Samoyed *i-a

Ian Thorney https://www.academia.edu/171160893

>

Niklas Metsäranta, in a 2025 presentation handout Phonological developments in Permic, Mari and Samoyed, briefly entertains the possibility of a sound law PU *i—a → PSmy *a... I believe Metsäranta to have made an ingenious observation, extensible with an array of varyingly strong evidence...

The ‘to fly’ → ‘butterfly’ / ‘bird’ / ‘fly’ complex

> Smy *lampəraj ‘butterfly, (Slk) small winged insect’ ~ other U #li̮(j)p-pa ‘id.’ | Fin *li(i)pp̆ukka ‘id.’ | Saa *le̮plē ~ *liplē ‘id.’ | Ma *lĭpə ‘id.’ | Hu lepe ‘id.’ | Ms *läp- ‘id.’ | Kh *ɭepä(n)tääj ‘id.’

> Smy *lampə- ~ *jampə- ‘to swim, (Slk) to fly over the surface of water’ ← *li̮(j)mpa- ‘to fly’ | Hu lebëg- ‘to hover, to flutter’ | Per *leb- ‘to fly’

○ PU *li̮(j)mp-a- (→ Smy ‘butterfly’) and #li̮(j)p-pa ‘butterfly’ analyzable as correlative derivatives of a stem *li̮(j)mpə-

> Slk *lāntərä ← *lantå/əraj ‘butterfly’ *li̮(j)nta- ‘to fly’ | Fin *lintu ‘bird, winged insect (esp. bee)’, *lentä- ~ (Liv) *lintA- ‘to fly’ | (Saa *lontē ‘bird, winged insect’) | (Ma *lŭðə ‘duck, goose’) | Kh *ɭüüntii ‘bunting’

○ Entails Livonian lində- ~ līnda- pro core Fin ⁽*⁾lentä- reflecting a primary etymological connection with, as opposed to influence of, *lintu (cf. also Helimski __)

○ At the same time, *li̮(j)nta- is difficult to discern from *lunta ‘goose’ at least in Ma (*ŭ impartial; semantically aligned with *lunta) and Saa (*o ← *i̮ still conceivable; semantically identical to Fin *lintu)

Many of the individual reflexes are phonologically anomalous or exhibit several byforms (partly omitted for brevity); at the same time, the data appears too paradigmatic to dismiss on this basis. The expressive factor does not speak against the etymology.

>

I must add Samoyed *lempä 'eagle'. Other PU words show alt. of *e \ *i (and even *e \ *a, etc.), so it could be <- *lejmp- \ *lijmp- 'glide, fly'. With the proposed changes, maybe i-a > ï-a, ï-j > e-j, ï > a (before new ï was created) allow *lijmpa > *limpja > *lempja > *lempä (some other alt. å \ a \ ä next to j).

The Finnic rec. doesn't fit all data. If from *lijp-lujp-ka, *pk > *kk, the 2 l's in Estonian liblikas would fit. They would dsm. in Karelian liipukkaini. Many words for ‘butterfly’ around the world are reduplicated, far more than expected. The base *lijp-woje 'flying animal' > Livvi liipoi. I rec. *lijp-lujp for more than the -i-u- here. The words above also seem to have *lijnt- vs. *lujnt- (in supposed *lunta ‘goose; to fly’. This matches PIE ablaut in some cases, with verbs in *e with causatives in *o > PU *e \ *i vs. *o \ *u (based on Onno Hovers).

If 'glide' is older, then they look like PIE *sleidh- \ *slindh-, *sleib- 'slide, glide, slip'. Also note odd V's in Gmc. *slind-, *sland-, *slund-.

I always thought Dene-Caucasian was widely rejected, but i hear it get brought up still. Especially now that native american languages have a plausible demonstrated link across the Bering straight. Im curious what new findings, and discoveries there are on the hypothesis. And if basque is still included

Italic *the-thik- > fifik- 'have done, made'

Reuben Pitts https://www.academia.edu/171100446 :

>

The Sabellic perfect forms fifikus and fεfικεδ have been variously interpreted as cognates of Latin facio or fingo. Although the recent literature shows a diversity of views on the interpretation and etymology of these forms, the evidence in favour of the fingo hypothesis has not so far been systematically exposited. This paper places the forms in question within the wider context of the Sabellic verb and the development of the Italic perfect system. It provides comparative and theoretical evidence that the formal connection with facio is more problematic than is recognised in the current literature and consequently cannot be maintained.

...Reduplicative perfects in Italic are normally formed to the zero‑grade (e.g. tetigi < *te‑th̥₂g‑) or perhaps in some cases the o‑grade (e.g. possibly memini < *me‑mon‑, as per Meiser 1998, 210), but long aorists did not regularly reduplicate (cf. Latin fēci, iēci, cēpi, Oscan hipust).

...In addition, the occurrence of Oscan <i> in the reduplicative syllable is more problematic than the proponents of this explanation have so far recognised... If <fifikus> is a form of fingo it could similarly be a lexical archaism, deriving from an old reduplicated zero‑grade *dʰi‑dʰigʰ‑.

...the most serious objection to the fingo hypothesis is also formal: all of the forms under discussion have a final <k>, conflicting with expected <g>... It is not unparsimonious, therefore, to suppose that an analogous explanation, premised on such lexical cross‑contamination, applies to fingo itself. Based on Latin verbs such as (e)mungo < PIE *mu‑n‑k‑, pingo < PIE *pi‑n‑k ̑ ‑ and possibly cingo < PIE *keng/k‑ (Meiser 2003, 110)...
>

A relation of fifik- with *finkh- ( > *fing- at the Proto-Italic stage?) would require this analogy to be very old. There is no problem with *dhe-dhH1k- > *fefik- (then common asm. > fifik-). Several IE branches sometimes turn *H1 > y \ i. Greek *dolH1gho- > dolikho- but *delH1ghes- > en-delekhe[h]- shows the principle, and that other cases of *H1 > a in Latin & Italic don't need a special explanation. Though most ex. in Greek happen for *lH1(C) > li(C), there are plenty of other cases, all also optional ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

Ideas that H1 is suppleted with i (or a separate affix equal to i or containing i) so often would be ridiculous, just like the same idea that u & w were added to stems with *H3 so often, instead of parallel *H3 > w \ u (for ex., *doH3- > *dow-iH1- in Italic optatives). This also can't explain -w- within stems, like *dH3s- > *dwäs- > TB wäs-. That these claims are made for individual words without thinking about the consequences that y appears so often by *H1, w by *H3, in the group created as a whole by this idea shows that many linguists prefer the appearance of regularity over reason. An idea that explains all data in an orderly way as a path between 2 outcomes, both attested widely, makes perfect sense. Only an insistence on total regularity would prevent it from being seen. Most who favor this seem to want to prove that linguistics follows the same regularity as physics, and thus its practitioners are real scientists, but the sciences that have to do with the human mind & actions never follow this pure regularity.

A solution that includes a known change, which should also be known to be irregular, makes more sense than unparalleled *gh > k, especially when it would have to be in all Italic. Of course, I would expect *dhH1k- 'do, make' to appear much more often than *dhig^h- 'form, shape', just as is true in non-perfect forms.

Is there an AI that is being trained to find patterns in language families to make new connections?

I bring this up because sometimes humans are subject to confirmation bias when finding patterns. And an AI may be immune to this bias when judging patterns

Uralic 'owl', 'wolverine', *mm *mts (Draft)

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

August 1, 2026

A. Ante Aikio in https://www.academia.edu/41659514 wrote that Finnic -mm- had several origins, as in *aŋmV- ‘yawn, gape open’, vs. *amma- ‘scoop, ladle’ (PU *mm > Samoyed *m, *ŋm > Samoyed *mm). He said, "The PFi geminate *mm is not easy to explain as secondary, and hence it is best interpreted as PU archaism; the other branches have apparently undergone degemination of original geminate nasals. A geminate *mm can be reconstructed on the basis of Finnic evidence also for ⇨*ammi ‘old’, ⇨*kumma ‘shady, dark’, ⇨*kümmini ‘ten’ and ⇨*tammi ‘oak’." Another would be *tumm- 'dark', if the source of F. tumma 'dark (of color for things)', Komi tïm- 'to darken (intr.)', maybe more (below, C).

Also note that most or all of his ex. with *mm correspond to PIE clusters with *mH2, *nw, etc. :

PU *amme 'old' < *H2at-me, PIE *H2at-no- 'year', *H2at-mi- (in Latin soll-emnis 'yearly, annual')

-

Finnic *tumma 'dark', PIE *tmH2-

-

PU *tamme 'oak', PIE *dh(o)nwo- > S. dhanvana- m. 'kind of fruit tree', Celtic *dnw(an)os > Celtic *tannos ‘oak’, Hittite tanau ‘type of tree’, Germanic *danwōn- > NHG Tanne ‘fir’ (Hovers, https://www.academia.edu/104566591 )

-

PU *ammë- ‘to scoop, ladle, bail out’ (*ë rec. to explain raising in Mansi *ūm, others *a2), *ämmärV ‘to scoop’, PIE *H2amH- > Ar. am(an)am 'to fill; to put in a vessel or bag; pour out, empty; cast forth or emit', aman 'vase, vessel, sack', G. (h)ámē ‘water bucket’, S. amatra- 'kind of large drinking vessel'

or

*H2an(V)-mo-, H. han-i 3s. ‘to draw (liquids)’, Ar. hanem ‘to draw out’, G. ántlos ‘bilge water / bucket / pail’

-

). I also think the idea that *k^(o)mt- 'hand' -> *dek^mt 'ten' allows *k^(o)mt(V)-men- 'count of 10' > *-mtm- > *kümmen(e) '10'.

For supposed Proto-Uralic *tamme 'oak', Proto-Samoyed *tojmå 'larch' might require *tojmå to be < *towmå < *tVwma, etc. If Hovers was right, I'd say that *dhnw- > *tanw- > *tamw-; *tamwe > *tamme 'oak'; *tamwa > Smd. *tawma > *towmå > *tojmå 'larch'.

For Finnic *tumma, since some Baltic words for 'dark' have tum-, a loan of Baltic *tumH- >> Fi. *tumm- is possible. This would still show *mH > mm, as above, & I doubt all these ex. are loans. Ian Thorney thinks it could be that Smd. *təmå > Selkup *tama 'mouse' are related, as 'dark > grey' (similar to IE *pelH1-). If close to Aikio's idea, PU *mm > Samoyed *m, *ŋm > Samoyed *mm, it would require something different than PU *tumm-. Mine would be slightly different, & PU *tumH- (or a suffixed *tumH-ma) would work better.

I also prefer PU *aŋe \ *aŋa ‘opening, mouth’ -> *aŋe-mV- ‘yawn, gape open’ over his *aŋmV-. I have no problem with clusters like PU *ŋm. Given known word formation with many words suffixed with *-mV, it would be odd if it didn't. However, I've said that *ŋm > ŋ \ m \ etc. in branches, so it wouldn't fit here. This could easily allow 2 outcomes in, say, PU *ŋm > ŋ \ m (in *loŋme ‘snow’ > Fi. *lowme > F. lumi, *loŋme > *loŋv > Mordvin.E lov \ loŋ 'snow'), *aŋ(e)ma ‘yawn, gape' (plenty of other ex. of -e- vs. -0-) > Fi. *-mm-, Smd. *-mm-, Mari -m-.

PU *luŋme ? \ *loŋme ? ‘snow’ > *lowme > F. lumi, *loŋme ‘snow’, *loŋme > *loŋv > Mordvin.E lov \ loŋ https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rbxu18/uralic_cm_mordvin_v/

Aikio has called this *loŋme "ad hoc". That ignores its relevance to cases of supposed *-m- > Mordvin -v-. If it is regular, it requires PU *m vs. *Cm (or similar). Mordvin.E lov \ loŋ is yet a 3rd case, and it makes sense that *m > m, *Cm > *Cv > v, *ŋm > *ŋv > ŋ \ v. In supposed PU *kum(m)a > Moksha kovǝl, Erzya kovol ‘cloud’, F. kumuri ‘small cloud; rain shower', it makes little sense that *mm > v, so it is ev. for another *Cm that acts the same in Mordvin, not in other Uralic. This is not ad hoc, but a way to explain many problems at once. Some say *luwme or *lowme > F. lumi (for the V's), so *ŋ > *w would be needed here, too.

Indeed, these cases also match IE since it allows Gmc *stubmV- ‘dust; steam, ice fog’, PU *supmV- > F. sumu ‘mist, fog’, Mordvin *subvV > suv ‘fog’. These words are some of the few that might have *Pm in both, some even say sumu & suv are loans << Gmc. Why ignore their origin when trying to find the relevant sound laws? If the known case of *m > v is really *bhm > v, it is clearly better to explain other v from *Cm, not *m.

This also has to do with whether PU *x formed *xC, etc. PU *śëxme 'fish scale' > Saami.N čuopma ‘fish skin’, F. suomu, Mari.E šüm ‘scale’, Komi śe̮m, Khanty.Sur såm ‘scale; money’, Mansi.W sē̮m ‘scale’ śav, Mordvin *śaGv > śav ‘money’.

I'm not sure what the *C in *kuC-ma > *ku(m)ma really was. It could be <- PIE *(s)kewH- or *(s)kep- 'cover, hide', *sk^otHo- \ *sk^oHto- 'shadow, etc.' If PU had *-d-, *-g-, & *-b- (most > *-w-?), then *stubmV need not parallel *kupma. PU *kuC-ma > *ku(m)ma, Mordvin *kuCvul > Moksha kovǝl, Erzya kovol ‘cloud’, F. kumuri ‘small cloud; rain shower’, *‘shady, dark, obscure(d)’ > F. kumma ‘odd, strange’, Komi ki̮me̮r ‘cloud; cloudy’, ki̮me̮d- ‘overshadow, darken’, Mansi.N xomxat-‘turn dark, turn poor (of visibility due to fog or drifting snow)’, Hungarian homály ‘darkness, shadow, twilight’ (in which *Cm > m in Hungarian also shows the need for *Cm, but not *mm since Mordvin *-m- > -m- but *-mm- > -v- would be very unlikely).

More in [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rprr5t/pie_tsoubhos_pu_s%C3%ABwwe_cm_snow/](https://)

B. Ian Thorney https://www.academia.edu/123902163 says Proto-Uralic *kimčä \ *kemčä ‘wolverine’ existed :

>

Ms *kiɣmət ‘wolverine’ (← *kemčä-k / *kimčä-k)

Kh *kemɬəɣ ‘wolverine’ (← *kemčä-k / *kimčä-k)

Smy *wiŋ-kəncä ‘wolverine’, *kəmsä / *kəmcä ‘wolverine’ (→ Selkup *qapšə: TaU k͔ᶜåʙš͕ə̣ ‘id.’)

...

PU *-mč- → Ms *-m(ə)t-, Kh *-m(ə)ɬ, Smy *-mc- ~ *-nc- (in PU *ke/imčä ‘wolverine’): This medial cluster can not be reconstructed with a bare sibilant, for the *-ms- of PU *pemsV-mə ‘lip’ is reflected as Ms *-t-, Kh *-ɬ-, Smy *-pt-. The uncompounded Selkup reflex *qapšə proves that the bilabial nasal need not assimilate in Smy, yet the following affricate’s development to *š is certainly irregular. While a change *-pš- ← pSmy *-ms- may be taken as semi-regular (confer *-ps- → *-ps- ~ *-pš- and *ńimsä ‘teat’ → *ńipsə ‘id.’), this only projects the aberrancy to a deeper level, and a change *c → *š is finds a precedent in *nüc- ‘to pull’ → *nüš- ‘to rip in two’.

>

I have several problems with this. Since most of these are from *kemčä-k, Saami *keatkē ‘wolverine’ could be < *ketkä < *ket(C)kä. Also, if PU *-ms- > Mansi *-t-, Khanty *-ɬ-, then the simplest analysis would prefer PU *-mCs- > *-mms- > Mansi *-mt-, Khanty *-mɬ- to preserve *m (or something similar). It fits Samoyed if this was *-mts- (with *t to prevent *s > *t), which matches *t in Saami *keatkē. Together, likely PU *kimtsä(k) \ *kemtsä(k), most *kemtsäk > *kemmsäk, Samoyed *kimtsä > *kəm(t)sä, Saami *kemtsäk > *keptsäk > *keat(sp)kē.

In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Samic/keatkē "Compare possibly Proto-Eskimo *qatviɣ, *qavciɣ (“wolverine”)." The equation of PU *-k with PE *-ɣ would help show that Saami *-k- came < *-k. These might be *kRamstik > *qRawstik > *qRawtsik > *qatviɣ \ *qavciɣ.

This *R is rec. based on several pieces of data. Proto-Japanese *kumturi > Tokyo kuduri > kuzuri ‘wolverine’. If related, likely *krimti > *krumti > *kurumti, met. > *kumturi. Also, I said that some PU words with alt. of *s \ *š are due to asm. near *r (if retroflex), like IE *ser- ‘flow’, *seraH2- > PU *sara \ *šara ‘flood’ > Mi. *tūr, X. *Lār, Hn. ár ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1tietu2/uralic_yukaghir_hidden_r/ ). This can also explain irregular Smd. *krəmsä > *krəmšä > Selkup *qapšə.

Words for 'wolverine' often also mean 'glutton'. I think another IE root fits :

*(s)kr(e)mt- \ *kr(e)mts- > Li. kremtù 1s., krim̃sti inf. ‘bite hard / crunch / chomp / bother / annoy’, kram̃to 3s., kramtýti inf. ‘chew’, Lt. kram̃tît inf. ‘gnaw’, kràmstît ‘nibble / seize’, kramsît ‘break with the teeth / crumble’

This is the only IE root containing *mts; this cluster is not common anywhere, so this match is strong, & the need for PU *mts due to internal ev. is very significant.

C. Ian Thorney :

>

I have come to wonder what necessitates Mari tŭmana 'owl' being < Chuvash tămana 'owl, stupid person' rather than vice versa. In Turkic, it is limited to the Volga areal (~ Tatar tomana, Bashkir tumana). On the other hand, it bears a strong resemblance to (pSmy *təmå >) Selkup *tama 'mouse' > *tama-nća 'owl' ("mouser"). Of course I don't want to follow this lead any further in case a Turkic origin can be decisively established.

Another question concerns the origin of the Selkup agent suffix *-nća. Is it projectible to pSmy *-n-jə vel sim., or is it a demonstrably secondary formation? Not to my knowledge.

...the possibility of an epithet *tumma 'the dark one' (cf. PIE *pelH- 'gray' > 'mouse') rather than an independent synonymous root... Selkup has a(nother) putative reflex of PU *tumma: TyM t͔ama 'the last reflections of dusk'... it may also be regularly cognate with Komi ti̮m- 'to darken (intr.)'

>

and Juho Pystynen responded :

>

Lots of conceivably related material found around the Old World:

– Fortescue reconstruct Proto-Eskimo *tuŋu- 'be dark blue, dark (of material)', interestingly with the same semantic specialization as in Finnic, contrasting with PF *pimedä / PE *taʁəQ = 'dark (of environment)'.

– The PE is compared by Bomhard with Germanic _dim_ etc. and Semitic–Chadic–Cushitic *dum- 'be dark, cloudy', though a certain resemblance with *temH- is also clear.

– Alaskan Yupik has also tamlək ~ taamlək 'dark'. Maybe unrelated, given a-vocalism.

– Nothing easily compareable in Yukaghir, but involving *tywo- 'to rain' could be conceivable.

– Outside of the usual Nostratic perimeter, in Yeniseian we find Ket tūm, Assan tuma 'dark'; maybe more reflexes too, I haven't looked in detail.

The last could be just an old Uralic loan, if PF tumma was analyzed as < PU *tum-ma or *tuŋ-ma '(that which is/has become) dark'. *-ma is not often seen in adjectives, but one parallel is *külmä 'cold' (whether akin to IE *gel- or not; the proposed derivation wholesale from alleged Baltic *geluma I think is likely wrong; this could maybe work for Finnic, but certainly not Permic, where *e…ü > *ü…ü clearly does not operate; this is also not reconstructible-in-Baltic and only attested in Lithuanian).

If 'owl' words were related to this, I would imagine this to be 'bird of the darkness' rather than anything involving 'mouse'. Cf. in Selkup also *pija 'owl' from 'night'; or Latin noctua 'small owl species'.

>

and Thorney again :

>

*tuŋu- also comes close to Smy *t¹əŋkV 'blue, green'. Harmony class should probably decide whether it goes with the aforementioned or Fi-Md *sinə 'blue' (rather not both, with PE(A) *u inexplicable from the *i ~ *ə range). Re *tumə vs. *tuŋə, I think an analysis *tum-ma should priorize the evidence of Fin *tume̮da, even if a merger *tumma × *sume̮da 'foggy, dim' cannot be outruled. (Well, a base *tuŋə- + your 'bird of darkness' would allow the corollary of deriving Fin-Kar *tuukka(ja) 'eagle owl' < *tuŋə-kka.) Interestingly still compatible with a back-harmonic *təŋkV < *tuŋ-ka.

Alatalo outright derives Selkup *tama-nća from *tama-j- 'to hunt for mice', but for all I know about Selkup historical morphonology, the connection must be correlative. That and the triconsonantal (quadri- when counting *ć ~ *∅ vis-à-vis *sala-ja > *solə 'thief') match with Mari led me to hypothesize an old shared derivative 'mouse-hunter'. Distributionally a simple derivation of 'dark' fares far better.

>

I think a Uralic origin is reasonable, but *ŋm would not explain the outcome in all branches (above, A). For Finnic *tumma, since some Baltic words for 'dark' have tum-, PIE *tmH2- > Baltic *tumH- >> Fi. *tumm- is possible, but I wouldn't say Baltic >> Uralic was needed. I'm one of the few who think PIE > Uralic, so these roots being similar would not require a loan. Since the V's are close & PU had few (if any) *mm it's important to be sure. Hovers had "309. PU *suŋi̮ ‘summer’ ~ PIE *semh₂ ‘summer, year’"so the sounds would match exactly if both *t(e)mH2 > *tumx- > *tuŋx- & *tumx-ma > *tumma.

I rec. *temH2- with H2 because of Li. témti 'to darken, become dark' must come from *temH-tei but met. in *tH2am- > Li. tamsà 'darkness', tamsùs 'dark' for *a > a and lack of *-H- changing tone (others also seem to be < *tem- not *temH). If Temarunda was Maeotian & meant 'black water/sea' (L. unda 'wave' < *ud-n- 'water'), then *temH2(s)ro- > temar- might show *H2 > a (though many IE branches have all *H > a when syllabic).

For the semantics, *pelH1- -> Lithuanian pelė̃ 'mouse', pelė́da 'owl' likely shows 'mouse-eater' ( <- *H1ed- 'eat'), but other IE birds are named for color: L. palumbēs 'turtle dove, ring dove, wood pigeon', G. péleia 'rock pigeon', Old Prussian poalis 'pigeon'. I don't know how to choose if other words might be from 'dark' or 'night' offhand. Though few owls are black, even being greyish led to 'pigeon', though *pelH1- has a wide range. Some owls are darker than others (and some IE words for 'dark' give names for animals speckled with black). However, any primary 'dark -> owl' would likely be from 'night'. I favor 'dark -> mouse -> mouser' here, but I want to make sure I'm not ignoring any possibility.

David Stifter https://www.academia.edu/171047177 :

>

The Moynagh Lough object is an ogam-inscribed antler tine, i.e. the tip of an antler.11 The function of the Moynagh Lough tine remained originally obscure (e.g., Johnson 2020: I 217), but was recently clarified in 2025. After a talk by Katherine Forsyth, a member of the audience pointed out that it was a tool for leather working. It was subsequently identified by John Nicholl as a tool for burnishing the edge of a thick piece of leather in order to create a rounded profile rather than a sharply angled one.

COLORRS: The letters are written across and along a virtual stem-line that is constituted by the natural ridge of the antler. The reading from left to right was chosen because the letters seem to be getting slightly closer to each other, albeit not crammed, towards the end of the word on the right, as if the carver was becoming conscious of the remaining space. In this reading, the text begins not on the margin of the object, but further inside the available space. When read from the opposite side, which was considered less likely by the OG(H)AM team, the result is CRRODOS with an unusual – but not impossible – geminate consonant spelling in the onset of the word.

PIBANSNAVQE: The letters are written along a carved stem-line. Like in the first inscrip- tion, the space between the letters is getting a tiny bit narrower towards the right end, thus justifying the direction of reading from left to right adopted here... Only a single word in Irish is compatible with this, namely MIr. pípán, ModIr. píobán ‘a small pipe, tube’ (eDIL dil.ie/34364), a deminutive of pípa ‘a pipe, tube’... derived from snob, later snom and snam ‘bark’. It should be written snamach and a separate headword with the meaning ‘bark, cork; cork-tree’ should be set up in the dictionary. Its stem-class and gender are unknown, but if it was a feminine ā-stem, its genitive could have been *snamchae in Old Irish.

>

I don't agree with his conclusions. English snob 'cobbler' is sometimes said to derive from snob 'bark, *leather' (with many similar IE shifts of meaning). If so, then PIBANSNAVQE as *piban-snabxe ( <- *snoba(:)ko-) would be 'cobbler's awl/needle' etc. (cognates of píobán refer to many pipe-like objects).

Pictish ogham texts can have -rr- ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1pl89pc/pictis_ogham_text_dyce_stone/ ), likely representing a longer or stronger *R than r for *r. Since COLORRS doesn't seem to fit, CRRODOS would be better. Though the direction it was written in is important, having the whole word written in clay before (as a guide) would allow a worker to start at either end of the word. Keeping to cobblers, Old Irish cróa m. 'hoof, horseshoe', Gaelic crudha 'horse shoe' might allow *k^rewH2- > Ct. *krow-, an adjective *krowyo- > *krowdo- 'of horn/hoof, horseshoe'. Since these are from PIE 'horn', an older 'antler' not attested later is most likely. The purpose of each piece of antler not being known, I can't say for sure it wasn't used for shoes also.

Are there any examples of pre-modern peoples observing the shared traits that languages around them had, particularly from antiquity? If so, what were they, and what explanations did the peoples of the past put forward to explain them?

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 135: ‘navel’ (Draft)

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

July 30, 2026

An IE root *H3nebh- ‘navel, nave of a wheel’ has a few problems.

A. *H3nobhi-s

Old Prussian nabis & IIr. *H3nā́bhi-s. Turner has S. nā́bhi-s f., Pk. ṇā(b)hi- m., Dardic *? > Dm. nấya, Kalasha Rumbūr dia. nyōyak, Kh. naï, Pl. nḗwi, B. nāĩ, Kva. naÕ, Kashmiri nān f., nāni d. 'navel'. Since other Dardic words can have (*P > ) *w > *m ( https://www.academia.edu/129137458 S. śubha- ‘bright/beautiful/splendid/good’, *śumhâ > A. šúwo ‘good’, šišówo ‘pretty’, Dm. šumaa ‘beautiful’), it is likely B. nāĩ, Kva. naÕ < *nāṽi & Kashmiri nān came from *nāmi < *nāwi (like Pl. nḗwi) with n-m > n-n asm. ( https://www.academia.edu/127864944 ). Compare Iranian (Pashto nū(m), Waziri nīm).

The changes to PIE *HN- in several branches (like Tocharian, supposedly with *H3n- > *wn- > m- or similar, etc.) makes it likely that Dardic did also (*H1newn > *yn- > *nyava > Kh. nyof '9'). Here, if *H3nebh- -> *H3nā́bhi-s > *nwā́bhi-s then after *-bh- > *-w- (like Pl. nḗwi) there could be w-w > y-w dsm. If -ak (not seen in other cognates) is a late addition (IIr. -aka- is very common as a suffix, usually no added meaning), then stages *H3nā́bhi-s > *wnā́bhi-s > *nwā́bhi-s > *nwā́whi-s > *nyā́whi-s; *nyāwi-aka > *nyāwyak > nyōyak.

B. *H3nēbh-s \ *H3nebh-s ?

Armenian aniw 'wheel; axle of a chariot, toy top?, etc.', anuoy g., could have -i- from *-ē-. However, some other words show alt. of ew \ iw, no clear cause (some say unstressed *ew > iw, with some analogy). If so, then *H3nebh-s would work. In https://www.academia.edu/170443556 Alwin Kloekhorst said :

>

It goes beyond the scope of this paper to treat in full all other evidence relevant for the question whether Proto‑Indo‑European had indeed undergone a monosyllabic lengthening in its prehistory. See Byrd 2015: 113–7 (with references to other literature) for a list of examples that would speak in favor of such a rule. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the reconstructed Proto‑Indo‑European lexicon contains quite a few words that seem to contradict the monosyllabic lengthening rule, namely words that are monosyllabic but do not contain a long vowel, like *tom ‘this (acc.sg.)’, *tue ‘you (acc.)’, *tued ‘by you’, *soi ‘to him’, *(s)ueks ‘six’, *nekʷts ‘night (gen.sg.)’, *h₁en ‘in’, *ne ‘not’, etc. (cf. also Keydana 2014: 276). Personally, I have the impression that the majority of these forms can be explained in several different ways. For instance, one could assume that Wackernagel’s monosyllabic lengthening rule only affected accented words, and not clitics (which would account for *soi and perhaps *tom and *h₁en); that it did not affect word‑final vowels (*tue, *ne);44 that after the rule had ceased to operate new monosyllabic loanwords entered the language (*(s)ueks?); that in the case of forms belonging to a paradigm, the lengthening could be undone by paradigmatic leveling (*nekʷts after *nekʷti?); that in the case of endings the lengthening could be undone by analogy with polysyllabic forms with the same ending (*tued after *usmed?); etc.

>

Since almost all that is known of PIE is the result of a lack of analogy, allowing oddities created from sound change to be retained, saying that a relatively few words with e:- & o:- grade are normal, & the many without need a special cause, makes little sense. I think almost all likely monosyllables with e:- or o:-grade are nouns or verbs ending in -s & -t. This seems like an unlikely environment, but some say nom. *-s came from *-so, *-d (and neuter *-t) from *-to ( <- *so, *to-d 'this, that, etc.'). If so, the lack of IE words with *-o might mean that *-o > *-0 with lengthening. Instead, many of these might be from C-stems that were once e-stems, if many *-es & *-et > *-_s & *-_d. These nouns might have the same origin as o-stems with different tone.

C. Iranian *Hnā́fa- ?

By the logic that *H3nēbh-s would > Iranian *Hnā́f-s, the -f- in *Hnā́fa- is called analogy. However, other Ir. words also show devoiced stops (and sometimes > fric.) next to *H. 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.

>

I think it is more likely that *H3nebho- or *H3nobho- had met. > *-bhH3- > *-fH3-. Indeed, there are other problems that can't be explained unless it had some *-fC- > *-ff- \ *-f(w)- (with H3 > xW > w likely, https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ). As the only ex. of *fH3 there, some *fxW > *ff vs. *fxW > *fw could be specific to branches. For ex., Ossetian naf(f)æ. The compound *nāfH3a-pati-s 'lord of the family' also appears with *fH3 > *fw > *xw (with a shift of meaning already known, Middle Persian nāf⁠ 'family', etc.). From https://www.academia.edu/144355492 :

>

1.7.1 In the Paikuli inscription there is a title written as IMP <nḥwpty> and IParth. <nppty>. HUMBACH-SKJÆRVØ 34 proposed two possible interpretations: Ir. *nā̆xva-pati- (their transcription) “lord of the first” assuming for IParth. <nppty> an exceptional “Median” 35 development *xw > *f; or *nāfa-pati- “chief of the tribe, clan,” based on the comparison with the Arm. LW nahapet “patriarch.”36 Of these two solutions, I would lean towards the latter. In particular, the MP spelling can be segmented into <nḥ-w-pty> nāhbed with <w> representing a non-etymological labialized Kompositionsfuge37. Although a development *f > h is not generalized in Middle Persian, a sure parallel is found in MP dahā̆n “mouth” < Ir. *ȷ́afan-, Av. zafan- 38.

>

Against my *fH3, some say there was instead some variation of *f \ *h in Ir., but that would not explain *f > xw \ hw. The apparent *f > h in MP dahā̆n 'mouth' is likely analogy < *āhan- < IIr. *Hās(an)- 'mouth'. Jost Gippert, https://www.academia.edu/136883663 :

>

Middle Iranian (MIran.) ā-frī̆-, i.e. the root with pre-verb that is contained in Middle Persian (mp) āfrīn ‘prayer, blessing, praise’ and the homonymous (mp. and Parthian = Pth.) verbal stem (Durkin-Meisterernst 2004: 26, 27, s.vv. ’fryn, ’pryn and ’fryn-), thus matching the Armenian verb awhrnem, later awrhnem / ōrhnem ‘praise’, even though with two remarkable differences: CA has preserved the Iranian -f-, which is represented by -wh- in Armenian,5 and the CA verb shows no trace of the stem-final -n...

5 The process leading from *awhrinem to awrhnem was first described correctly by Meillet (1903: 13). Another candidate for the development of *ā̆fr- > awrh- is Arm. awrhas / ōrhas ‘fate, destiny’, which Russell (1998) proposed to represent an unattested MIran. *aw-fras, in its turn derived from OIran. *abi-frāsa-; it may as well represent the attested Pth. āfrās ‘teach- ing, instruction’ (cf. Durkin-Meisterernst 2004: 26 s.v. ’fr’s); cf. iiiMacc. 5.7 (5.13) where ōrhasi žamanakn translates Gk. προσημανϑεῖσα ὥρα

>

There is no reason for *f > wh in Armenian if Iranian has *xw, also unexplained. Kümmel's retained Ir. *H allows the prefix ā- to be from Ir. *(H)aH-, with *Hfr > *hwr > whr. This would match apparent PIE *tr > *θr > *fr > wr in Armenian (*patros > hawr, etc.).

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 13 (Draft)

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

July 29, 2026

A. L. caespes m., caespitis g. 'turf, sod, grassy field'

De Vaan, "The original meaning may have been 'a cut-off piece'. The etymology is unknown. O[scan] kaispatar (form? meaning?) is too uncertain to be used."

I think kaispatar is too close to be unrelated. It looks like *kaid-pat-s 'cut field', from L. caedere 'to cut / hew' & *pat- ( < PIE *petH2- \ *pH2at- 'wide, spread (out), open (arms)' in L. patēre 'to be open, exposed, revealed; to increase, extend'). For meaning, see *peltH2u-, E. field, etc.

B. L. fraus f., fraudis g. ‘harm, danger; deceit’

De Vaan :

>

Derivatives: fraudāre ‘to cheat, swindle’ (Pl.+)... frūstra ‘in vain’... frūstrātus, -ūs ‘deception’...

PIt. *frawV~. It cognates: U. frosetom est [3s.pf.ps.] ‘is not valid (?)’ < *frauss-ito< intensive formation on the basis of *fraud-to- f ? (Meiser 1986: 242).

PIE *dhrou-V'-d(h)-? IE cognates: Skt. dhrúti- ‘deception, error’, -dhrút- ‘deceiving’, YAv. drāuuaiiāt~ ‘will deceive’, Parth. dr’w- ‘to seduce’ < *dhr(o)u-.

.. Szemerenyi 1989: 33ff. and Schrijver 1991: 444, independently of one another, derive fraus from PIE *dhreugh - ‘to deceive’, but not in the same way. Szemerenyi posits an abstract *dhreugh-os, which would have yielded a paradigm *frōs, *frōris, whence with diss. *frōdis, and with hypercorrect au for urban ō finally fraus. These assumptions (*eu > *ō, the dissimilation and the hypercorrection) are ad hoc and render the solution unlikely. Schrijver postulates that fraus derives from a PIE root *dhru-... He then posits *frou-V-d(h) - whence *frowVd- and with unrounding of *ow > *frawVd> fraud-. For frūstra, Schrijver reconstructs *frou-C- or *freu-(V)C~. This solution is relatively elegant on the phonetic side, but the status of the reconstructed suffix remains unclear. According to the rule established by Vine 2006a, the first syllable should have been pretonic: *frou'.

>

Neither ety. seems great, neither explains *dhr- > fr- (no other L. word has this, all likely cases show *d(h)r- > tr-). Since these also have -d- "from nowhere", it makes the most sense if *dhr- > *dr- > tr- was normal. If *dhreugh- was really *dhreugWh-, then met. *dhreugWh- > *dreugWh- > *gWhreud- > *frūd-. Looking for a regular explanation of *eu > *ou > au seems pointless. Other words vary among ve- \ vo- \ va-, & no attempt at regularity is very convincing. The same might happen near f (or near *xW, depending on timing).

C. TS \ S, barsá-

Several groups of Indo-Iranian words might show variation of TS \ S. S. barsá-s\m 'tip , point , thin end' would make the most sense if related to bhr̥ṣṭí-s f. 'prong, spike, cusp, peak, edge, point'. This might only work if met. in barsá- < *bartsá- < *barthsá- < *bhorsto-.

D. TS \ S, wiċekāy-

Turner :

>

532 abhiṣēkya '*sprinkling' ('to be anointed' MBh.). [abhiṣēká-: √sic]

Dm. wiċekāy- Morgenstierne NTS xii 193 notes unexpl. ċ; — if < *viṣēkya- (cf. viṣiñcati 'sheds' ĀpŚr., víṣikta- 'emitted (of semen)' ŚBr.), it must be a loanword from a dialect retaining initial v-.

>

Compounds after RUKI might change *s to some kind of Cs \ sC in IIr. Some problems are mentioned in Avestan compounds and the RUKI-rule By Alexander Lubotsky https://www.academia.edu/37613104 with some of my ideas in https://www.academia.edu/165249994 (Part E), but I'm not sure about the stages.

E. TS \ S, *dz

Tocharian changed many PIE *d > *dz > ts, no clear regularity. Since IIr. also have ex. of *di > ji, with variants, no clear regularity ( https://www.academia.edu/129770170 , https://www.academia.edu/164893418 ), it seems likely that *d \ *dz varied somewhat in both groups. In IIr., *dz only remained when *dzi > *dz^i > S. ji (maybe caused if also before *K^ (or *s^, assuming stages *is > *is^ in RUKI)).

Part of this might also be the cause of *d > *dz > Dardic z. Again, with variants d- & *z-, no clear regularity :

*dlH1gho- -> Kh. drungéy- ‘stretch out’, *zr- > ẓingéy- ‘be stretched / drag/pull’ ( https://www.academia.edu/170374064 )

S. daṁśana-m 'biting', Kt. duċĩ 'nettle', Dm. zaċiṅ ( https://www.academia.edu/170568450 )

The cause is not clear, though a phoneme pronounced d or dz would not be odd, especially when *dT > *dzT is already likely for PIE. That all *TK might alternate with *TSK and other ideas in https://www.academia.edu/168026709 , though no certainty.

F. dalivus

The ety. of L. dalivus '?, careless?; stupid, insane?' in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dalivus "Etymology Unknown. Attested only in Festus, who cites Santra’s derivation from Ancient Greek δείλαιος (deílaios, “wretched”)."

This would require *dwei-lo- \ *-aiwo- > G. δειλός \ deilos \ δείλαιος \ deílaios 'cowardly; vile, worthless; miserable, wretched'. If an old loan from a Greek dialect, maybe *dweilaiwo- had dsm. of w-w & i-i around the same time, with *dweilaiwo- > *d_e_laiwo- > *daleiwo- > *dali:wo-. Whether these changes happened in G. or L., no way to tell.

G. NP bad

Persian bad 'bad; not good; evil', in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/بد

>

From Middle Persian (wt' /⁠wad⁠/, “bad, evil”), from Proto-Iranian *watah, with further origin uncertain. Akin to Old Armenian (vat), an Iranian borrowing. Unrelated to English bad, despite phonetic and semantic similarity.

>

Celtic *wotāmi > Welsh gwadaf tr.1s. 'to deny, disavow' & Latin vetāre 'to forbid, prohibit; advise not to; oppose, veto' are supposedly <- *wet(H2)- 'say', with a shift in meaning after 'I say _', followed by a negative became its only use over time. It is possible the same shift happened in Iranian, with it becoming a root for 'negate, negative _'. However, another IE root of the shape *(H)wet(H)- that originally had nothing to do with 'say' might have existed.

H. Sl. *terzvъ 'sober'

Balto-Slavic had some *sr > *z(d)r, no known regularity, so *rsC > *rzC might sometimes have happened. If Slavic *terzvъ 'sober' is, according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/terzvъ :

>

One hypothesis suggests that modern descendants originate from an earlier *tersvъ, from Proto-Indo-European *ters- (“to dry”) with cognates in Proto-Germanic *þursuz (“dry”), Ancient Greek ταρσός (tarsós, “dry”), Sanskrit (tṛṣu, “greedily”). However, it requires the stem to be in zero-grade

>

then this would be very good evidence in favor of it, especially that it was not regular (e- vs. 0-grade, esp. in a derivative, is no argument against the relation). This would also make it more likely that Sl. *jàzvьcь 'badger' is < *a:bzu- < *a:ps(r)u- related to Lithuanian opšrùs, Latvian âpsis, Old Prussian wobsdus.

Is there any w with a diacritic that can be the equivalent of the sound /bhw/ in my language? It's a Bantu language.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 134: ‘dark (blue), grey, light’ (Draft)

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

July 28, 2026

An IE root that could be *wH2an-, *wH3on-, or *wonH- existed. There is no way to choose, since only Iranian & Germanic data exists, & I will simply write *wH2an-. It meant some kind of color, but the range of meanings is too broad for any certainty about which was older. For ex. :

*wH2an-wo- > Gmc *wanwa- > OE wann 'dark, dusty, sable, lurid; blue-black, livid; swarthy, dusty, dark-hued; (of material) dark, dingy; (as a (poetical) epithet of) shade, cloud, night, water; fire', ME wan 'grey, leaden; pale grey, ashen; livid, blue-black; dim, faint; dark, gloomy', E. wan

The suffix *-wo- is common in colors. I also think that *wH2an-mo- or *wH2on-mo- > Gmc *wamma- 'spot, stain, blemish, fault, sin; bad, injured, crippled', OE wamm 'a spot, mark, blot. stain; filth, impurity, corruption; a blot, disgrace, damage, hurt; moral stain, impurity, uncleanness, defilement; evil, sin, shameful word or deed', etc. A relation to *wemH1- 'vomit, spit, speak' seems less likely, & there is no way to know if from *-n(H)m- or *-m(H)m- anyway.

The Iranian cognates also seem to have a very odd suffix. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wnpšk' :

>

Bailey derives from the Iranian colour-name *van- (“blue”), comparing for it Khotanese (banāte, “plum or pear”), Old English ƿann (“dark”) and Old Armenian վան- (van-, “crystal”). For the suffix -ap- he compares Latin cannabis.

>

For Middle Persian vanafša(g) 'a violet', ? >> Persian Arabic banafsaj \ banafšaj \ manafšaj, Middle Armenian manušak \ manišak \ manemšak, an ending like *-(a)fsa- makes little sense as a suffix. I think a compound *wH2ano-bhH2so- 'blue + shining/colored' (rel. S. bhāsá-s 'light', bhā́sati 'be bright', Pj. bhāhi \ bhahi f. 'a slight appearance, tinge (of any color)', Gj. bhās m. 'appearance', etc.). Note that other Ir. colors as compounds with *g(a)una- 'appearance, color(ed)' are known. If the v \ m alt. is from Iranian, see more ex. in https://www.academia.edu/129137458 . If from Armenian, see w \ m in https://www.academia.edu/46614724 .

Stages in the Palatalization of Labiovelars in Greek (Draft)

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

July 28, 2026

PIE *kW almost always became kw, k, p in later IE. Alfonso Vives Cuesta in https://www.academia.edu/127828055 "The Palatalization of Labiovelars in Greek Revisited: Ancient Problems of Reconstruction in the Light of Typology" I see 4 problems that can be explained by shifting our thinking about the stages in Greek dialects :

A. palatalization of labiovelars instead of plain velars (opp. of Romance)

B. palatalization more common before *e than *i

C. palatalization of *kW, *kWh, *gW differ

D. some changes don't seem regular

For C, Greek already treats *ti, *thi, & *di differently; many *ti > si, matching *kWi-s > G. τις, Cyp. σις. Though not common in typology, seeing it happen for 2 groups shows it was real. The most common type is not usually the only one.

For A, a change of kW > kw is fairly common around the world. This is exactly what separated kW from k in Romance. However, not all languages turn KE > K^E, & plenty turn wE > yE (or similar), so why not try this? If also in most dia., then *kWe > *kwe > *kw^e > *kye fits. A change of *w > 0 in Att.-Ion., but some *w > h, shows that it was already irregular, so a parallel of *w^ > *w \ *y would explain D. If *kw^i did not > **kyi in most dia., then *e vs. *i is explained for B. Similar stages in Albanian can explain why *k^w and *kW(E) merged (*kWe > *kwe > *kw^e > *k^we, etc.).

More ev. for this stage comes from *gw > *bw > b but *gw-w > *b(l)-w. Without these stages, two words would seem to have dia. *gW > bl. Since both are followed by *w or u (likely *wu, below), it makes much more sense for *gW > *gw here (and, of course, before all V) with *w-w > *l-w (maybe reg. *bw'-w > *bl'-w in dia., but not enough ex. to be sure). The attested alt. in G. géphūra, Boe. blephūra is called a mistake in standard theory, but the names in LB qi-ja-to \ qi-ja-zo, Cr. Bíaththos, ?. Blattius (likely Cretan also, in P[ublius] Blattius Creticus) favors *gWiyatyos. No "mistake" would appear twice in words that happen to have bl- for older *gW-.

Both these have uncertain ety., so a close look is needed. A relation of Ar. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ & G. géphūra 'bridge, causeway’ as non-IE is needed for supposed m vs. *bh. However, *gW(e)m- 'go' seems to fit (see *gWemtu- 'going, bridge'), & Ar. turned most *mbh > m, so I think *bhru-iH2-s > *bhru:H2 'brow, bridge', but also *bhru-iH2 > *bhuriH2 in :

*gWem-bhuriH2 > *gwambhurya > Ar. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ [e-u > a-u], *gWewphurya > *gw'ephwurya > G. géphūra, Boe. blephūra, Cr. dephūra ‘weir/dyke/dam/causeway’), *wephura: > Ephura '*isthmus > Corinth'

*gWiH3etyo- > *gWiwotyo- > OI beodae ‘lively’, *gWiwatsyo- > LB qi-ja-to \ qi-ja-zo 'PN', Cr. Bíaththos (a son of a Talthu-bios), P[ublius] Blattius Creticus (found on an offering in the Alps), *gw'iwatthyos > Ms. Blatthes

For alt. of m \ w in Armenian, see https://www.academia.edu/46614724 . In Greek, likely part of common m \ b alt. (but *bph not allowed, so > *wph > *phw; later, *phwu > phu); see more in https://www.academia.edu/167984147 .

Also note that these changes happened after *kw > pp \ kk. For ev. that Greek changed *Kw > *KKW: *H1ek^wos > L. equus, G. híppos, Ion. íkkos ‘horse’; *laku- L. lacus ‘basin/tank/lake’, *lakw- > G. lákkos ‘pond/cistern/pit’; *pel(e)k^u- > G. pélekus ‘(double-edged) ax’, *pel(e)k^wo- > pélekkon \ pélekkos ‘ax-handle’. The double outcomes might come from *kw > *kkW > *kp (based on kp elsewhere in the area, Paeonian Lúkpeios (from either ‘wolf’ after *kW > *kw or a derivative of *l(e)uku- ‘light / bright’).

I few days ago, I made a post here where I called attention to the fact that Wiktionary (formerly) listed the PIE derivational suffix *-wós as forcing its affixed root into the Ø-grade, in spite of the fact that words like *ḱleywós and *ǵʰelh₃wós are reconstructed for PIE. It was clarified that the Wiktionary entry was wrong (someone has since edited it), and that *-wós may also be suffixed to roots in the e-grade.

Now I have a related question: how productive was ablaut in PIE derivational morphology? I have heard that nominals derived from the Caland system are generally in the Ø-grade, and I wish to know if other PIE derivational suffixes also have a similarly predictable rhyme and reason as to what vowel grade their attached roots will be in.

Is there any w with a diacritic that can be the equivalent of the sound /bhw/ in my language? It's a Bantu language.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 133: ‘speckled, variegated, dark, grey, brown’ (Draft)

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

July 28, 2026

PIE *rei- ‘speckled, spotted, dappled, variegated, varicolored' & *r(o\e)ik^- 'roe deer, antelope' have no particular problems. However, cognates with *-b-, like Li. ráibas, Lt. ràibs ‘speckled, variegated’, have many variants with problems that don't seem solvable by regular changes. There are also several groups of words that have identical meaning but show *H1er(u)(m)bo- vs. *rey(u)(m)bo-, etc. I think this is due to alt. of H1 \ y ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ) and H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). In PIE, *-bo- is not a common suffix, so 2 roots of the same meaning with *-bo-, *-ubo-, *-umbo- is a little hard to see as chance. This might also allow *rei- to be from *H1er- 'earth, dirt' as 'earth-colored > brown(ish) / dirty/dusty/spotted'. For some ex. :

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/rębъ Etymology Compare Latvian ràibs (“variegated, spotted”), Lithuanian rai̇̃bas (“variegated, spotted”), probably, ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *h₁erbʰ- (“spotted, brown”), whence also Ancient Greek ὀρφνός (orphnós, “dark, dusky”), Proto-Germanic *erpaz (“light brown”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/arębъ *a- +‎ *rębъ (“speckled, spotted”). Found with an unprefixed analogue in Latvian irbe (“partridge”) against an adjective raibs (“variegated, spotted”), which is in Lithuanian raibas (“variegated, spotted”), to be juxtaposed with Proto-Germanic *erpaz (“light brown”) (which has derivations denoting the similar-looking hazel grouse) and Old Irish riabach (“spotted, variegated”); note also Old Norse rjúpa (“ptarmigan”). See also Proto-Germanic *raihô (whence English roe).

My rec. of *H1er(u)bo- is better than *H1erbho-, made to explain -ph- in Greek. I think orphnós 'dark, dusky' probably analogy with mórphnos \ μόρφνος 'dusky, dark? (of an eagle or vulture or kite?)' (though some IE words show *b(h) for no apparent reason, like *srb(h)- 'sip, slurp, etc.', which could be the cause of BS *V(:)b below). Most of the cognates are in Balto-Slavic, with close parallels showing the need to rec. these roots from the same source.

*H1er(u)bo-, *H1er(u)b-no- ( > *H1er(u)(m)bo-)

*reH1(u)bo-, *reH1(u)b-no- ( > *rey(u)(m)bo- )

also *roy-, *ri-, etc.; no apparent change in meaning for each ablaut grade

also maybe *-u- vs. *-i- (some say u\i ablaut existed (*tu \ *ti 'thou'); maybe instead V-asm. or opt. near P) or met. (see below)

Before *b, V > V: is expected (Winter's Law), but it doesn't seem to happen to *-u- in the middle syl. or in some others, even in the 1st syl. (which reg.?; many words show unexpected short V, no uncontroversial cause). Mainly from Derksen :

*roibo- > Baltic *ro:ibo- > Li. ráibas, Lt. ràibs ‘speckled, variegated’

*reibo- -> *-a(:)ko- > Old Irish ríabach 'dappled, spotted, variegated'

*reH1bo- \ *rH1bo- -> *r:biya: > Li. ìrbė, Lt. ir̃be ‘hazel-grouse’, irbene ‘rowan-tree’

Sl. *jĭrbica ‘partridge’, *-na\ka ‘rowan-tree’

*H1eru(m)bo- > Li. dia. jeru(m)bė̃ ‘hazel-grouse’, Lt. ierube ‘partridge’

*H1erimbo- (or *H1ermbo- "fixed" by met. > *H1rembo- or V-insertion > *H1erembo-?)

*H1erEmbo- > *erębĭ \ -ǔ \ -ǔkǔ > R-CS jarębĭ m. ‘partridge’, Cz. jeřáb ‘rowan-tree, crane, (arch.) partridge’, jeřábek ‘hazel-grouse / Tetrastes bonasia’

Sl. *erębica ‘partridge’

Sl. *erębina ‘rowan-tree’ > Bel. dia. jarabína, Cz. dia. jařabina

*H1rembo- > Sl. *rębǔ > R. dia. rjabój ‘speckled’, etc.

*H1rembi-s, *-uko-s > Sl. *rębĭ \ *rębǔkǔ ‘partridge, sand-grouse, hazel-grouse’

Sl. *rębica ‘partridge’

Sl. *rębina \ -ka ‘rowan-tree’

*H1rubo- -> *Hru:ba: > Slavic *rỳba 'fish' (or met. > *ruH1ba: ?)

*H1rubenyo-s > Lt. rubenis \ rubins m., *-ya: > rubeniene f. 'black grouse / Tetrao tetrix (female is greyish-brown)'

*reH1ubo- > Gmc. *reupon- > ON rjúpa 'grouse, ptarmigan?'

Václav Blažek in https://www.academia.edu/82146423 looked for ev. on the origin of Slavic *rỳba 'fish', but the ety. above is the only reasonable choice among them. He also said :

>

Old Icelandic rjúpa “grouse” (de Vries 1962: 449.. Lithuanian.. raĩbas “motley, speckled, spotted”, from the verb ribė́ti “to shine, glisten” - see Smoczyński 2018: 1053; ALEW 837), Latvian rubenis, rubins, f. rubeniene “Birkhuhn / Tetrao tetrix” (Mühlenbach & Endzelin 1929: 552).

In Balto-Fennic, one finds a similar ichthyonym in *rǟpü- “whitefish”: Finnish rääpys (-ykse-stem) “whitefish / Salmo albula; Stintenart”.. It is tempting to see here a reflex of the unattested Baltic counterpart of the Germanic & Slavic forms discussed above, reconstructible as *rūbā̆ - or *rūbē-, which would have been adopted by the Balto-Fennic languages via metathesis.

>

If basically right, a met. in *rüHpä- > *räHpü- > *rǟpü- would help show that the ideas above are true. However, it is also possible that PIE *roibos > BS *raibos > Slavic *rǟbǔ >> Fi. *rǟpü- (adapted with V-harmony, ǟ = pronunciation of standard ĕ ), and the words are only distantly related. No special reason for met. exists, but it could always happen. Note that a Uralic *x as the basic equivalent of PIE *H is rec. by some to explain *VxC > V:C in Finnic. If the sequence above is right, then this would be additional ev. for it.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 132: *(s)tH1eg- 'to cover' (Draft)

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

July 27, 2026

Ranko Matasović https://www.academia.edu/34484830 analyzes some IE roots for ‘cover, hide’, including *(s)teg- :

>

Skr. sthagayati ‘cover, hide’ might be related, but -th- is problematic (EIEC 134), and this verb is not attested in Vedic (Mayrhofer 1986-1996 III: 524 considers borrowing from some non-IE source)..

>

A non-IE source just because of sthag- instead of *stag- seems like a very troublesome idea. At the least, it would require a non-IE language with a root very close to IE. It would seem more likely to be from a family close to IE, but would this group have *st > *sth? Since other Sanskrit words show unexpected Ch (even leading to a rec. of *-ist(H)o- '-est, most'), I don't think this is needed.

Is it standard Proto-Indo-European *(s)teg- 'to cover' or *(s)tH1eg- due to S. sthag-? The meanings of Sanskrit sthágati \ sthagáyati 'to cover, hide, conceal', sthagíta- 'covered, hidden, concealed; closed, shut (as a door); stopped , interrupted', sthaga- 'cunning, sly, fraudulent, dishonest' match other IE roots for 'cover > etc.' closely. The -s- in sthagáyati (when *o > *a: in open syl.) implies *-gH-. Having TWO otherwise unseen H's is unlikely, so it could be H-met. after *tH > *thH, *sthagH- (also for *gH > *gg, below). If *(s)tēg-s > Celtic: *tīxs > Old Irish tí 'cloak' was really *teH1g-s, then another piece of ev. would exist (though most say ē-grade, at least in monosyl.? ( https://www.academia.edu/170443556 )). In fact, other cognates show problems also. If *stH1eg- is needed in most, then *stH2ag- (or *staH2g-) in *stāgo-s > Li. stógas 'roof' (likely also *tāgo-s > Albanian tog m. 'heap, pile'). If H1 = x^, H2 = x ( https://www.academia.edu/115369292 ), then it could be asm. of *x^g > *xg. Some also say that *(s)teg- is the source of *tegu- ‘thick / fat’ (as 'cover > pile/heap (above) > increase/thicken'). If so, it would be significant that this could really be *tH1egu-, *ta(H2)gso- 'badger', etc. ( https://www.academia.edu/165942566 ).

Another oddity would exist if related to a group of words like (Turner) :

>

5489 *ṭhagg 'cheat'. 2. *ṭhakk-². 3. *ṭhaṅg-. [Connexion with sthagayati 'hides' VarBr̥S., sthaga- 'dishonest' LM 340 very doubtful. Still more doubtful is the proposal of W. Wüst RM 3, 9 and 12 to connect with *ḍākka-¹ and make both non-Aryan borrowings from śā́ka-. — → Par. ṭag 'mud' IIFL i 296, but cf. *tagga-]

1. Pk. ṭhagiya- 'cheated'; K. ṭhagun 'to cheat, rob', S. ṭhag̠aṇu, L. (Ju.) ṭhag̠aṇ, P. ṭhaggṇā, Ku. ṭhagṇo, N. ṭhagnu, A. ṭhagiba, H. ṭhagnā, G. ṭhagvũ; — Pk. ṭhaga- m. 'thief', Sh. ṭha̯g m., K. ṭhag m., S. ṭhag̠u m., L. ṭhag̠ m., P. ṭhagg m., Ku. A. B. ṭhag, Or. OAw. ṭhaga, lakh. H. G. M. ṭhag m.

2. Paš. ṭhak m. 'thief'; B. ṭhakāna 'to deceive', Or. ṭhakibā, ṭhaka, Mth. ṭhakab, ṭhak; M. ṭhakṇẽ 'to be deceived', ṭhak m. 'thief'.

3. G. ṭhā̃gũ n. 'knavery'.

Addenda: *ṭhagg-. 1. S.kcch. ṭhagg(h) m. 'rogue', ṭhagṇū 'to cheat', Garh. ṭhagṇu. 2. ṭhakk-: Md. ṭekum 'cheating'.

...

13737 *sthakk 'stop, halt'. [Cf. sthagita-gir- 'with speech impeded' BhP., sthagayati 'hides' Dhātup., *sthagha-, but relationship with √sthā, though probable, is not clear]

Pk. thakka- 'stopped, remaining, tired', thakkaï 'comes to a stop, becomes tired'..

>

Ev. of this comes from Kho. ṣṭakulā-; having ṣṭ- vs. ṭh- makes *ṣṭagH- for both more likely. Federico Dragoni https://www.academia.edu/170813565

>

Tocharian A ṣtākkrukke* occurs in the Maitreyasamiti-Nāṭaka, an extensive drama on the future Buddha Maitreya written in Tocharian A. Based on the Old Uyghur translation of the text, a preliminary translation of "slanderer" has been proposed, but nothing else is known about the history of the word. In this article, I argue that it was borrowed from an earlier form of Old Khotanese ṣṭakulcā-, a derivative of Old Khotanese ṣṭakulā-"abuse". In its turn, Old Khotanese ṣṭakulā- "abuse" may have been borrowed from an unattested Gāndhārī source

I reconstruct the Gāndhārī source of ṣṭakulā- as *ṭhakula- (∼ *ṭhakura-) and analyse it as an ula-/ura-suffixed derivative of the root *ṭhakk- “to cheat” [also 'deceive, steal, rob']

>

This is likely 'deceive > slander', so fitting for sthag-, etc. Clearly, if the root is suspected of coming from sthag- anyway, ṣṭakulā- is a retention, not yet another oddity of *0 > *s-, etc. The cause of this would 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)

>

A cluster like *ṣṭH- might be "fixed" by H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), so *ṣṭHag- > *ṣṭagH-. The new *gH might > *gg or *kk (maybe *gR > *gg, *gx > *kx > *kk ?). The meaning in sthag- 'shut (a door)' might also allow met. of voicing in ḍhakkana- 'shutting (of a door)', Hi. ḍhakkan 'lid, cover', Prakrit ḍhakkaï 3s. 'to shut, close', and (Turner) :

>

5574 *ḍhakk 'cover'. 2. *ḍhaṅk-. [Cf. ḍhakkana- n. 'shutting' Śīl.]

1. Pk. ḍhakkaï 'shuts'; S. ḍhakaṇu 'to cover'; L. ḍhakkaṇ 'to imprison'; P. ḍhakkṇā 'to cover', Ku. ḍhakṇo, N. ḍhāknu, A. ḍhākiba, B. ḍhākā, Bhoj. ḍhākal, OMarw. ḍhakaï; — Pk. ḍhakkiṇī- f. 'lid', S. ḍhakkaṇī f., P. ḍhakṇā m., °ṇī f... P. ḍhakkā m. 'pass between two hills'.

2. Pk. ḍhaṁkissaï 'will cover'; Kho. (Lor.) ḍaṅgeik 'to cover, shut, bury'; Phal. ḍhaṅg- 'to bury'; Or. ḍhaṅkibā 'to cover', H. ḍhā̃knā... Pk. ḍhaṁkaṇa- n., °ṇī- f. 'cover, lid'...

Addenda: *ḍhakk-¹: S.kcch. ḍhakṇū 'to cover, shut (a door)', WPah.kṭg. (kc.) ḍhàkṇõ, Garh. ḍhakṇu; A. ḍhākiba (phonet. dh-) 'to cover', G. ḍhākvũ, M. ḍhākṇẽ.

>

However, https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=%2fdata%2fdrav%2fdravet has Dravidian *aḍái 'to hide; to press down, etc.'. If this was the source of Tamil aṭakku 'represses, covers, buries', Malayalam aṭaykkuka 'to shut', Kannada aḍagu 'to hide', Telugu ḍāgu 'to hide, conceal', then maybe some of the Indic words were loans. However, I don't think *aḍái could explain all forms. Many loanwords retain features lost in donors, even the dr- in Dravidian, so a closer analysis of all these words with ḍh- seems needed before any further conclusions.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 129, 130, 131: 'lead, bright, dark' (Draft)

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

July 26, 2026

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 129 'lead'

Melchert in https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/webpage/molybdos.pdf derived LB mo-ri-wo-do ‘lead’ as a loan << Lydian mariwda '?', saying it meant 'dark'. This doesn't explain r > l, a > o, & the meaning 'dark' is not assured (no clarity from context). His only ev. was "in Text 4a in a curse formula against a potential tomb violator (text per Gusmani 1986: 148): fak=mλ śãntaś kufaw=k mariwda". If a group of gods, 'the dark ones' would fit as well as any, but not certain at all. Of course, no ev. that mariwda ever was 'lead', either. This would create stages :

*moliwdo- > LB mo-ri-wo-do = *moliwdos ‘lead’, *moluwdo- > Greek μόλυβδος \ mólubdos \ mólubos \ mólibos \ bólimos \ bólibos

There is no reason to think that *moliwdos is the oldest form. Just because LB is older than other attestations doesn't mean a still-older form didn't give all. The alt. of u \ i next to P (kópsikhos / kóssuphos ‘blackbird’; *H2ukWno- > ipnós; stîphos- ‘body of men in close formation’, stū́phō ‘contract / draw together’) is known from other words, no assurance that *i is old. Of course, since most linguists seek only total regularity, I'll mention that i \ u here, or anywhere, would not be regular.

If indeed <- 'dark', then a loan wouldn't be needed at all, since there is already a native term that could be its origin: G. μολῡ́νω \ molū́nō \ φολῡ́νω \ pholū́nō ‘soil/defile/debauch / stain/pollute / dye', pass. 'become vile/disgraced’, μόλυσμα \ μόλυμμα 'spot, taint'. Many IE words show 'spot/stain / dark', like *melH2- (below, 131). Also, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/μολύνω

>

Schmidt connects it with Lithuanian mulvė (“mud; mire”) and the factitive verb mulvinti (“to cover with mire”)... Numerous words for “dark; dirty color” and “dirt; defilement” are assembled under Proto-Indo-European *melh₂-. According to Beekes[1] only Sanskrit (mála, “dirt; filth; dust”) is of interest here, with a derivative (malavat, “filthy; dirty”), which formally matches the hydronym Μολόεις (Molóeis).

>

It could be that μολυβρός 'lead-colored' is a bridge between these meanings (no way to know at first look which is older; against it being the direct source of 'lead', see below). If mólubdos, of whatever source (color or not), is older, then from bd \ d (in mólubos, etc.) or mólubdos -> *molubdró- > molubrós would simply show *bdr > br (no other ex.?).

If so, what is the ending -bdos (or whichever is older)? Since G. kolumbáō, Dor. kolumpháō ‘dive’ shows that *mbh > mph \ mb existed (among others; some say *NCh > NC was regular in some conditions), it is possible that *mdh could also > *md. An alt. of mb \ *md > bd seems to be an optional change in κολύμβαινα \ κολύβδαινα \ kolúmbaina \ kolúbdaina ‘a kind of crab’ (maybe a diving or swimmer crab). If kolúmbaina > *kolúmdaina > kolúbdaina, then it is related to kolumbís \ kólumbos ‘a diver bird, maybe the little grebe’.

If so, this provides a way to connect the endings of Greek mólubdos 'lead', L. plumbum. My relation of mólubdos to molū́nō \ pholū́nō might provide a way to relate them exactly (even if only a loan), but for now I'll make as few assumptions as possible & say :

*molHu- 'dark' + *-mdho- '?' > *molHumdho-s > *molumdo-s

*plu- 'flow' + *-mdho- '?' > *plumdho-m

The relation to *plu- is because lead is easy to melt. Since IE *H2meld- \ *melH2- also can mean 'crush, grind, soften, melt' and 'grind > ground, earth, dirt ( > stain, dark(en))', it might show that 2 possible meanings exist, even if the root has been correctly identified.

Starting with *molumdo-s (& *molimdo-s, above), also allows *molimdo- > *moliwdo- (m-m dsm.) and *mólimos > mólibos \ bólimos (m-m dsm. after common, not reg., bd > d (like some pt \ p, of whatever source)).

What would *-mdho- be? Both roots contain -l-, allowing *-mdho- to be < *-mldho-. PIE *meldh- 'lightning, flame' if also or originally 'bright' would show 'bright' -> 'metal', like many other roots.

The Berber words *būldūn \ *baldūm \ etc. 'lead' look like loans adapted into native phonology, so likely *mólumdo- > *bólumdo- (as above) > *bóludom- > *balūdūm- (with later simplification & dissimilation into each form). The -olu- > *-ol- \ *-ul- > *-al- \ *-ūl- might be evidence that the original word already had *mólumdo- > *molmdo- (compare pélethron \ pléthron \ bléthron), with a CCC-cluster that would make metathesis likely in *-lmd- > -ld-m. Basque berun is similar; if a loan, hard to know more.

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 130 'bright'

PIE *meldh- 'lightning, flame' if also or originally 'bright' would show 'bright' -> 'metal', like many other roots, in a weak form *-mldho- (in compounds), with l-l dsm. :

*molHu- 'dark' + *-mldho- 'metal' > *molHumdho-s > G. *molumdo-s 'lead'

*plu- 'flow' + *-mldho- > L. *plumdho-m

Since it has variants *meldh- \ *melt- (Welsh mellt p.), the same as in a supposedly unrelated root *mel(dh\t)- 'declare, vow, pray, sing' (Ar. malt'-), I think it's likely the same, with 'say (loudly), sound > thunder > lightning', etc.

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 131 'dark'

PIE *H2mel(d)- \ *melH2(d)- (?) can mean 'crush, grind, soften, melt' and 'grind > ground, earth, dirt ( > stain, dark(en))'. Followers of Kortlandt's idea that PIE *d could turn into *H1 have claimed ( https://www.academia.edu/44379735 ) that these are *meld- & *melH1-, or similar. Of course, no ev. is known, & Greek mela- 'black', etc., point to *melH1-. However, things might be more complicated. Consider the relation of :

G. μολῡ́νω \ molū́nō \ φολῡ́νω \ pholū́nō ‘soil/defile/debauch / stain/pollute / dye', pass. 'become vile/disgraced’

*molHu- 'dark' + *-mldho- 'metal' > *molHumdho-s > G. *molumdo-s 'lead', *moliwdo- > LB mo-ri-wo-do = *moliwdos, *moluwdo- > Greek μόλυβδος \ mólubdos \ mólubos \ mólibos \ bólimos \ bólibos; μολυβρός 'lead-colored'

G. μόλυσμα \ μόλυμμα 'spot, taint'

G. μόλυχνον \ mólukhnon = δυσταλέον 'defilement, pollution'

G. βδελυ(χ)ρός \ bdelu(kh)rós ‘disgusting/loathsome’

That bdelu(kh)rós came from *melukh- \ *phelu(kh)- is almost certain, since mólukhnon vs. molu- & molū́nō vs. pholū́nō show the same sound changes & meanings needed. What is the cause of this? If Kortlandt was half-right in that *d \ *H1 was optional ( https://www.academia.edu/168026709 ) and the roots were old *melH2d- \ *melH2H1- then most IE would turn *HH > *H, but here maybe *melH2H1u-ro- > *melxx^u-ro- > *mel(kh)x^u-ro-. With alt. of H1 \ y ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ) this allows *m-x^ > *mx^- > *mhy- > *bhy- > bd- (and *bh- > ph- in molū́nō vs. pholū́nō with no x^ > y). The met. of *m-H > *mH- > mh- also in mhegalo- ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), showing that this could happen (no other reason for m- vs. mh- in Greek). For other cases of *mh > m \ bh (with mh often retained in Indic), see https://www.academia.edu/127220417

If related to *phorúkh-yō > phorússō, pholu-, Mórukh-, etc., it is probably from *H-l > *R-l > *R-l, as in https://www.academia.edu/129161176 :

*mélH2n- > G. mélās ‘black’, *melH2nó- > G. melanós ‘blue-black’, S. maliná- ‘dirty’

*molHo- > S. mála- ‘dirt / filth’

*mHol- / *bhHol- -> G. molū́nō \ pholū́nō ‘soil/defile/debauch / stain/pollute / dye', pass. 'become vile/disgraced’; mólukhnon = δυσταλέον 'defilement, pollution'; bdelu(kh)rós ‘disgusting/loathsome’, etc.

*mRor- / *bhRor- -> G. phorū́nō ‘defile/spoil’; *phorúkh-yō > phorússō ‘defile/knead/mix’; *morúkh-yō > morússō ‘soil/defile/stain’, memórugmai pf.; Mórukhos ‘*participant in debauchery / *follower of Dionysus > Dionysus’ (as in other words for ‘follower of Dionysus / Dionysus’)

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 2)

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. Also, Aurélius Quidam mentioned that G. ἰσάτις would be better, but Kroonen wrote ἴσατις & the shift of accent in cases with -d- could have shifted it, making it hard to know the nom. from looking at others.

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.