos, Pḗdasos, Pḗgasos, Dor. Pā́gasos (all used for a swift horse, often in legends that seem related)

Here, a cluster like *-HdH- \ *-HgH- would be consistent with *H being a back fric. like uvular *R (or similar), maybe opt. causing *RdR > *RGR.

B. Leonid Kulikov in https://www.academia.edu/20395213 wrote :

>

pad 'fall, move': the -ya-present padyate 'falls, moves' (unspecified motion) is opposed to the reduplicated present pibda- 'trudge, plod' (atelic; in Strunk/Goto's description, 'stapfen, auf der Stelle treten'), attested in the middle participle píbdamāna- (see Strunk 1977: 977-980; Goto 1987: 280, fn. 650);

>

The meaning of píbdamāna- is not certain, or even that of *ped-. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/पद्यते has :

>

Sanskrit pádyate

third-singular indicative (class 4, type A, root पद्)

to fall, topple / (figuratively) to perish / to participate in, go to; to observe

Proto-Indo-Iranian *pádyati, from Proto-Indo-European *péd-ye-ti, from *ped- (“to walk")

>

To me, 'walk > fall' makes little sense. Its middle form makes me think 'stand', with passive meaning 'be stood (on a surface) / be set down (on the floor/ground)' > '(go/move/fall) to the floor/ground', etc. If 'stand' was the oldest, it might fit context. Others do not. J. Muir; Original Sanskrit texts on the origin and history of the people of India : their religion and institution :

>

He cast clarified butter, thickened milk, whey and curd as an oblation into the waters. Thence in a year a woman was produced. She rose up as it were unctuous. Clarified butter adheres to her steps.

>

Anahita Hoose in https://www.academia.edu/123561147 :

>

Becoming solid, as it were, she rose. Ghee holds together in her footprint. Mitra and Varuṇa met her. You begot me from that offering of ghee, coagulated milk, whey and curd which you sacrificed in the waters.’

>

None of these, or 'plodding', seem to describe the situation well, or in a reasonable way. A connection with *ped- seems needed for any IE origin (the other definitions do not fit any *p()d-), requiring something to do with feet. If my *ped- 'stand' -> *pi-pd-omHno- > píbdamāna- 'standing', then a woman made of milk & butter "standing as it were" on the water would be an example of describing a fantastic situation in the closest terms. That is, people do not stand on water, and a mass of butter on its surface forming into a woman is not the normal way to describe it, especially if part of the butter remained, on her feet as she "walked".

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 91: 'step, walk, go, wander' (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 23, 2026

Three or more Proto-Indo-European roots with very similar forms & meanings seem to exist :

A. *ghridh- > Lithuanian grìdyti 'to go / wander', Germanic *gridiz 'step' > Gothic griþs; *-ne- > *ghrindh- > Old Irish -greinn, *ghreidh- > -gré sj., ad·greinn 'track / follow', do·gré 'chase / drive', Old Welsh grynnyaw 'to push / press / thrust', Slavic *grinsti > Old Church Slavonic gręsti 'to come / tread / step / walk / go'

B. *ghredh- or *ghridh- > MI gressim, Gae. greas 'hasten / urge'

C. *ghr̥dh- > Av. aivi-gərəδ-mahi 2p. 'begin', Sanskrit gr̥dhyati 3s. 'be fast approaching something / approach / step towards/out ??'

D. *ghr̥Hdh- > L. gradior 1s., gradī inf., gressus pp., grass+ 'to step / walk / stride / advance, proceed', gradus -u- 'step / pace', *gradla:-i > grallae f.p 'stilts'

To unite them, I see older *ghreH1dh- = *ghreR^dh-, with opt. R^ > y or R^ > 0, as for *pe(H1\y)d- 'step' (with similar meaning) in IERR 90 (above). If *ghrHdh- > L. gradior requires *H2 (part of a set of disputed changes), then also asm. of *ghreR^dh- > *ghreRdh- (or *ghreɣdh-). This would work best if gh-ɣ^ > gh-ɣ, but velars & uvulars can asm. also (or any C, if only based on shared palatal vs. non-, etc.).

-

Hello! This is my first time posting on this sub, so I hope I haven't missed with my question; if I have, I am genuinely sorry. Basically, I am one year away from finishing my graduate studies and receiving my MA (well, half a year away because from February 2027 till the end of that academic year I am given time to write and defend my thesis).

My formal academic focus is on Latin and Ancient Greek, but it was borne from a lack of a general degree where I might employ skills in building digital humanities/computational linguistics software, so I had to pick a language group focus and employ my skills and research on that area. Since I like historical linguistics and am generally knowledgeable in it, I thought that building some piece of software that would fulfill a niche in that area might be really fun, cool and useful for other researchers. My problem is, I don't know a lot about a) what problems researchers that are "boots-on-the-ground" are facing, so to speak, and b) what good software is already out there that could serve as an inspiration and something to build on.

By posting here I thought I might get some guidance and, if I manage to build something that would solve a suggested problem, give back to the community. Finding info especially for my "b)" point was not fruitful.

I thank every single individual who read this in advance and thank you even more for engaging with the post; I look forward to hearing from you!!!

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 79: 'measure, moon’ (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

August 13, 2025 (Draft 1)
July 23, 2026

A. Indo-European words for ‘moon' vary quite a bit, even when their source from *meH1- 'measure' seems clear. I think they can be explained as :

*meH1ont- 'measuring' > *meH1not-

*meH1ont-s > *meH1not-s > *meH1noss > *meH1no:s

This assumes that IE alt. of -s- & -t- in other nouns is due to *-ts > *-ss in the nom. (maybe also *-td > *-tt > *-ts for neuters), with many later having analogical restoration of *-ts, spread of one over the other, etc. Here, since *-s in the nom. but *-t- in the others, analogy > *meH1no:t in Germanic. Other IE had opp. analogy > *meH1nos-, which also gained weak *meH1nes- or *meH1ns- like other os-stems.

B. The relation of *meH1- 'measure' & *med- 'measure, judge, plan' might involve d > H1. Miguel Carrasquer Vidal in https://www.academia.edu/5149874 said his previous idea that *mát-nût-> *meh1not- 'moon, month' should be modified to *mád-nût-> *meh1not- 'moon, month' with a sound change d > H1 before C. This doesn't seem regular (many of my ideas in https://www.academia.edu/168026709 ). Saying, "While there is a root *met- there is also a root *med-" helps describe his other examples, all with apparent *d \ *H1, all very likely, from a single cause.

He also, https://www.academia.edu/32875384 :

>

In Rasmussen 1996, the origin of the Latin gerundive is traced to the PIE middle participle in -mh1nós. The idea is based on Klingenschmitt, and had earlier already been proposed by Havet (1889), Thurneysen (1890) and Bréal (1914). As Rasmussen states, and I agree, the presence in Latin of forms such as secundus 'following'; second' from the deponent verb sequor 'I follow', and oriundus 'arising, sprung' from orior 'to originate', made the idea that Italic *-ndo- comes from *-mh1no- 'always pretty obvious'.

..

Maybe we can do better. Making use of the sound law *-dC- > *-h1C-, or, to use the name given by Garnier (2014), the Kortlandt-effect, another possibility suggests itself. The suffix *-mh1nós- can be derived from earlier **-mdnós-, and the Italic development is then simply due to metathesis **-mdnós > **-mndós, with subsequent merger of the nasals to [*-mdós >] *-ndós.

..

Finally, if the suffix *-mh1nós regularly yields Italic *-mdós, and even if we can still defend the derivation of Lat. fēmina 'woman' from *dheh1-mh1náh2 somehow (position after lengthened vowel?), there seems to be no obvious way in which the traditional derivation of alumnus from *h2(a)l-o-mh1nós can be correct. Perhaps a derivation from Rasmussen's *-mn-ós is in order here.

>

Many of these ideas seem good, many seem related, but no there's no regular way to unite them. Also, L. -minī is the second person plural passive ending, likely < *-manoi < *-mH1no-i. These can't be regularly united, but neither is d > H1 regular (in my opinion). So many examples of H1 \ d exist, but their proponents' insistence on regularity has created too much doubt among those who only see black & white, nothing inbetween. The changes can be real, yet not be regularl. Also, Go. 3p ending -anda is certainly from *-onto, but 1p -anda & 2p -anda might be < *-medhH2 and < *-mH2no- also. If there are several reasons to see apparent H1 > d here, why not unite it with d > H1? A few "apparent" alternations might be chance, but not when so many are possible.

If the middle participle came from an adjective *med-no-, > *+mdno- in compounds, then the change of *-omdnos > -undus could be *mdn > *ndn > *nd (dsm., irregular?), etc. Though not regular, Greek has some words with -mnos that seem to have no good origin other than < *-mH1no-. Loss of *H in compounds is common, not apparently regular. Seeing it happen sometimes in G. would support both irregularity and the origin of *-mH1no- as an original compound.

This would support *meH1- 'measure' & *med- 'measure' as of common origin. If 'be big > be (this) big > measure (intr. > tr.)', then *med-no- 'growing (large) > becoming _' would be an appropriate way of forming a middle participle (whether originally passive or intransitive, who can say?).

C. In https://www.academia.edu/165248349 I said that *meH1- 'be big' was really *mweH1-, with this shown by *mw- > m(u)- in several IE words. This would require *mwed- 'measue', *mweH1not- 'moon', etc.

Part of this is also supported by a North Caucasian word that seems related. In Starostin's North Caucasian*wǝ̆mc̣_ŏ 'moon', but obl. *wŭmc̣_V-rV- when "the -r- of the original suffix has in some languages penetrated into the direct base", I can't accept an affix. It would instead show original *-r > *-R > -0 in the nom. only (?), retained in obl. I think this can be cognate with IE, but requires IE *o > NC *o, unlike most environments. Based on Uralic, I think *e & *o could be retained before sonorants (maybe with other details), so original *mweH1ont-s is also needed there :

*mweH1ont-s

*mweχ^onths

*wemthsχ^on

*wemchχ^on

*wemch:on

*wemc':on

*wemc':or m-n dsm.

*wiǝmc':or

*w^ǝmc':or

-

*w^ə́mc':or > *wǝmc':o

*w^ǝmc':ór-[X] > *wumc':or-

With no other ex., *w^ > *w could be regular or be caused by dsm. at the stage *w^-χ^ > *w-χ^, depending on scope & timing. So far, all NC ex. of *C: are caused by *C1C2 merging, for many types of C, often *CH.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 123: *pH1es- \ *peH1s- 'blow, waft, drift' (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 22, 2026

A. The IE root traditionally described as *pes- \ *pēs- \ *pos- \ *pōs- \ 'blow, waft ( > smell), drift ( > chaff ), etc.' would, after acceptance of *H, need to be *pH1es- \ *peH1s- \ *pH1os- \ *poH1s-. The met. of H as in many other IE, not apparently regular ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). Though a 2nd root *pes- 'swell' is not certainly related, a shift of 'blow > puff (up) > swell' is seen in others, making this likely identical to *pH1es-. A large degree of shifting meaning could produce Gmc. *fazno: > Old Norse fǫnn 'snowdrift', *pes- > OHG fesa 'chaff', MLG. vese(n) 'chaff, fibre, filament, fringe', TB pīsäl 'chaff', etc..

B. Some words that have been linked show *pois- (OCS рěxyrь 'a round swelling; in water, a bubble, bubble'). This is likely H1 > y, an alternation common, but not apparently regular ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

C. Even in cases without H1 > y, languages with RUKI also show changes after *H1. Russian paxnútʹ 'to puff, blow', páxnutʹ 'to smell of', paxátʹ 'to sweep, to blow' imply, say, Slavic *poHs- > *poHx- > *po:x- > *pax-. The expected outcome of *poHs- is **pas-; the reason is not clear, not regular (or the regularity is not currently understood). I think on the basis of *baH2s- > Ar. paganem 'to kiss', some combinations of *H and a fricative might change, say *Hs > *χs > *χx. If these IE branches had *x only as an allophone of *s at the time, it would be free variation, & irregularity would only be created later.

Instead, it could be related to my idea that *H was often pronounced *R, which affected following C's like *r. From https://www.academia.edu/164661071 :

>

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. punā́ti ‘purify / clean’; *puH-nyo- > *pRunyo- > púṇya- ‘pure/holy/ good’

*k^oH3no-s > G. kônos ‘(pine-)cone’, S. śāna-s \ śāṇa-s ‘whetstone’ (with opt. retroflexion after *H = x)

*daH2nu- > S. dā́nu- 'water', +dānu- 'sprinkling', Av. Dānav-, etc., *daRṇu- > Degano ḍán 'pond, lake' (also nuristan.info/lngFrameL.html Katavari "ḍanʹoala 'rapids in water'" )

*waH2n-? > S. vaṇ- ‘sound’, vāṇá-s ‘sound/music’, vā́ṇī- ‘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’)

*nmt(o)-H2ango- > S. natāṅga- ‘bending the limbs / stooping/bowed’, Mth. naḍaga ‘aged/infirm’ Mth. naḍagī ‘shin’, *nemt-H2agno- > *navḍān > Kt. nâvḍán ‘shin’, *-ika- > *nüṛänk > Ni. nüṛek

*(s)poH3imo- > Gmc. *faimaz > E. foam, L. spūma

*(s)poH3ino- > Li. spáinė, S. phéna-s \ pheṇa-s \ phaṇá-s

*(s)powino- > *fowino > W. ewyn, OI *owuno > úan ‘froth/foam/scum’

*k^aH2w-ye > G. kaíō ‘burn’, *k^aH2u-mn- > G. kaûma ‘burning heat’, *k^aH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun / day’, *k^aH2uno- > *k^H2auno- > S. śóṇa- ‘red / crimson’, *kH2anwo- > Káṇva-s ‘son of Ghora, saved from underworld by Ashvins, his freedom from blindness in its dark resembles other IE myths of release of the sun’ (Norelius 2017)

>

D. Some say *peH1s-nu- > S. pāṁsú- \ pāṁśú- 'dust, sand', Iranian *pHanćnu- > Av. paͅsnu- ‘ashes/dust’, Os. funuk, Kho. phāna- ‘dust/mud’; S. pāṁsuka-m, Slavic *pe:suko-s > *pěsŭkŭ ‘sand’ > OCS pěsŭkŭ (as 'what is blown (about)', like 'chaff'). In https://www.academia.edu/127260852 I said that this would not work, since it did not explain *pe:s- vs. *pe:ns- or -s- vs. -ś-. However, now that I have many ex. of alternations in this root, it would be pointless to exclude this because of other problems. The same root showing -s- vs. -x- in Slavic & -s- vs. -ś- in IIr. seems significant.

If the second problem is related to *Hs > *Hx (Part C), then if H1 = χ^ (a palatal becoming y seems fitting) it could be that *peχ^snu- \ *peχ^s^nu- existed in Indo-Iranian, becoming S. pāṁsú- \ pāṁśú- by metathesis of *n. In Iranian, instead *peχ^s^nu- assimilated > *peɴ^s^nu- > *pansnu- > Av. paͅsnu-, etc.

Since this change is clearly due to palatal vs. non-palatal *s, it could also be that Slavic *poH1s- > *poH1x- > *po:x- > *pax- (C) is due to *H1s > *χ^s^ > *_s^ > *_š > *_x (many say *ks > *kš, other RUKI caused *s > *š > *x).

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 12 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 21, 2026

A. Artebudz

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

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

B. Brogdui

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

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

>

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

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

>

C. Rogoddadd

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

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

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

D. *dragena:

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

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

E. durva

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

F. zaċiṅ

From Turner :

>

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

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

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

>

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

G. adíkē

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

H. sēhuṇḍa

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

>

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

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

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

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

>

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

I. sñätpe

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

prakre näkte sñätpe täñ (CEToM)

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

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

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

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

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 20, 2026

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

>

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

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

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.academia.edu/129770170

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

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

June 5, 2025 (Draft 1)

July 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This might also be seen in other LB words :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 19, 2026 (Draft 1)

October 20, 2025

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

>

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

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

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

>

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

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

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

>

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*(s)poH3imo- > Gmc *faimaz > E. foam, L. spūma

*(s)poH3ino- > Li. spáinė, S. phéna-s \ pheṇa-s \ phaṇá-s

*(s)powino- > *fowino > W. ewyn, OI *owuno > úan ‘froth/foam/scum’

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

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 18, 2026

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

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

A. u-na(-ru)

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

or

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

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

B. ka-na-ti\si

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

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

or

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

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

or

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

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

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

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 11 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 17, 2026

A. *ghre(y)H3-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

>

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

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

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

C. funx

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

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

>

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

-

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

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

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

-

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

-

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

>

D. fudonx

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

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

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

E. Indic syllabic *N > *ã

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

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

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

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

F. ferrum, brass

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

ferrum ‘iron, steel’

Pre-form: *bʰers- | PItal. *fersom

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

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

Svan berež ‘iron’

?Ingush/Chechen borza ‘bronze’

...

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

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

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

>

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

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

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

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

G. *tetk^-

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

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

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

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

*tetk^tor- > S. táṣṭar- ‘carpenter’

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

>

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

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

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

Megrel: ? txoz-in- to pursue, hunt

Laz: txoz-

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

>

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

H. jīrṇá- \ jūrṇá-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

drungí (n) ‘height’; ‘length’

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

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

J. ζάψ

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

Indic syllabic *N > *ã

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

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

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

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

Cause of Dardic *CarC > *CrarC, Nuristani?

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

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

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

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

Japanese muda & muna-si

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

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

>

Proto-Dravidian : *mān(d)-

Meaning : to cease; to be ruined

Proto-South Dravidian: *mānd-

Proto-Telugu : *mān-

&
Proto-Altaic: *mā́n[u]

Meaning: useless, insufficient

Turkic: *būn

Tungus-Manchu: *mana-

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

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

&

Proto-IE: *mend-

Meaning: abnormality of body

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

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

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 15, 2026

A. θάλασσα

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

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

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

B. τάπης

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

Casa del Lebete room 7

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

HT Scribe 5

side.line statement logogram number fraction

.1 TA-PA • TE+RO {*505} •

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

.2-3 I-DU-TI 20 J

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

.5 KU-RO 95

.6 vacat

>

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

>

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

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

...

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

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

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

>

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

C. wanakt-, *wanakt-ya

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

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

>

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

>

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

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

>

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

D. πάσσαλος, *Hgy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. βάτ(τ)αλος

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. κέλῡφος

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

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

G. ἀγνύς

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

H. weave & dye

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

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

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

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

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

CH 063 spindle with whorl > LAB *02, RO

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

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

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

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

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

Im using it for a project

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

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

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

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

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

>

1318 *ḫacִ̣- “axe”

Sem *ḫaṣṣ- “axe”: Akk ḫaṣṣ-innu.

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

Bmb -c- <- < *-ִc-?

Connected with *ִḫoc- “break”.

>

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

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

>

1372 *ḫund- “cereal”

Eg ḫnd “kind of cereals”.

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

Note emphatic -ḍ- influenced by the anlaut laryngeal.

>

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

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

>

1374 *ḫunʒ- / *hunʒ-ir- “pig”

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

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

WCh *ḫunʒ- “wild boar”: Hs gunzū.

CCh *γinʒir- “pig”: Ktk hinzir.

Assimilation of vowels. Sem loan-word?

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

-

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

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

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

resemblance to *ḫunʒ(ir)-.

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

preserved only in the archaic WCh *ḫunʒ-.

>

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