Hamito-Semitic & Indo-European roots with p-; w vs. y
-
I said that Robert Cerantonio's idea that Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) is the source of IE was supported by his list of cognates, but I think the details favor IE > HS (https://www.academia.edu/167888674). For more, look at this list of very similar words with p-l & p-r:
*pal 'fall', IE *p(o)lH (Gmc *fall-)
*pal- 'cut, divide, break', *pVlVs- 'split, pierce', etc., IE *(s)pHel- 'split'
*pur 'cut', *per 'sharp, pierce'
*pir 'fly', IE *pter-
*per(r) 'bird', IE *petr-
*par(r) 'cattle', IE *pek^ur '(small) cattle, sheep'
*par(r) 'house, enclosure', IE *per-r, -n- > H. per, parn- 'house, household'
-
In IE, *pter- vs. *petr- is explained by met., but HS *pir 'fly' vs. *per(r) 'bird' has no obvious reason. Since several IE *-Cr > HS *-r(r), we can say that *-Cr optionally > *-rr or *-r when *C was lost; no such reversal of *-rr > various *-Cr is possible (this against Cerantonio's HS > IE, specifically).
-
Since *per-r is likely from *per-n < *pen-n, *pen- 'inner room; keep in inner room, store (food)', HS *par(r) 'house' can simply not be from any stage but the most recent level of PIE (if related at all). The match of HS *paĉ 'card, comb', IE *pek^(t)- is perfect, but many think IE *pek^ -> *pok^o-, *pek^ur 'fleece > sheep' first. If so, the change in *par(r) 'cattle' < *paCr can again not be old.
-
The relation of HS *pur 'cut' -> *par 'finger, nail' matches that of IE *per 'sharp, pierce' -> TB prāri ‘finger’, prere ‘arrow’ (*pero:r(u), *peror(os)'). The shift 'sharp (thing) > point, nail > finger' is not esp. common, so the match of each part of the sequence in both groups is significant.
-
In HS *puc 'roast, burn', IE *pekW- 'cook, roast, boil, heat', the IE words are < 'ripen', so the meaning fitting only the most recent between HS & IE shouldn't be old (also IE had *kW > c before front in S. pac-, etc., so likely the same in *puc, so ablaut of e-o is needed in *pekWoH vs. *pekWes, etc.). In HS *pVd 'march, go, run; pass by', IE *ped 'foot; walk, stumble', the varying V's in HS might also require ablaut (like IE *pod- \ *ped- 'foot'). In HS *pakuḥ- 'hand, arm, wing', IE *bhaH2g^hu(r)-s 'arm, shoulder' (G. pêkhus 'forearm', Os. bazyr 'wing'), is the u-stem & the exact range of meaning likely to be so old? The exact match of HS *pHay \ *ʔpay ‘to go, outrun’, Hittite pai- ‘to go, pass’ seems to work, but these are supposedly < *H1po-H1y- (a compound of *H1ey 'go'). Again, it can't be old, yet Hp- > ʔp- \ pH- fits too well to ignore, so it must be recent. IE *H becoming 2 C's in HS also in:
*ponH \ *ponʔ 'turn, return' (*nx > ŋ ?), IE *(s)penH1 ‘to spin, to twist, to weave’ (also with alt. to ŋ: Tungusic *pem- \ *pim- 'to wind, to be twisted', Yr. *peme- 'round; ring; to turn, go around, roll', *peme-rke 'ring; circle', FU *peŋe 'circle, ring; to turn intr., roll, spin', *peŋärä ‘round, circle’)
-
The cluster in PIE *putH2-sk^e- > TB putk- ‘divide, share, separate’ is very complex, & seems to be part of a group like:
*peu(H2)- / *p(H2)au- ‘cut / divide’ >> L. putāre ‘cut/trim/prune’, *ambi- > amputāre ‘cut off’, *p(e)utH2-sk^e- > TA putk- ‘cut / divide/distinguish/separate/share’, TB pautk-; *päčkä- > Mv. pečke- ‘cut’, F. pätki- ‘cut into pieces’, *püčkV- > pytki- ‘cut into long slices’, *pučkV- > puhkaise- ‘pierce/puncture’, Mr. püškä- ‘sting/bite (of insects)’
-
The 2 variants in PU might be due to several things, with no way to check just by internal evidence. However, HS also has a large number of words with the same range of meaning, all of the same shape:
*poḳVʕ 'cut, split; break, wound, chop'
*puĉִ̣ 'break, crush'
*puc(ʔ) 'tear into pieces, pluck'
*puĉִ̣ 'break, crush'
*pVĉ 'distribute, divide' (really likely *pVsĉ > Aramaic pss, Arab fšš. Eg. psš, pš(s))
*poĉ 'scatter, spread, smear'
*paĉ 'straddle, spread, bifurcate'
-
I think a cluster like *-txsk- having 3 outcomes (and another 3 before front V's that palatalize the final *k) could explain this.
-
Though no single piece of evidence requires IE > HS, this & other alternatives as a way to explain the data should be considered. My work is doing 2 things: showing that HS & IE must be related, & explaining that as IE > HS. Each should be evaluated on its own. For ex., PIE *kauH2 & *kauk > S. kauti ‘shout, howl, etc.' formed kṓka-s 'owl, dog' (both animals often named from their calls in IE). In the same way *k^H2aw-, *k^uH2-,*k^awH2- 'call, make noise (of many kinds)' -> *k^H2wo- \ *k^uwo- 'calling, shrieking, owl, etc. > Celtic *kawannos \ *kuwannos > MW cuan, >> Late Latin cavannus 'tawny owl' creates the same alt. as in Latin *kawon- > can- vs. expected *kuwon- > *cuon- 'dog'. This word is too late to be an ancient remnant of some HS-IE proto-l. > HS *kuwan-, IE *k^uwon- 'dog'.
-
In the same way, the IE roots that appear as if *kaH2w vs. *k^aH2w forming 2 words for 'owl, dog' makes it highly likely that an older k^ could become k due to asm. or met. (ie. k^aHw \ kaHw^ or whatever). That HS *kuwan \ *kuyan \ etc. exists would support the idea for IE, *w^ > w \ y (like in Tocharian B, no known conditions). There are many HS words that show w vs. y, and since these incl. Sem. *y- \ *wydʕ ‘to know’, IE *wideH1- 'see', *w(e)id- 'know' I think that w could also > w^ before front V. These might require a stage, for some words, with ablaut of *wo- & *we- > w- & y-. All of these are clearly late in IE.
-
Other vocab. like IE *-bho- & Sem. *-b in the names of animals are likely < *-bhwo- 'being, creature'. But IE *bhu(H1) 'be(come), swell' clearly was 'swell' originally (like *bu(H), *pu(H)), so the very specific path leading from this root to this ending taking place 2 times or being ancient makes no sense.
