r/HistoricalLinguistics 20h ago

Language Reconstruction Exon’s Law, Latin Vowel Loss, *-C(C)C-

1 Upvotes

Exon’s Law, Latin Vowel Loss, *-C(C)C- (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)

August 31, 2026

-

Though highly studied, Latin vowel loss is not fully understood (or undisputed). To some, only a series of regular changes (https://academic.oup.com/book/12348/chapter-abstract) :

>

Exon’s Law of Latin syncope (1906: 128) states that ‘In all words or word-groups of four or more syllables bearing the chief accent on a long syllable, a short unaccented medial vowel was necessarily syncopated, but might be restored by analogy’. Exon’s insights that any light internal syllable could be a target, and the weight of the stressed syllable was relevant, combined with a careful re-examination of the evidence according to phonetics, metrics and chronology, helps find some order amid the chaos. Syncope was not a monolithic archaic Latin phenomenon, but continued to occur with different metrical, phonotactic and morphological constraints in different time-periods and registers. Six syncopes up to classical Latin can be identified with their own synchronic motivations, and with different phonetic environments: (1) archaic Stress-to-Weight Principle (SWP) syncope, (2) alignment syncope, (3) archaic parsing syncope, (4) *(LLL) syncope, (5) early SWP syncope, and (6) early/classical parsing syncope.

>

.

In words with 4 syllables subject to Exon's law, deleting the 2nd syllable was most common. In cases like Latin suprēmus 'highest', it is likely that the 3rd was in *super-is-Vmo- > *supersVmo- > *supersmo- > *supresmo- (with this order since most *-er-is-Vmo- > -errimus). I think this is due to syllabic *m > *əm (later > em) at the time, with *ə deleted preferentially. The exact nature of Italic *-Vmo- is unknown, but if L. sānus is cognate with Eteocretan sano, sanomos (https://www.academia.edu/172341604 ) I think it best if *-mwo- 'biggest, most' (https://www.academia.edu/165248349 ) > *-əmwo-, with *mw > m (most IE don't allow Pw) after it caused rounding.

.
It is also disputed how *-CCC- arising from V loss was changed. For L. forceps (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forceps) "Etymology Uncertain. Often derived from prehistoric *formokaps through syncope. Ultimately from formus (“warm”) +‎ -ceps (“taker”).[1] This etymology is partially based on Festus, who etymologizes the term as such..." If so, *-rmk- > -rc-, but this would not fit with theories that *r, *l, & *n could become syllabic around this stage. Timing might be key, but I think it makes more sense if from *forko-kap-s 'grasping fork' (L. furca 'two-pronged fork'). If so *rkk > rc, or even haplology unrelated to Exon's Law. In addition to avoiding *m > 0, this also has the minor benefit of not needing the nom. to be analogy from the acc. & other 4-syllable forms.

.
Loss of C in some *CCC also fits other odd cases, some apparently optional. L. au(c)tumnus 'autumn, fall' has no ety. given by Michiel de Vaan, who also doesn't mention -ct- (some late -ct- are hypercorrections for -t(t)-). The simplest origin is from *H2awgs- & *H2wegs- in words for 'harvest'. Since -mnus is often seen as < *-mH1no-s with later loss of *V (which, to me, would again be *ə < *H) it allows *H2awgs-Vto- 'harvest(ed)' -> *H2awgs-Vto-mH1no-s 'harvest time'. The same basics apply whether *mH1no- was itself 'time' ( <- *meH1- 'measure') or the middle participle (likely the same, anyway https://www.academia.edu/170657083). In this case, new *-kst- > -(c)t- would not match original *-kst- > -st-, but all cases are at morpheme boundaries & subject to analogy. If like nect- (below), maybe *KTT > *KT (with the place of K but the nature of the lost T) caused *kst > *xt > (c)t. Sequences of *-xt- might also have arisen in *-ghVt- > *-x(V)t-, so looking for ety. in words with either -ct- or -t- might sometimes be from *gh, unseen.

.
In a similar way, L. nectere 'to connect, interweave, attach; bind, tie, fasten' seems like a verb in -(i)t- related to:

*nH1d-sk(^)e- > *nǝ(t)ske- > OI nascim ‘bind’, OHG nuska

*n(e)H1d-sko- > OI nasc ‘ring’, Av. naska- ‘bundle’

*noH1do- > L. nōdus ‘knot / bond’, -ī p. ‘knotted fishing net’, Gmc *nōtō 'big net'

*nH1d-taH2- > L. nassa ‘wicker fish-trap’; *-mn > OI naidm(m)

*ne(H1)d(h)-to- ? > S. naddhá- ‘tied’ (with changes of VHD > VD (https://www.academia.edu/428966 ) & pre-aspiration (Jens Elmegård Rasmussen) happening at the same times for *VHDT ?)

.
If so, *neH1d-it-eti > *nextteti > nectit, or similar. This would, perhaps, be *KTT > KT after old *tt > *tst, etc. Though the nature of PIE *H is not certain, a velar or uvular fricative seems to fit. Also note that L. nōdus ‘knot / bond’, *n(e)H1d-sko- > OI nasc ‘ring’, Av. naska- ‘bundle’ resemble Georgian nask’v- ‘knot’ (https://www.academia.edu/166167744 ).


r/HistoricalLinguistics 1d ago

Language Reconstruction PIE *H2ukWno- > Old English ofen ‘oven’, Gothic auhns, Greek ipnós

0 Upvotes

Notes on PIE *H2ukWno- > Old English ofen ‘oven’, Gothic auhns, Greek ipnós (Draft)

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

August 31, 2026

-

Greek ipnós has no certain etymology, but it resembles a group of words (many also with internal oddities). I decided to group some of my old ideas together here. Most of what I've written follows:

>

G. shows i / u by P :

*siP- ‘drip’ > G. sipuḯs ‘jar’, sipús / supúē / sipúē ‘meal-tub’

*H2ukWno- > OE ofen ‘oven’, Go. auhns, G. ipnós (? Skt. ukhá- ‘cooking pot’, Latin aulla ‘pot’)

*bhlud- > G. phlidáō, phludáō ‘have an excess of moisture / overflow’, TB plätk- ‘arise/swell/overflow’

*bhloudo-? > ON blautr ‘wet’, E. bloat

striphnós ‘firm/solid / hard’, struphnós ‘sour/bitter/harsh/astringent’

stiphrós ‘firm/solid / stout/sturdy’, stuphelós ‘hard/rough/harsh/cruel / sour/acid/astringent’

stîphos- ‘body of men in close formation’, stū́phō ‘contract / draw together / be astringent’

>

.

but in some older ones I say that *H2ukW- & *ukWH2- ( > Skt. ukhá- ‘cooking pot’, with H-met. as in many IE words https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), *H2aukW-tlo- > Latin aulla ‘pot’ (in cases w/o tl > kl (which seems optional, *putlo- > pullus)), *H2aukW-tlo- > *akWH2ulto- > MArm. akutʿ (akuth) ‘cookstove’, Van dia. angurtʿ ‘portable clay oven’ (with kH > k not **kh, tl > tL > (r)th ). The cause of met. in Armenian could be regular *tl > *lt (which would force **kWlt to be "fixed"). Both *ukW & *kWn in Gmc. might have had some optional effect. In support of *H2(a)ukW- 'cook?' it would be similar to *H2(a)us- 'dry, hot', possibly the same as *H2aH3s- \ *H2oH3s- 'ash; dry, hot' (with alternation of H3 \ w, https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1hzfycl/minoan_cups_jars_linear_a/

.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1hzk8qr/greek_loans_from_ancient_semitic_minoan_fig/

.

>

Etymology of Middle Armenian akutʿ (akuth) ‘cookstove’

-

One theory is that MArm. akutʿ (akuth) ‘cookstove’, Van dia. angurtʿ ‘portable clay oven’ are from PIE *h2(a)ukw- (the source of Old English ofen ‘oven’ < *h2ukwno-, maybe also the source of Greek ipnós). This root is unclear if all changes were regular, since it shows -kh- in Skt. ukhá- ‘cooking pot’ vs. Latin aulla ‘pot’, etc., among other oddities if all theorized words are connected.

.

The exact problem in Skt. ukhá- (with k > kh) is reversed in MArm. akutʿ, where *kw > kh is expected since n Armenian, most voiceless stops > voiceless aspirates. However, this is not unique; several other words show odd alternation of kh / k / x including akutʿ, tʿekʿem (thekhem) ‘shape, bend, twist, weave’ >> tʿakartʿ (thakarth) ‘trap, snare, net’, and mxrčem, mkrtem ‘immerse/dip’, mlukn ‘bedbug’ (Skt. malūka- ‘kind of worm, for comparison). If PIE h() was pronounced x, a similar change is seen in *g^huh3- ‘fish’ > jukn (see below); if PIE s > h had intermediate s > š > x, PIE *mu:s ‘mouse’ > mukn would be the same.

.

Most examples have this odd -k- next to u, and the possibility of backing (in this case, velar to uvular) exists, if uvular fricatives > stops, but this still would not be completely regular. Other examples not by u include *h3okw- ‘eye’ > akn.

.

More info and theory in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/w04cuz/importance_of_armenian_retention_of_h123/

I also wanted to add a link to a previous description on r/linguistics. However, it was removed, so I’ll reproduce it in full:

.

Armenian kh-thr > k-rth

-

In Armenian, most voiceless stops > voiceless aspirates, but there are at least 2 examples of PIE k-tr that become k-rth instead of expected kh-rth :

tʿekʿem (thekhem) ‘shape, bend, twist, weave’ >> tʿakartʿ (thakarth) ‘trap, snare, net’

*h2aukwtro- > *auktro- > *akutro > *akurt > MAr. akutʿ (akuth) ‘cookstove’, Van dia. angurtʿ ‘portable clay oven’

(*h2aukwtlo- > *auktlo- > *aukslo- >> aulla ‘pot’ in Latin, for comparison)

Instead of a regular rule, this seems to be sporadic dissimilation of Ch-Ch > C-Ch or similar, as in dialects of ancient Greek (possibly seen as irregular in ancient Macedonian examples with multiple outcomes). More irregularities to T-K, K-T, etc., possibly seen in *(s)teg- >> Latin toga vs. *-toka >> taṙatok -a- ‘garment, cloak, coat’ instead of expected *-tʿok. Both assimilation and dissimilation seen in similar environments makes irregular change more likely.

The existence of such changes is important partly because the etymology of tʿakartʿ and akutʿ are listed as uncertain even with exact cognates like aulla available (previous explanation of kw > k due to unrounding due to u make little sense). This would only be one of the many irregular changes seen in Armenian. In fact, akutʿ contains at least 2, since r > 0 is also seen in several other words, with no explanation or shared environment. The change of auCCC > aCuCC would also be unique, but possibly similar to Latin *augsto- > augustus (áukštas ‘high’ in Lithuanian, for comparison).

This also might show a closer connection between Armenian and Greek, if Ch-Ch > C-Ch was found in both, but neither showing it for all words/dialects. The nature of such a change in Greek could be known with greater precision if the theorized change of Armenian voiceless stops to fricatives before these fricatives became voiceless aspirates is true (seen independently in fricatives from other sources, for example, *sweso:r > *xwexur > *khweur > kʿoyr (khoyr) ‘sister’). If the change was x > k before some fricatives, x > kh in other environments, this could indicate Greek had fricatives before voiceless aspirates, perhaps explaining some changes of ps > phs, etc., in some dialects. The change of a stop to a fricative before a fricative is very common, and this might also explain the stages of apparently regular *pst > *fsθ > *fθ > phth.

The existence of a fricative as an intermediate stage in Armenian might also allow more regularity in the explanation of sporadic k-tr > k-rth : if h2 was a fricative, then *h2auktro- > *haxuθro > akutʿ could have had a stage with 3 fricatives in 3 syllables in a row, exactly like *tetketro-? > *θaxaθro > tʿakartʿ. This environment is a more likely one for irregular dissimilation, probably excluding -s- (and its outcomes?), more precision depending on whether h2 vs. x was h vs. x at the time, uvular vs. velar, etc.

>


r/HistoricalLinguistics 1d ago

Language Reconstruction Fortunatov’s Law

0 Upvotes

A. Fortunatov’s Law states that dentals became retroflex after *l, then *l disappeared in Sanskrit. This is supported by other IIr. cognates retaining l (or *l > r) & fits with Proto-Sanskrit *l likely being retroflex, as sometimes preserved in Khowar (S. kīlā́la-s \ kīlālá-m ‘sweet drink / biestings? / buttermilk?’, kilāṭa- ‘cheese’, Kh. kiḷàḷ ). However, this “law” is disputed, since it doesn't look regular, since some VlC > VC, others > V:C, VCC, or VCh (or for *lCH, if CH > ChH was optional in most IE), others unclear. Others seem to have the same caused by *r. In part :

-

*g^h(o)ldu(n)- \ -in-? > Gmc *galtu-z > ON göltr ‘boar’, S. huḍu- \ huḍa- \ huṇḍa- ‘ram’, Dk. hʌldin ‘male goat’

-

*bha(H2)ls-? -> S. bhaṣá-s ‘barking/baying’, bhāṣa- ‘speech’, Li. balsas ‘voice’

-

*g^elt(H)- -> S. jaṭhára- ‘stomach’, Go. in-kilþs ‘pregnant’, OE cild, E. child

-

*kH2ald- = *kxald- -> S. kaḍa- ‘dumb’, Go. halts ‘*broken > lame’

-

*kH2ald-? > S. khaḍ- ‘divide/break’

*kH2ald-n(e)-? > *kH2alnd- > S. khaṇḍ- ‘divide/break/destroy’

-

*g^helH3to- > S. hárita- ‘yellow(ish) / pale (yellow/red) / green(ish)’, Av. zairita- ‘yellow’

-

*g^hlH3t(ak)o-m > S. hāṭaka-m ‘gold’, Go. gulþ, E. gold

-

L. gelū̆ nu. 'frost; cold, chill', *g^ol-d(h)H3o-? > Go. kalds ‘cold’, S. jaḍa- ‘cold / stiff; (fig.) obtuse’, Vedic jáḍhu- ‘obtuse’

-

*H2alto- 'grown, raised, nourished' > L. altus 'tall, lofty, high; deep, profound; old, ancient', S. aṭṭa- 'high', m. 'tower, watchtower' (if not << Dravidian)

-
G. ἄλθομαι ‘to be healed; become well, whole; be flourishing’, S. āḍhyá- ‘rich, prosperous’

-

*H2alH2\1-tlo- ? 'grinding, ground meal' > P. ārd, Hi. āṭā m. 'flour', Be. aṭa

-

*H2alH2- > Lt. aluôt, G. aláomai 'to wander, rove, roam', [H dsm.?] S. áṭa- ‘wandering’, L. alacer 'lively; brisk; quick; eager; active', *amb(i)-ala(:)-? > ambulāre 'to traverse, travel; walk'

also rel.?; *H1elH2- > G. eláō \ elaúnō 'to drive, set in motion; drive away; ride a horse, drive a chariot, sail a ship; (intransitive) to go, ride, sail', ἐλατήρ 'driver (of horses)'

-

*H2ali- 'sting', *H2ardi- 'spear, point', *alardo-? > S. arā́ḍa- 'with long/sharp horns?' (for other possible origins, see below)

-

*krt- ‘cut’? > S. kaṭú- ‘pungent / bitter’ (if not << Dravidian)

-

PIE *H1en-do- > G. ἔνδον \ éndon 'in, within'; *H1en-dro- 'thing within' > S. aṇḍá- \ āṇḍá- mn., Kalasha ónḍrak 'egg', Slavic *(j)ędro 'center, core / kernel / seed'

-

*melno-? > OI mell, Gae. meal ‘hill’, Irish meal ‘ball / sphere / lump/tumor / knob/knoll/heap’; *molndo-? 'round; ball' > Slavic *mǫdo 'testicle', S. máṇḍa- ‘circle; circular/round’

-

*mend-(lo-)? ‘slow’ > S. manda-, Kh. malála ‘late’, Ku. mǝlaŋ ‘slowly’, R. medlennyj

-

G. skúllō 'to tear apart, lacerate, flay, skin', *(s)kul-tlo- \ etc.? > S. kuṭhāra- ‘axe’, L. culter m., -o- 'knife, razor'

-

*kurtiH2 > G. kurtía ‘wickerwork shield’, kúrtē ‘fish-basket’, S. kuti(:)- ‘hut’, kuṭuŋgaka- ‘hut, cottage’ (possibly *kul if l > r in G. dia.; for other possible origins, see below)

-

*wl-wel- 'round, swollen, full' > S. úlva- \ úlba- m/nu. 'womb', ulvaṇá- \ ulbaṇá- 'excessive', urvarita- 'left over'

-

*wlidu- \ *wlidi- > OE wlite ‘radiance’, *wuldu- > S. uḍu- f/nu. ‘star’

S. ulkā́- 'meteor; fire-brand'; *wulduwulka- > *wuldmulka- > S. úlmuka- m., Pk. ummua- nu. ‘firebrand’ ( https://www.academia.edu/171410786 )

-

*seH2wel-r > *s(a)H2wel \ *suH2al 'sun', weak *suH2aln- > *su(H)aṇ- ( https://www.academia.edu/170729918 )

-

NHG spalten ‘to split’, S. sphaṭati ‘bursts’, sphāṭayati ‘causes to split’, ? >> Burushaski -fʌltʌs ‘to break’ (Kogan, https://www.academia.edu/125534435 )

-

OCS platьno ‘cloth, canvas, fabric’, S. paṭṭa- ‘cloth, bandage’, Hindi paṭṭī, ? >> Bu. phʌltočiŋ ‘puttees’

-

I also think *dl differed from *dr ( https://www.academia.edu/129494899 ) :

*kH2aid- > L. caedere ‘to cut / hew’, *kH2a(i)d-a(i)H2- > S. khádā- ‘axe? / an instrument for splitting = Indra’s weapon’ (i-dsm. before ViH > VH; https://www.academia.edu/129368235 )

*kH2aid-lo- ‘axe / adze / chisel’ > L. caelum ‘chisel’, In. *khaidlá- ‘ax’ > S. khelá- ‘pelican’

*kH2id-(ne-) >  khi(n)dati 3s., cakhāda pf., khetsyati fu. ‘strike / press (down)’, khintte 3s.pas. ‘be pressed down / suffer pain’, khedayati cau. ‘press down / molest / disturb / make tired or exhausted’

More in https://www.academia.edu/165227368


r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

Areal linguistics How the Germanic word for soap reached Aboriginal Australia

Post image
7 Upvotes

r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

Writing system I noticed a weird similarity between Finnish, Sinhala and Swedish

0 Upvotes

I was comparing words between Finnish and Sinhala and noticed something really interesting.

Finnish: härkä = ox

Sinhala: (harak) = cattle

They sound surprisingly similar, even though Finnish and Sinhala aren't closely related languages

Then I noticed another one:

Swedish: samband = connection /

relationship

Sinhala: (sambandha)

connected / related

So we have:

härkä→ harak

samband → sambandha

The samband/sambandha connection has a genuine historical linguistic explanation, while härkä/harak is just a coincidence in sound.

Has anyone else noticed interesting similarities like this between languages that aren't closely related?


r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

East Asian Why do Mongolic, Tungusic and Turkic share several sounds in their pronouns?

2 Upvotes

Hello, I've been thinking about the common vocabulary of these three unrelated language families.

Tungusic bi -I si -you

Mongolic bi -I chi -you

Turkic ben -I sen -you

I know the three families aren't related since their numbers are really different. I think these can be explained by borrowings but if so, in which direction did the borrowing happen?

I have checked the several branches of these families and all of them turned out to share these pronouns or variations of them, which indicates that the presence of these words in the respective language families predates the earliest split of the most divergent branches in the families.

I read that Turkic urheimat is considered to be around the lake Baikal or eastern Mongolia.

Tungusic and Mongolic urheimat is considered to be around southern Manchuria.

Also, I noticed that they share locative suffixes starting with a consonant d and a vowel depending on the vowel Harmony. Such as de, da, du.

Assuming that these are result of borrowing, which direction did it happen?


r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

Indo-European Lemnos Stele

Thumbnail academia.edu
1 Upvotes

An Italic/Romance translation of the Lemnos Stele.


r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

Other Leaf in Austronesian Languages

Post image
1 Upvotes

r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

Language Reconstruction Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 146, 147: ‘silver, iron’

2 Upvotes

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 146, 147: ‘silver, iron’ (Draft)

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

August 29, 2026

IERR 146 ‘silver’

Germanic *silubra-N ‘silver’ has no native IE ety., leading most to think it a loan. In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/silubrą

>

Etymology Uncertain. Likely a Wanderwort of non-Indo-European substrate origin.[1] Compare Proto-Balto-Slavic *sirabras (“silver”), Basque zilar (“silver”), Celtiberian silabur (“money”),[2] and possibly Ancient Greek σῐ́δηρος (sĭ́dēros, “iron”). A Semitic origin has also been proposed, comparing Proto-Berber *a-ẓrəf (“silver”), Akkadian (ṣur-pu-um /⁠ṣurpum⁠/, “silver”), (ṣa-ra-pu-um /⁠ṣarāpum⁠/, “to smelt, refine”); however, this derivation has been rejected by some scholars[3] as phonologically and geographically implausible.

>

Since silabur & *silubra- match closely, & do not match words for 'iron' (Li. -d-r- must be < *-r-r-), it makes the most sense for a Celtic origin. Other Gmc. words borrowed << Celtic involve so-called "cultural" words, too. A Celtiberian >> Basque loan is also reasonable, if zilar < *silabr (or similar). There is also an IE word that fits Celtic origin:

*sH2wlp-lo- 'shining, sulfur' > *sawliblo- > *silaburo- \ *silubaro- >> Gmc, Bq.

The changes of syllabic *l > li, *pl > *bl are regular. Met. likely resulted from *-wl- being "fixed". Many IE have 'shining > metal (incl. silver)', like *H2rg^ro-, *H2rg^nto-m. For more on this root & stem, see https://www.academia.edu/129286492 (53. *swelpH2lo(s)- > L. sulp(h)ur, Gmc *swilbHla-z > Bav. Schwelfel, [l-l > 0-l] Go. swibls, OE swefl, *sweHbla- > *swe:bla- > *swæ:bla- > Du. zwavel ‘sulfur’; *swelpH2l-a:no-s > It. *sefla:nus >> Et. Sethlans ‘blacksmith/craftsman god’).

If also related to Lithuanian sidãbras 'silver', Latvian sidrabs \ sudrabs, Old Prussian sirablan, & Slavic *sьrebrò (*sw > s in some, Li. sesuõ 'sister' < *swesorH; here, *swi- > si- \ su-), a BS *swirVbro-m fits (with r-r > l-r or > d-r by dsm.). This, if a loan, might require stages *sH2wliblo- > *səwliblo- > *swiləblo- \ *swirəbro- \ etc. (to account for *ə > a \ e). No specific ev. on an intermediate *H > *ə > a is available in those IE branches with most *H > a.

IERR 147 ‘iron’

Another root begining with *sH2w- (and met. of H2, just as in *s(a)H2wel- \ *suH2al- 'sun') is PIE *s(H2)weidos- 'shining thing' > L. sīdus nu., sīderis 'group of stars; a star' and Greek σίδηρος \ sídēros ‘iron, steel; iron tool; sword, sickle’, Ion. sídēron, Dor. sídāros, NG σίδερο \ sídero. These could be related in the same way as 146 ('shine' -> 'metal' is common in IE). The change of *sHw- > G. sw- also in *sH2wel- 'shine' > G. sel-, *sHwelas- > G. sélas ‘light / bright light (of fire or heavens)’. Met. is also needed, since Lac. Welena 'Helen of Troy' requires an origin in *swel(H2)-'shine / burn' -> 'moon'.

Dor. sídāros might imply *sH2wid-aH1ro-, if native. But what ending is *-aH2ro-? In Greek, many adjectives end in -iaros \ -ieros, no certain IE source. It is possible that i-ia > i-aa. In fact, sídāros is often seen as a loan (by those who believe no PIE *s > G. s, despite many examples). There is also an LA word SI-DA-RO. J. Younger: GOURNIA GO 2, opisthographic page tablet it is conceivable that SI-DA-RO (hapax legomenon) could refer to Cape Sidero (also spelled Sidara), if this were a pre-Greek name.

Older theories that sídāros is a loan would be of the type *sidaar, adapted as sídāros with the common IE ending -os. Would anyone have proposed a non-IE *sídāro(C) >> sídāros? What would the point of "non-IE" be in that case, which is the case now that Linear A words are known (or known if their signs match LB values). My idea that sid- is from PIE *sH2wid- would only be more likely if LA contained a form of it ending in -o(C), esp. since other LA words with -o also fit IE (wi-te-ro = *H1witero- 'other'?). From https://www.academia.edu/169543216 :

>

A. In "Greek-like Elements in Linear A" ( https://www.academia.edu/58619465 ), Nagy provided an early and broad list and analysis of Linear A words matching Linear B, Greek, etc., and only a few readings have been changed since then. Duccio Chiapello has written many important papers on Linear A words matching Greek. I agree with many of both their ideas, but the best matches are concentrated in words from lists that seem (to previous scholars, like J. Younger), to be transaction terms. Since most LA is lists of people, places, or unknown goods (often with the name hidden by a symbol), few with any likely matching Greek words, this suggests that Greeks arrived in Crete & conquered many or all of the previous inhabitants. The places retained their old names, but Greeks used their own words when writing (maybe with a system of signs already made, or party, before their arrival).

For the G. transaction terms, I've mentioned ka-i-ro =? G. kairos 'profit', and more (Linear A Math 1-8). Many end in -Co, matching G. -os, etc. The presence of Co in names (of places or people, not always clear) but common Cu concentrated in other words might show that Greeks recently conquered a people living on Crete with few or no o's, at least with some *o > u (if IE). The Greeks spoke a language with many o's, so they'd be common in their words, but in lists of the places that retained their old names, they'd be rare. In this way, Linear A ku-ro 'total', po-to-ku-ro 'grand total' seem significant.

A compound with the 1st & 2nd words ending in -Co is very similar to IE methods of forming compounds, often for o-stem words. It seems highly unlikely that a non-IE language (as LA is claimed to be my most) would do this in the ONE case of certain compounding attested. Since Greek sometimes had *a > a \ o by P (G. ablábeia, Cretan ablopia ‘freedom from harm/punishment’; more in C.), it establishes that it would not be odd if found on Crete, even in Minoan times. I say that po-to-ku-ro contained *ponto- from panto- 'all', fitting for 'sum of all totals'. In Linear B, -n- is also not usually written before another C.

>

The reasons to relate NG σίδερο \ sídero & Cape Sideros, NG Άκρα Σίδερος is not as described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Sideros "The meaning of Sidero seems transparent at first glance, as the modern Greek meaning of sidero... What about the island or the cape is "iron" remains unknown. Iron is not in its mineral structure." Since it also meant 'sickle', the shape is the reason (many IE have 'metal > metal tool'. This supports LA SI-DA-RO with the same meanings as in Greek.

For the variation in names, "Anciently it was known as Samonium or Samonion (Ancient Greek: Σαμώνιον), Sammonium or Sammonion (Ancient Greek: Σαμμώνιον),[1] Salmonium or Salmonion (Σαλμώνιον)[2] and Salmone (Σαλμώνη).[3] The cape shares the name Sideros or Sidero with the island-like peninsula of which it is a projection, but which had the name first remains unknown, as does the provenance of either name. Cape Sidero is often not confined to the peninsula Sideros, but might refer to the entire northeast promontory." Since Sidero was the wife of Salmoneus, it is likely that this alternate name goes back to that myth. The name Salmoneus could be 'foolish, in folly' (G. σαλός 'silly, imbecile', from his imitation of Zeus), since his brother Sisyphus was 'wise' & their punishments are somewhat like Prometheus & Epimetheus, of the same meaning (if I'm right).


r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

Language Reconstruction Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 140, 141, 142: ‘wolf, fox; take, bite; flesh’

1 Upvotes

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 140, 141, 142: ‘wolf, fox; take, bite; flesh’ (Draft)

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

August 14-29, 2026

-

IERR 140: ‘wolf, fox’

PIE *wlp(e)Hk^o- > Li. vilpišỹs ‘wildcat’, L. vulpēs ‘fox’, and PIE *H2lH3peHk^(o)- > G. alṓpēx / alōpós, Ar. ałuēs, ałuesu g. 'fox' seem related. The slightly similar *wlkWo- 'wolf' also is close, but there is no known way to unite any 2 of the 3. The reason to look for any way of doing so would only be valid if they were related. This is seen in the name of the Paeonian king Lúkpeios or Lúkkeios (maybe the equivalent of nearby G. Lukaîos). Though these are supposedly < *wlkW-ewyo-, an adjective from *wlkWo-, why is -kp- found? This is extremely uncommon in any IE language, & the fact that 'fox' can be *wlpHk^o- with -p-k^- is an unusual combination in itself, and Proto-Paeonian *wlpko- > *lukpo- can't be ruled out (see the same *wl- > lu- in Proto-Greek *lukWo-). In the same way, Tocharian seems to turn PIE *kW to k or kw, with k much more common. The -kw- in TB walkwe 'wolf' might then show that PIE had both *kW > PT k & *kp > PT kw (among other sounds, clusters?).

.

To see a very similar case, the *kW & *p in *(l)ye(:)kWrt & *lipH2ro- ‘liver’ match *lip(H2)- 'stick, remain' & *likW- 'remain'. From (138), "If both groups are related in the same way (p vs. kW), then my *H2 allows *leipH2- \ *leipk- > *leikW-. This is due to alt. of H2 \ k (proposed for several words), which was really likely free variation of H2 as χ \ q. This would be hidden by later IE branches with *q > k, making it appear irregular.". This allows *wlpHk^o- ‘wildcat, fox’, *wlpqk^o- > *wlqpo- 'wolf' (or similar). Maybe:

.
*wlp-(e)H1k^o- > Li. vilpišỹs ‘wildcat’, L. vulpēs ‘fox’
*lewp-eHk(^)o- > S. lopāśá- / lopāka-, etc.
*H2loH3p-eHk^o- ‘fox’ > G. alṓpēx / alōpós, Ar. ałuēs, ałuesu g. 'fox'
*wlkpH2o- ‘wolf’ > TB walkwe, Go. wulfs, L. lupus, G. lúkos, Al. ulk

.
The only other Tocharian word that might show *-kWos > -kwe is TB sekwe ‘pus’, but this also has oddities in IE, such as a “moving w” in Lt. svakas (vs. Li.  sakai ‘resin’), maybe *-wk- in *sowkos > L. sūcus ‘juice/sap’.  See :

*sokWo-? > G. opós ‘juice of plants’, Al. gjak ‘blood’, R. sok ‘juice / sap’, Lt. svakas, TB sekwe ‘pus’, L. sūcus ‘juice / sap’

If this could be solved in the same way as B, then it could support my idea.  If the alternation in *sokWo- \ *sok(w)o- \ *s(w)oko- is real, it would be evidence of an older cluster that became either *kW or *kw in different IE branches.  If this was *kp > *kw \ *kW, it would fill a gap in PIE phonotactics. 

.

The common origin of *wlp(e)Hk^o- and *H2lH3peHk^(o)- seems to be caused by alt. of H3 \ w ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ). Is there an "extra" H2 in the original that is unseen in other forms? This would require us to include *wlepH2-no- > H. ulippana- ‘wolf’, *welpan(a:)- > Al. dhelpën ‘fox’. PAnat. *wal(k)wa- ‘lion’ has also been linked with 'wolf' by some ( https://www.academia.edu/129498441 ). If the other words are related, a word for 'fox, wildcat > large cat, lion' would fit. Since *-CHC- > *-CC-, the loss of *-k- (not regular) would be due to *wlkH2wo- (or similar).

.

I think that a word as complex & with as many C's as this is a compound. I think *pelH1wo- 'grey' & *kH2wo(n)- 'dog' ( https://www.academia.edu/164645760 ) formed *plH1we-k^H2wo- 'grey dog = wolf', then met. > *wlpeH1k^H2wo- (most with w-w > w-0 dsm., some w > H3, etc.). This would make the -u- in Armenian a retention from the weak cases. If so, then the dsm. of w-w might affect *k^w > *k(^) (as in lopāśá- / lopāka-):

.
*plH1we-k^H2wo- 'grey dog' > *H2wlp(e)H1k^(w)o- > Li. vilpišỹs ‘wildcat’, L. vulpēs ‘fox’
*H2lewpeH1k(^)(w)o- > S. lopāśá- / lopāka-, etc.
*H2loH3peHk^(w)o- ‘fox’ > G. alṓpēx / alōpós, Ar. ałuēs, ałuesu g. 'fox'
*wlpHH2ko- ‘wolf’ > *wlkpo-? > TB walkwe, Go. wulfs, L. lupus, G. lúkos, Al. ulk

*plH1we-k^H2wo-n- > *wlepk^HHno-? > H. ulippana- ‘wolf’, *welpan(a:)- > Al. dhelpën ‘fox’

-

IERR 141: ‘take, bite’

It is likely that *H1em- 'take, etc.' formed *H1em-n- > *nH1em- 'take, receive, distribute'. This would be to avoid nasal affixes forming *-mn- > *-nm-, etc., unlike other roots like *krt-n- > *krnt- that formed long chains of C's. The need for *nH1em- (not *nem-) is that it had H-met. > *nemH1- (G. neme-) & *neH1m- (in Gmc., not e:-grade https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ).

.

Uralic also seems to have a cognate of the same *(n)em- > *(ń)am- (Hovers, https://www.academia.edu/104566591 )

>

U(*ń[o/a]ma): PSamoyed *ńåmå > Nenets ńaˀmā ‘to catch, to seize’, Enets noʔa ‘to catch’... Gothic niman ‘to take, to receive, to catch’... Latvian ņemt ‘to take’...

PU *ńimi ‘to suck’, *ńimća ‘breast’, *ńoma ‘to seize, to grab’...

*am-ta ‘to ‘feed, to give’... PU *imi ‘to suck’, PU *imća ‘breast’, PU *uma ‘to eat, to drink’ ~ PIE *h₁em ‘to take’

>

That IE with em-, nem- & Uralic with im-, ńim- would somehow be unrelated seems unlikely. For the shift > 'eat' in this root, see Lt. ņemt 'to take; get, obtain, acquire; gather fruits, etc.; (of animals, especially fish) to take, get and eat, bite'. Others:

Galician tomar 'to take; take (food, a pill, etc); drink; grab; seize, capture'

PIE *kH2ap- 'seize, grab, hold, have' > G. káptō 'to gulp down'

E. take; take (food, a pill, etc)

-

IERR 142: ‘flesh’

If the ideas in 141 are right, it could be that *nH1em-n(o)s- ‘taking, eating’ > *mH1ems- \ *meH1ms- ‘meat, flesh’. This would be due to alt. of n \ m near n \ m ( https://www.academia.edu/127864944 ), depending on whether from *-os- or *-nos- (both common affixes).

.

This is not the standard rec., but I think some of the words descended from it show ev. of *eH, not *e: or *mH > mh:

*meH1mso- > S. māṃsá-m ‘flesh’, *mH1emsa- > A. mhãã́s ‘meat / flesh’

.

Though not given by others, *H is needed to explain long V in *meHmso- > S. māṃsá-m ‘flesh’, mh- in *mHamsa- > A. mhãã́s ‘meat / flesh’. Many Dardic languages have “unexplained” *C- > Ch-, and so far they seem to be caused by *H. Some might show *Hr > *R, see *Hravo- \ *raHvo- > L. ravus \ rāvus, S. rāva-s ‘cry/shriek/roar/yell / any noise’, *Hraw > A. rhoó ‘song’ [tone due to Ch, if no *r > rh, then **rhóo expected], etc. (Whalen, https://www.academia.edu/128512499 ).

.
Ev. for the met. of *H like *-ekWH- \ *-eHkW- in ‘liver’ ( https://www.academia.edu/171509200 ), others with *eCH > *eHC in the section "Indo-European e:-grade ?" in https://www.academia.edu/127283240 (I've added more ex. since; that supposed e:-grade is common in roots with *H, not others, points to this solution).

.

Also, *mems- can not explain Luwian mīša- \ miyaša- ‘flesh, meat'. In standar theory, mīša- is older & miyaša- is just an incorrect spelling, a hypercorrection. However, -iya- > -ī- is seen in other words, and if H1 \ y alternated ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ), then *mH1emsa- > *myemsa- > *miya(m)sa-. This also provides a solution for optional m- vs. miy- in IIr.:

.

*myazdhas- > S. miyédhas- \ médhas- ‘sacrifice / oblation’

*myazdha- > S. miyédha- \ médha- ‘sacrificial rite / offering (of food) / holiness’, Av. miyazda- ‘sacrificial meal’, Ir. >> *miyazd > *yimazd > Hn. imád ‘pray’

.
An origin from *mH1- \ *mye(m)s-dh(e)H1- 'place/offer the food' fits all data, esp. the alt. in Luwian (the use of *dheH1- for religious offerings is well-established in IE). Two such oddities being unrelated seems unlikely. Francis-Ratte also analyzes:

>

BODY: MK mwóm ‘body’ ~ OJ mu- / mwi ‘body’. pKJ *mom ‘body’. (Whitman 1985: #259).

>

This is not only the only word ending in *-m ( > -m, *-y), but it has 2 m's, just like *mH1ems-. If this were the only slight match, I wouldn't think anything of it, but they keep piling up.


r/HistoricalLinguistics 2d ago

Language Reconstruction Japanese ki-, ki-mono, ta-no-ki \ tanuki; tora

0 Upvotes

Japanese ki-, ki-mono, ta-no-ki \ tanuki; tora (Draft)

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

August 29, 2026

-

In https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=%2fdata%2falt%2faltet :

>

Proto-Altaic: *ki̯adi

Meaning: to put on, wear

Turkic: *ged-

Mongolian: *kedü- / *keǯi-

Japanese: *kí-

Comments: KW 236, Poppe 19, Ozawa 197-199, JOAL 72, 73, 136, АПиПЯЯ 72. A possible TM match is Man. adu = Jurch. ha-du 'clothes' < *xadu (ТМС 1, 6); this would make us reconstruct *k`ajdi and suppose a secondary (assimilatory) voicing in Turk. *ged- < *ked-.

>

.

which Starostin further related to PIE *k(a)H2dh- 'hat, cap, helmet'. Japanese ki- ‘to put on, wear (clothing on the body)’, ki-mono 'clothing' is related by Alexander Francis-Ratte to Middle Korean kís \ kic, which reasonably comes < *kit-s

>

WEARS: MK kís ‘lapel, collar; outer layer of cloth’ ~ OJ ki- ‘wears on the body’. pKJ *ki- ‘wears on the body’.

Based on the comparison, MK kís ‘lapel, collar, outer layer of cloth’ ?< *ki- ‘to wear’ + substantive *-s. MK kis ‘feather, wing’ may also be related as a metaphor to describe a bird’s feathers as ‘clothing’. The comparison takes Korean kís to be original, despite kic also being attested in MK.

>

.
Why does he have "Korean kís to be original" when both -s & -c exist, making *kit-s likely? This makes no sense from his premises & proposed cognates, & I can only think that it is part of his unwillingness to consider Altaic as valid. I have said many times before that his own reconstructions of OJ & MK require a form close to or identical to those reconstructed by proponents of Altaic, yet he never mentioned how his ideas supported theirs. Here, he goes even further in relating words that require *kid- but not even reconstructing any needed dental. In Altaic, *d > OJ *y, here, *kid > *kiy > ki-, *kid-sV > OK *kits. Avoiding ideas like this is easy when you're a linguist who refuses to believe in any disputed old relation, but for a linguist like him (who related Japanese & Korean, even when disputed by many), trying to go halfway & relate 2 proposed Altaic groups without using the reconstructions made for all can only lead to contradictions. Here, he must say that kis is older than kic, when there is no reasonable way for it to work (here, he doesn't even provide any basis for kis being older, any way for -c to have formed from -s, etc.).

.
Evidence both in favor & against Altaic should be evaluated on its own merits. For:

>

Proto-Altaic: *t`i̯ŭ̀nŋá

Meaning: a k. of predator

Turkic: *Toŋa (?)

Mongolian: *činua

Tungus-Manchu: *tuŋ-si-

Japanese: *tànúkí

Comments: Mong. -n- points to *-nŋ-; TM *tuŋsi- perhaps < *tunŋV-si-.

>

.

Since Japanese tanuki \ tanoki 'raccoon dog' looks the same as *ta-no-ki 'worn on the hand/arm' > J. tanuki 'arm glove; gauntlet', it is claimed in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/狸 :

>

Etymology 1 狸 (tanuki): a raccoon dog Kanji in this term 狸 たぬき Hyōgai kun'yomi Alternative spelling 貍 According to one theory, derived from 手貫 (tanuki, “arm glove, gauntlet”), which raccoon dog hide was sometimes used for.

>

.
There is a much simpler explanation. Since raccoon dogs have dark arms, as if they're wearing sleeves (from a human perspectice), both *ta-no-ki 'worn on the hand/arm' & *ta-no-ki 'clothed on the hand/arm' can apply to both, both words with -o- vs. -u-. This prevents any Altaic ety. here. However, it opens a relation of tura \ tora ‘tiger’ with Karakhanid toŋa 'tiger', Manchu tuŋ-si-tun 'name of a mythical predator (fox-like, devouring tigers and dragons)'. The distribution of tura \ tora does not fit PJ *tora, so I proposed *to:ra(:) (or similar) in https://www.academia.edu/165522547 (based on others' ev. for PJ long V's). It is possible that Altaic *torŋa \ *toŋra ‘tiger’ existed, with *toŋra > PJ *to:ra. I previously doubted that PJ would have any native word for ‘tiger’, but I was told that tigers lived in Korea until recently, allowing them to be known in Japan (even if only as a foreign beast). As a 1st idea, it has a slight resemblance to PIE *torgWo-s 'fearsome' > Latin torvus 'savage, fierce, harsh; pitiless'.


r/HistoricalLinguistics 3d ago

Language Reconstruction Comparing proposed cognates between Austronesian and Kra Dai

Thumbnail gallery
3 Upvotes

r/HistoricalLinguistics 3d ago

Language Reconstruction Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 143, 144, 145: ‘play, cross, thirst’

1 Upvotes

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 143, 144, 145: ‘play, cross, thirst’ (Draft)

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

August 29, 2026

-

IERR 143 ‘play’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀθύρω Etymology Uncertain. According to Beekes, it may be compared to Lithuanian padùrmai and Russian дурь (durʹ), which may suggest a derivation from Proto-Indo-European *dʰwer(H)-. However, this explanation does not easily explain the origin of the initial ἀ- (a-). It could be explained from a root *h₂dʰwer(H)-, although Beekes rejects this as an improbable root structure.

.
I think that it is only "improbable" because metathesis of H has not been acknowledged as incredibly common, https://www.academia.edu/127283240 . As in many others, it allows a simple:

.

*H2dhur-ye- > G. ἀθύρω \ athū́rō 'to play (as a child), to take delight in', ἄθυρμα \ áthurma 'toy, plaything'

*dhurH2-mo- -> Lithuanian padùrmai '*foolhardy -> impetuously; vehemently' (need for *H due to accent); *dhourH2-i-? > Slavic *durj- Russian durʹ 'folly, nonsense'

-

IERR 144 ‘cross’

The need for PIE *terH2- 'cross, go beyond, overcome, conquer' to form *+t(e)r(H2)o- 'beyond, other, one of two; more, -er' is seen in variants with H-met. (143), like *H1wi-terH2o- > *witH2aro- > Slavic *vьtorъ 'other, 2nd', *wiH2tro- -> L. vītricus 'stepfather' ( < '2nd (father)'; likely used with *pater- at one time, alone when *witr- fell out of use as an independent word). Since compounds often lost *H, some IE branches might have *+tro-.

.

Latin Opiter ‘(name for someone) having a dead father and living grandfather’ suggests *Horbhe-pH2ter- 'bereft of one's father' with r-r dsm. The very similar L. vopiscus ‘born alive after the death of the other (of twins)’ would then make no sense unless from *Horbhe-witriko- 'bereft of one's other (twin)', but this seems to violate rules of sound change. However, look at this section from https://www.academia.edu/121166610 :

>
Some Latin words show *r-r > r-s, *s-r > s-s, etc., but apparently with no other specifics.  Variants also exist in other Italic languages, so I doubt there is full regularity :

*misro- > TA msär ‘difficult’, *mizer > *mirer > L. miser ‘unfortunate / miserable / pitiable’, moerēre ‘be sad/mournful’

L. quaerere ‘seek’, Sp. querer ‘want / love’; *per-quaer- > L. perquīrīre, Sp. pesquirir ‘investigate’

*H1esH2r > Marsian esos, Umbrian erus ‘blood’ (Whalen 2024a, c)

...

*dHorur > *dhHorur > *roHdhur > rōbus ‘oak’ (Whalen 2024b)

>

.

If I include *mH2aris ‘youth’ > *mRars > *mRass > *mass > mās ‘male / man’, maris g., then two of the ex. have *r > s when there is no 2nd *r. If both are due to H > R causing R-r > R-s ( https://www.academia.edu/129161176 ), then it allows *Horbhe-(H)witr(H)iko- to have both r-r > 0-r & H-r > R-r > R-s. Though *bh > *ph > f / -b- is expected, in *dbhmg^hu- > G. pakhús ‘thick’, fem. *tphingv-i:-s > L. pinguis ‘fat/plump/fertile / thick/dense’ it looks like other C's can prevent *ph > f (in which case *ph > p). Here, if *bhw > *phv, then **fv would not be allowed (after some V-loss, one likely due to Exon's Law). Then, met. *-pv- > v-p- (most IE did not allow pw, etc.).

.
IERR 145 ‘thirst’

Though PIE *ters- ‘thirst’ is the standard rec., Baltic requires *terH2s- \ *traH2s- (*tra:-sk- > Li. troškulys 'thirsty', trókšti 'to be thirsty; thirst, hope, desire'). Since some cognates also mean 'desire', I think this is older, with the relation *terH2- 'cross, reach (for), seek, desire', *terH2-s- ‘desire, thirst’. Again, H-met. (143, 144) allows variants *H2ters-, *tersH2-, etc., which would hide the *H2 in some or all IE branches. This might also explain L. trem-; several IE languages seem to show n-infixed verbs, but with -m- not -n- when next to *H2 (*staH2- 'stand (upright)', *stamH2-). The cause of this is unknown, but if *H2 could be pronounced *x or *R, then maybe *nx but *nR > *NR > *mR.


r/HistoricalLinguistics 4d ago

Language Reconstruction Latin discipulus, magulum; Italic changes, optional tC \ kC

2 Upvotes

Latin discipulus, magulum; Italic changes, optional tC \ kC (Draft 2)

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

August 28, 2026

-

Latin discipulus 'student, pupil, disciple', disciplina ‘teaching, discipline’, etc. must be derived from discere 'to learn'. The problem of explaining -p-, when future participle discitūrus implies older *discitus 'learned', *disciculum 'learning' < *did-ske-tlo-m, etc., seems to me to be based on dissimilation of k-kl > k-pl (after tl > kl). All other attempts to find an ety. unrelated to disc- can discover nothing but folly. If p only came from *p, there would be no need for linguists. It is less likely that *di(d)k-ske-putlo- 'child who learns' existed, since there's no reason to think discipulus is the source of disciplina, etc.

-
Another related problem might be :

*mH2andh- > L. mandere ‘chew’, *mH2adh-(dh)lo- > magulum a. ‘jaw’, *madh-ye- > G. masáomai \ mossúnō ‘chew’, máthuia ‘jaw’

-

For most, *-dhlo-m > -(u)bulum, so why -g-? If types of K-K > K-P, I think dsm. P-P > P-K also existed. This also fits *temafr- > tenebrae, *gWem- > ven-, etc., so likely *madhlom > *mabulum > magulum. If so, it would be the only instance I know of one word having *d(h) > *b > g in such a short time. Perhaps instead the present formed *mH2andh-lo- > *mamblo- with m-m dsm. first (if this group only applied to C1-C1).

-

In fact, older *CC had many odd changes, with some showing TC \ PC \ KC. Latin & Italic show several changes that look optional, like *d(h) > l, so several outcomes is not odd in context. Many oddities cluster around *-TC-. PIE *putlo- ‘young (of an animal), son' > Oscan puklo- ‘son’, Latin pullo- ‘young of an animal, chick’, S. putrá- with *-tl- > -ll- or -kl- is part of apparent *-tC- \ *-kC-.

-

If unchanged *tl > ll in Latin, it would also fit several "tool" words with -llum, etc. (some claim that this is due to short V vs. long, with analogy, but it hardly fits all words that are old or expected to be basic). Some cases are uncertain. Even L. scintilla 'spark, glimmer' could be from *skendH2- \ *sk(H2)and- 'shine'. If so, since -illa can be the dim. of *-ra, I think *skend-ra > *skintra (with *Tr > tr, like trah-). If the *-H2- existed in all forms (some with H-met., https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), it could be that *skendH2-tlo- > *skendallo-.

-

For *tn ( > nn ) \ *kn, see *H2atno- > Go. aþna-, U. acnu acc.p, O. akeneí loc., L. annus ‘year’. If *tn > *dn > nn, also opt. *dn > nd (pand-, etc.). Even *pn seems to exist in *solw-atnis > U. sevacni-, L. sollennis / sōlemnis ‘annual / customary / ceremonial / solemn / festive’. I think *w-tn > *w-pn matches *tl > *pl near p or w in https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/comments/1q9fd2t/loans_from_greek_to_latin_d_t_tl_pl/ .

-

Even ks \ ts \ ps seems to exist (matching Greek ts / ks like G. *órnīth-s > órnīs ‘bird’, Dor. órnīx, etc. & other IE https://www.academia.edu/172341604 ) in :

-

*oluts-? > G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs >> L. Ulixēs

G. Kúklōps 'cyclops' >> L. coc(u)les ‘one-eyed’, coclitis g.

G. *Aiwants > Aiwas / Aíās >> Et. Aivas ‘Ajax’, L. Aiāx

*opes-a:- > L. operārī ‘work/labor/toil / be busy’, *opes-a:-st\ts > SPc opsút \ opsúq ‘he did/made’

(likely *-st came from s-aor.; *st / *ts as in *tt > *tst / *tts )

G. ἄξιος 'weighing as much, of like value, worth as much as', ἀξία 'worth, value' >> *atsis > L. assis \ ās m., assis g. ‘copper coin < ‘*bronze plaque of one pound in weight’ (L&S, "the as was, acc. to the ancient custom of weighing money, originally a pound") (ks > ts ( > ss in L.))

(less likely *H2ag^si-s > L. axis / *atsis > assis, Li. ašìs, OHG ahsa, G. áxōn ‘axle’; *wheel/circle > L. assis > ās ‘one-pound bronze coin / circular flap/valve/object / disk/slice/moon’ )

-

This might also explain the origin of nouns in *-ta:t-s and *-tu:t-s.  These have a small range and identical meaning to those with *-taH2 and *-tu- / *-tuH2- (*pleH1tu(H2)- > L. plēb-ēs, G. plēthū́s ‘crowd / throng’).  Since L. could change *-iH2-s > -īx in fem., if the optional *ts / *ks in axis / assis also produced *-āks / *-āts, etc., analogy could spread -āt- through the paradigm.

-

The complete optionality of this is important for knowing how to evaluate other sound changes for which no regular environment can be found. Since Latin is attested well enough for firm conclusions, not finding a cause here is helpful in proving that optionality is real. In the case of *putlo- > Oscan puklo-, Latin pullo-, you might think it varied among languages, but the opposite in Latin *-tlo-m > -(u)culum \ -(u)crum is very clear, & *-llo-m might also be seen in -cillum ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r1pbdp/etymology_of_oscillate_vacillate/ ).

-

Since *l became L before most vowels, it could be that *tL > tl & *tl > cl. This would allow variation within the paradigm, smoothed in 2 ways. However, this would not explain basically the same problems for *tn, *ts.


r/HistoricalLinguistics 4d ago

Areal linguistics How did spoken Arabic dialects borrow Persian بس?

2 Upvotes

Not sure if this is the right subreddit for my question, but I thought I might get a more educated answer here compared to the Arabic language-related subreddits. The question is clear from the title, and I'm wondering how or when it happened since this word seems to have skipped Turkish (afaik), which could explain the transmission during the Ottoman rule.


r/HistoricalLinguistics 4d ago

Language Reconstruction Lexical sources of personal pronouns

3 Upvotes

In the absence of social considerations like formality, first and second person singular pronouns are often remarkably stable. Third person ones are often derived from demonstratives, if not demonstratives themselves: "that one". First and second person plurals are often plural forms of their singulars: "I-s", "me-s", "you-s". That leaves the singulars. What lexical sources might they have?

Formality has caused instability in second-person pronouns in much of Europe over the last millennium, with plurals often used as formal singulars, and with the original singulars sometimes dropping out, like in English and Dutch. Of these two, Dutch has a new plural, "jullie" ("you people"), while English speakers have still not decided between "you people", "you all", and "yous". Spanish has formal "usted" < "vuestra merced" ("your grace") for the singular and "ustedes" for the plural.

Some languages go further, having several pronouns for each person and number, for different levels of formality and sometimes the speaker's gender, notably Japanese and Thai. I'll summarize some common features of those pronouns.

First person singular:

  • Self
  • This one
  • Inferior person
  • Servant

Second person singular:

  • Self
  • That one
  • Superior person

In these languages, some pronouns were shifted to the other of these two persons.

These pronouns come from references to oneself, from indirect references ("this one", "that one"), and from expressions of obsequiousness.

So we may have a clue as to what makes first and second person singular pronouns vary in the absence of formality distinctions. Some sets of them are present over large areas, pointing to distant common ancestry, like northern Eurasia's M-T (> B-S) and western North America's N-M. But M-T and N-M are rather obviously different, and both of them are different from other sets.


r/HistoricalLinguistics 4d ago

Language Reconstruction Are we sure that PIE *gene and *gno are ultimately the same root with an ablaut?

Thumbnail
2 Upvotes

r/HistoricalLinguistics 5d ago

Resource Animal domestications in early AustroAsiatic society

Post image
5 Upvotes

r/HistoricalLinguistics 5d ago

Austronesian Malayic *halia > Telugu alla-mu, Prakrit allaya, Sanskritized ārdraka (originally "moist") according to this Oxford thesis "Southeast Asia in the ancient Indian Ocean World", among other loan proposals like kākkattuvāṉ < kakaktua. Austronesian > Telugu isnt unheard of, compare araTi < *qaRutay.

Post image
4 Upvotes

r/HistoricalLinguistics 6d ago

Writing system Linear A, B, z-series also for ks- \ sk-

0 Upvotes

Linear A, B, z-series also for ks- \ sk- (Draft )

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

August 26, 2026

In Linear B, signs in the z-series usually match Greek with z or *tsy > ss \ tt, but some match sk(h):

*ksenwo- ‘guest’ > Att. xénos, skheno-

G. Andróxenos, LB a-no-ke-we \ a-no-ze-we

*ksenwo- >> G. xénisis ‘entertainment of a guest’, *ksenwitiyos ‘(gift) for entertainment of a guest’ > *sk- > LB ze-ne-si-wi-jo

G. askós ‘skin / hide’, askéō ‘work/form/adorn/honor/train’, askētḗr ‘one who practises any art or trade’, fem. askḗtria, LB a-ke-ti-ri-ja / a-ze-ti-ri-ja

No explanation for this has ever been accepted. I think that the Cretan Hieroglyphic signs representing zV match known IE words with sk-, showing that a language without ts created the signs, then it was adapted to also cover Greek ks \ ts (later G. dia. show variation of *ts \ ks, as in *orni:ts \ -ks 'bird'). In the same way, in Dobson, LB ru-79-na is unknown, but *lu-tsu-na: might be *luksna: 'lantern' with zu as *ksu (or really *tsu, with dia. ts \ ks).

CH LA, LB

044 *17 ZA (also = LB *19, much closer in shape; *17 with bottom triangle simplified > line)

candle; *skande:la:, L. candēla 'tallow candle or taper; a fire' <- *(s)kend- (some Italic *n > an)

045 *74 ZE

saw (or other serrated tool); *skertsaH2- 'saw', IE *sk(e)rtso- '(cutting) across' (L. serra 'saw' is likely asm. of sk-ts > ts-ts, so directly *tse- > ZE?; less likely mix with *serp- (Celtic *serra 'scythe'))

This fits only if Italic was the source, later adapted into Greek (or others with ks \ ts). I think the ev. in Eteocretan and Linear A ( https://www.academia.edu/172341604 ) supports the same (including other signs), and the sound changes required don't fit other IE branches (or any known non-IE). Looking to see if any LA words with zV fit better if ksV, stV, etc., requires more study.

If Greek treated tsV & ksV the same, then the similarity of the LA symbol *333 to those for SA and ZA (on a weight) might specify STA (with ZA on its own for TSA or KSA). It would spell stas-sa-mu for dia. Greek *sthasmon < stathmón ‘a (standard) weight’. From https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1njrej4/reexamining_the_oldest_greek_inscriptions_values/ :

>
C. Linear A contained ligatures of 2 signs. When ZA was used, how would it be pronounced? Duccio Chiapello has written ( https://www.academia.edu/100052649/ ) that based on the similarity of the LA symbol *333 to those for sa and za it makes him think it just represented a single syllable.  333-sa-mu on a balance weight would, in his mind, be equivalent to *sthasmon < stathmón ‘a (standard) weight’ (with dia. thm > sm as in thesmós, etc.), stathmíon ‘weight of a balance / plummet’.  Since this has already been taken as a weight by others (with 5 lines on the other side showing its value), this is crucial evidence within LA for the presence of Greek words.  It fits with his other examples of *thuma > su-ma- in LA showing a dia. with many th > s ( https://www.academia.edu/124396467 / https://www.academia.edu/123379572 ).

>

This would allow other signs to come from *stV:

005 *79 ZU

eye; *H2str-laH2- > *storla: > *sturla 'star, eye' (shift as in other IE (Iranian *str-ka:, Celtic *su:li- 'sun', I. súil f. 'eye')); Latin stēlla 'star; pupil of an eye' < *ste:r-la: is analogy with nom. *ste:r.

050 *20 ZO (*also LA *304 ? (all arrows, *20 with extra line))

arrow; *stoigo-? <- *steig- 'sharp (point)'

040 *86 (S)TOMNA? \ (S)TUMNA? (also = LA 359?)

mast? (image is curved ship with a mast & rigging); *staH2mn-aH2- 'thing standing upright' > *sta:ma: > *stoma ? (compare PIE *st(a)H2-, L. stāmen)

Only *86 has no known value, but if LA WA-TU-MA-RE = LB wa-86-re ‘a shepherd’s name’), it would be G. *wastu-mnare:(s) 'minding (protecting) the city' (similar to Ἀστύνοος, Ἀστυόχη ). For me-86-ta ‘an ethnonym’, u-ra-86 ‘a place’, they might = Mḗthumna ‘city on Lesbos’ & Rhíthumna, NG Réthumna ‘Cretan town on a cape’ < *wradhumn-?, maybe related to *Wradumanthus, like those names from Minos?). There is some variation of o \ u in Italic (L. *gWhorno- 'hot' > furn-), and LA names in -u match LB in -o, so *stomna \ *stumna & *stor- > *sturla (above) might show native or adapted use.

These require *a: > *o:, as in https://www.academia.edu/116074387 Sicel pipoked ‘has agreed’, L. pāc-, seen in phrases with fairly easy translation based on Latin equivalents (clearly, 'has drunk' makes no sense, so *pibH3- 'drink' is unsuitable):

saked qoi aves eurumakes age pipoked lutim

'it is decreed that, of his own will, Eurúmakhos has agreed to bring/pay the penalty/payment'

The need for *a: > o within Greek is seen in some supposed "Pre-Greek" words, like *(s)naH2to- 'wet' > nótos https://www.academia.edu/35402227 :

>

  1. nótos ‘wind, southwest wind’ (Beekes 2010: 1025).44 This word means ‘southwest wind’, and this is the wind that usually brings rain. As such, a link with Armenian nay ‘wet, fluid’ cannot be excluded (Scheftelowitz 1905: 46; Prellwitz 1905: 316; Brugmann 1906: 220; Boisacq 1938: 673; Hofmann 1950: 219). Theoretically, one could add Latin nāre ‘swim’ as well, but as Umbrian has snata ‘washed’ with an initial s,45 the word is better linked with *sneh2 ‘swim’ (Zehnder 2001c; Weiss 2009: 169).

>

As further support, though *79 mostly fits as ZU, Melena considers Linear B *79 as WO2, representing wwo(:) and (*wyo(:) > ) w^w^o(:). Though I agree with most of his points, this can not be true for all cases since ZU is often necessary. A sign with 2 values, maybe when drawn slightly differently, would not be odd. It is possible, if I'm right about its Italic origin, that the 'eye' stands for It. *wideyo: 'I see' > *widyo: > *wiyyo: (with gy & dy > yy, as in Latin).


r/HistoricalLinguistics 6d ago

Language Reconstruction Sampsa Holopainen, (Review of) Blažek, Václav & Piispanen, Peter. 2024. Yukaghir and Uralic

3 Upvotes

Sampsa Holopainen, (Review of) Blažek, Václav & Piispanen, Peter. 2024. Yukaghir and Uralic

In https://www.academia.edu/150296930 Sampsa Holopainen harshly criticized their attempts to relate Yukaghir and Uralic. At an early stage, complete regularity is impossible. This only comes after proposing cognates, finding rules, rechecking proposals based on findings, etc. This method was used for IE (not very consistently, since it was one of the 1st), yet it seems to be regarded as unscientific now (at least by those who have a bias against Uralic being related to any other group). He said:

>

To mention another problematic instance, on page 172, Proto-Uralic *tal- ‘evening’ is compared with both Proto-Uralic *tälwä ‘winter’ and Proto-Samoyed *t1ålwə̂ ‘evening’, two unrelated words that cannot be related to each other regularly within Uralic. It is difficult to understand what purpose such comparisons serve: are the authors not aware of the irregularity, or do they assume that providing a Yukaghir cognate would somehow solve the irregular relationship of these unrelated Uralic words?

>

Here, "Uralic *tal- ‘evening’" should be "Yukaghir *tal- ‘evening’" (Omok tallo). Irina Nikolaeva said that tallo (attested in 1841) should be corrected to *jullo (which is possible).

-

PU *tälwä ‘winter’ & Proto-Samoyed *tålwə > Nen. T talw ‘the darkest moment of the night’ need not be identical to be related. If loss of *j caused fronting, then *talwa & *talwja might have existed as from 'dark' (with a derivational relation like IE -os vs. -yos), similar to PIE *temHeslo-. For a similar shift, see Francis-Ratte's Middle Korean nác ‘daytime; afternoon’, Old Japanese natu ‘summer’ < pKJ *nacu ‘daytime’.

He also said:

>

The comparison of the words for ‘father’ on page 59 is quite similar in that it has been discussed and criticized by Aikio (2014a), but the authors do not take this into account. Furthermore, in comparing Proto-Yukaghir *eče: ‘father’ with Uralic *äćä ‘father’ as well as “*aćća / *eć(ć)a / *ić(ć)a / *ajća (to cite the reconstructions they use), the authors resort to sloppy methodology, as this shows clearly that the reconstruction of the Proto- Uralic word for ‘father’ is not settled at all. I cannot see how the Proto-Uralic word could be compared with any alleged external cognates at the present stage of research.

>

How does the lack of a certain internal rec. prevent comparing 2 words that look almost identical? A comparison must be made before all regular sound changes are found, just as in IE. In the same way, pater & pitar- were known to be cognate even before *H2 was reconstructed. How can you expect to gain any knowledge if you require a complete knowledge of all changes BEFORE considering any comparison valid? Since *H2atta 'father' exists in PIE, what if *-ja from other family members > *attja. With no other *ttj, it would be impossible to "prove" regularity from a set. Also, many Uralic words show internal irregularity (front vs. back), even in certain cognates. What standard are you requiring from others, & who in the past has followed it?


r/HistoricalLinguistics 6d ago

Writing system Cretan Hieroglyphic to Linear A, Check

1 Upvotes

EDIT: I've added some more; still unsure about some other's ideas on values.

Cretan Hieroglyphic to Linear A, Check

-

In https://www.academia.edu/69149241 they show the relation of Cretan Hieroglyphic to Linear A step by step. The earlier forms are often clearly pictures of animals, body parts, etc. No one has checked to see if these values, applied to all CH inscriptions, would produce words that match LA words (or some, or partially, etc.). Depending on the results, even more value might be found with other analyses. On my 1st look, there were some matches (CH -RE-RO, LA RE-RO, KA-RE-RO), but many of the signs were those of disputed value, so many more need to be checked for any certainty.

-

The values (some uncertain, when proposed by others in []); most seem mainly certain in LB, but some signs seem to have two values (some depending on place).

CH LA and/or LB

001 *100 / *102 (LA; VIR = man; man?) [CHIC, Younger 2000-2020]

002 *70 KO (corpus?)

004 *100 / *102 (LA; VIR = man; woman?) [CHIC, Younger 2000-2020]

005 *79 ZU / WO: ? (*H2str-laH2- > *storla: > *sturla 'star, eye')

006 *48 NWA (*manw-a '2 hands' < *-H1 by analogy)

007 *73 MI

008 *28 I

009 *01 DA

010 *53 RI

011 *05 TO

012 *23 MU (orig. WU, with w > m by u known from Anatolian?)

013 *61 O

016 *22 PI2 ? (PHI \ BI)

017 *85 AU (also WA?, *warse:n 'boar' ?)

018 *336 (LA; dog's head, *k^H2wo:n > ??)

019 *31 SA

020 *13 ME

021 *39 PI

022 ? (same as CH 021 ??)

023 *122 (OLIVes)

024 *30 NI

025 *04 TE

026 *09 SE

027 *316 (LA) TE? ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1oerrxm/linear_a_316_77/ )

028 *? KUN \ KO:N ?? (TI-TI-028 = LA TI-TI-KU(-NI), etc.?)

031 *27 RE

032 *29 PU2 (PHU / BU ?)

034 *59 TA

035 *58 SU

036 *38 E

037 *40 WI

038 *57 JA

039 *56 PA3 (PHA / BA ?)

040 *86 STUMA? (if LA WA-TU-MA-RE = LB wa-86-re ‘a shepherd’s name’) (also = LA 359?)

041 *54 WA

042 *08 A (double ax; Axine, Ascia ?)

043 *324 (LA, also = *363, *364 ?)

044 *17 ZA (*skande:la:, L. candēla 'tallow candle or taper; a fire'; also = LB *19, much closer in shape; *17 with bottom triangle simplified > line)

045 *74 ZE (*skersaH2- 'saw; (cutting) across' (L. serra 'saw' is mix with *serp- (Celtic *serra 'scythe'))

046 *301 (LA) JO ?

047 ?

048 *305 (LA)

049 *37 TI

050 *20 ZO (*stoigo-?; *also LA *304 ? (all arrows, *20 with extra line))

051 *312 (LA; = double mina (largest unit))

052 *24 NE

053 *60 RA

054 *16 QA

056 *06 KO ? [Chiapello https://www.academia.edu/171945654\]

057 *65 JU ? (also = LA *355 ?)

058 *69 TU (tukon, fig ?)

059 *704 (LA)

061 *11 PO

062 *06 NA

063 *02 RO

064 *03 PA

065 *319 (LA) NE ?? (nearly same shape)

068 *03 ?? PA ?? [Soldani 2013]

069 *76 RJA

070 *02 ?? (same as CH 063 ?)

071 *314 (LA) BU \ BO \ BA ? (du-pu2\*314-re)

077 *78 QE ?? ( = CH 074 / 075 ?)

083 *55 NU

092 *26 RU

095 *10 U

153 *120 (grain (barley?))

156 *131a UINA \ WINA (wine) ??

157 *123 (in LA TA-I-*123)

-
CH SM (symbol)

74 (cat's head) *80 MA

85 (spider) *44 KE

137 (fan, shell?) *50 PU

(triton shell) 06 ?? NA ??

whirl within a circle *77 HA (also = SM swastika ?)

flying bird *81 KU

scorpion *41 SI

-

Ins.

[#1]

X 53(handle-right) 34 31 70(long-right-line)

-

X RA-TA-RE-RO

-

[#2]

X 13 56 68

] 50 16

-

X O-KO?-PA??

] ZO-PHI

-

[#3]

X 16 54

X 9 77 13 20

X 57 16

X 42 16 50

-

X PHI-QA

X DA-QE??-O-ME

X JU-PHI

X A-PHI-ZO

-

[#4]

X 19 38 59(filled ‘ladle’)

-

X SA-JA-??

-

#5

] 47 92 [

?-RU

-

#6

154

-

#7

156

-

#8

X 28 38 32[

-

X ?-JA-PHU[

-

#9

65 63

-

NE?-RO

-

#10

38

-

JA

-

#11

49 49 [[ 28 ]] [

-

TI-TI-?

(compare LA TI-TI-KU(-NI), etc.?)

-

#12

X 28 49

-

?-TI

likely partial for TI-TI-? (above)

-

#13

X O 62 11 56 | X 44 O [

-

X O NA-TO-KO? | X ZA O [

-

#14

] O 38 [

-

JA

(several beginning (?) with JA resembles LA use of JA- & I- added to gods)

-

#15

] 11 56 [

-

-TO-KO?

likely partly destroyed; same as #13?

-

#16

X OO

49 56 O ><

-

TI-NA??

-

#17

X 59 54 31

-

X ?-QA-RE

Match LA O-SU-QA-RE (Libation Formula)? If so, 59 as *os- or *su-?? (some LA have (V-)C-, if all matches correct)?

-

#18

X 9 56 61

X 20 47 X 44 5

-

X DA-KO?-PO

X PI?-? x ZA-ZU

-

#19

X O [

25 46 [| O |] [ ><

-

TE-JO?

-

#21

X 38 17 49 34

153

-

X JA-AU-TI-TA

?

-

#22

X 55 70 49

] O 31

-

X ?-RO?-TI

RE

-

#23.

X 42 45 29

*159bis

-

X A-ZE-?

?

-

#24

X 11 56

*153

-

X TO-KO?

?

-

#25.

38 11

38

-

JA-TO

JA

-

#26

a. 2 sigilla (un H et un non H)

b. vacat

c. X 11 92

d. *153

-

c. X TO-RU

d. (grain)

-

a nodule, token of sale of bull for grain?

-

#27

X 42 41 11

X 92 67 32

X 57 25 34[

-

X A-WA-TO

X RU-?-PHU

X JU-TE-TA[

-

#28

X 72 O [

] 62 19 61 ><

X 41 O [

-

X ? o

NA-SA-PO

X WA (cloth?) O

-

#29.

]42 ><

X 60-70-O

] 19 55 ><

-

A

X ?-RO?-.

SA-?

-

#30

68 46 19

-

PA??-JO-SA

-

#31.

52 56 49 34

-

NE-KO?-TI-TA

-

#32.

X 56-47-31 X 50-16

X 57-47-61

-

X KO?-?-RE X ZO-PHI

X JU-?-PO

-

#36

X 23 61 19 57

-

X (OLIVes)-PO-SA-JU

-

#37

X 42 54 61

X 17 39 _100_

-

X A-QA-PO

X AU-PHA _100_

-

#38

X 19 77 29

X 57 13 49 X 57 69 70

-

X SA-QE??-?

X JU-O-TI X JU-RJA-RO??

-

#39

a. X 56-23 X 43-70 X 20-77

b. X 42-17 X 57-23-51 (120)

-

a. X KO?-(OLIVes) X ?-RO? X ME-QE??

b. X A-AU X JU-(OLIVes)-(double mina) (120)

-

#40

a. X 19-70-61 X 72-39

b1. X 44-49 (2)

b2. X 68-32 (4)

-

a. X SA-RO?-PO X ?-PHA

b1. X ZA-TI (2)

b2. X PA??-PHU (4)
-

#050 [2] KN Hh (02)

a X 042-054-061 250[

b 057-069 407 | 092

c 044-049 420[

d 049-021-061 1240[

-

a X A-QA-PO 250

b JU-RJA 407 | RU

c ZA-TI 420[

d TI-PI-PO 1240[

-


r/HistoricalLinguistics 7d ago

Indo-European Proposed cognates between proto indo european, and proto eskimo aleut and proto yukaghir

3 Upvotes

Hey can someone give me a list of proposed cognates highlighted by Eurasiatic scholars?


r/HistoricalLinguistics 7d ago

Language Reconstruction Eteocretan and Linear A 3

0 Upvotes

H4. Etruscan is known to have many G. loans, & the oddities there often match L. (very few due to internal Et. changes). In https://www.academia.edu/168297982 I discussed many, so only a summary here:

L. Vertimnus / Vertumnus / Vortumnus >> Et. Voltumna / Veltha (r \ l)

G. Túndaros, Tundáreos >> Et. Tuntle (r \ l)

G. Kádmīlos \ Kadmîlos \ Kasmîlos ‘Hermes / the son or servant in the Cabiri’ >> Et. Catmite ‘Ganymede’, Latin camillus \ casmīlus ‘noble youth employed in the sacrifices of the Flamen Dialis’ (l > δ \ l > s \ l ?)

G. Minṓ-tauros, *Tauro-Minōs or *Teuro-Minēs >> Et. Theurumines (likely showing 'man-bull', 'bull-man', if rel. Minyes, G. Minúes, which could come from pl. *Manuh-es < *mH2an-us-es ‘the Men’)

G. Dromios 'god of the race-course' (Hermes, in Crete) >> Et. Turmś 'Hermes'

G. Poluxénē >> Et. Phulsphna (uk(W) (as in LB); later G. merged uKW) > uK)

G. Ī́karos >> Et. Vikare 'Icarus' (like LA -e, LB -o in names?)

Gr. khálups ‘hardened iron / steel’, *khal(u)khos 'bronze' >> Et. Chaluchasu ‘Talos, the man of bronze from Crete'

G. palámē ‘palm / hand / works of the hand / (work of) art / device / cunning’, *ptalámē-mēdēs ‘one who thinks up devices’ >> Et. Talmithe, Palmithe ‘Palamedes, Greek who fought in Trojan War, an inventor’

*H1lewdh-us-iH2 f. > *elewthwiya: > Cr. Eleúthuiā, *elewthyiya > G. Eleuthíā, *elewthwiya > *eleythwiya > Eleíthuia, etc., *etheuthwa >> Et. Ethausva 'goddess of childbirth'

.
*dhwrenH1- > S. dhvraṇati ‘sound’, dhvánati ‘roar / make a sound/noise’, dhvāntá- ‘a kind of wind’; *dhwren-dhrenH1- > *dhwen-dhreH1n- > G. pemphrēdṓn, tenthrēdṓn ‘a kind of wasp that makes its home in the earth’ (likely ‘cicada’), *tenthēdṓn > *tīthōn / *tinthōn ‘cicada’ >> Tīthōnós >> Et. Tinthun

.
I also covered 2 others in an unpublished draft:

Etruscan Munθuχ & Turnu, making music

.

Dominique Briquel in https://www.academia.edu/75840534 repeats the common claim, completely unproven & unsupported, that Etruscan Munθuχ means ‘‘the one who adorns’’. She is often depicted as a woman holding an alabastron (containing perfume), so the idea is it came from Latin mundus 'clean, pure; nice, fine, elegant; decorated, adorned; world' (in the last sense a calque of Greek kósmos). Though foreign d, t, th are often changed in Etruscan, I highly doubt this idea makes sense of all images. In the same link, Munθχ is shown holding a flute in each hand, across from Turnu holding a lyre. There is no reason for this if her only purpose was to perfume & beautify, & names in myths often only describe the function of those named. This double use of instruments matches the Greek Muses, who sometimes are shown, like "Muse standing and holding an alabastron and lyre" ( https://www.avi.unibas.ch/DB/searchform.html?ID=2009 ).

.

This also shows Aphrodite & Adonis, & the Muse Clio is sometimes associated with them, sometimes with a lyre. Though lost versions of myths often exist, any group of muses could have been used for a love scene (or just to depict the story being told), so this is plenty of support to show that Proto-Greek *monthya \ *manthya 'muse' existed ( <- μανθάνω < *m(e)ndh- 'know, learn, understand, teach'). It is likely that some unattested word like *monthakhos 'teaching' is the source. Many such odd, but clearly Greek, loans exist. I think the differences from attested Greek can be explained by dialects from Crete https://www.academia.edu/168297982 . Since some of these words have palatalized *t > *ts > th, it could also be that some other *montya 'muse' existed with *ty > *ts > th instead, maybe rel. *mH2n-ti-s 'seer' (some G. dia. had syllabic *n > o; *Hn > *HVn).

.

The other Muse, Turnu, is unlikely to have anything to do with Turan (Aphrodite, Venus), but might be < *θρωνώ, a fem. form from Lac. θρῶναξ 'drone' < PIE *dhroH3n- \ *dhrwen- 'make noise'. This also would be related to :

*dhwrenH1- > S. dhvraṇati ‘sound’, dhvánati ‘roar / make a sound/noise’, dhvāntá- ‘a kind of wind’; *dhwren-dhrenH1- > *dhwen-dhreH1n-on- > [n-dsm.] G. pemphrēdṓn 'a kind of wasp that makes its nest in hollow oaks', tenthrēdṓn ‘a kind of wasp that makes its home in the earth’ (likely ‘cicada’), *tenthēdṓn > *tinthōn \ *tīthōn ‘cicada’ >> Tīthōnós, Etruscan Tinthun

In Tīthōnós vs. Tinthun, Etruscan again provides valuable evidence in a loan of the older Greek form (here with n-n > 0-n dissimilation). Indeed, many loans often preserve the older sounds better than the later native word.

.
Also, Lemnian contains a word naphoth, apparently a loan << Italic:

*nepōts > L. nepōs ‘grandson / nephew’ >> Et. nefts, Lem. naphoth

L. pro(:)nepōs >> *pronefoths > *promfoths > Et. prumat(h)(s) \ prumts ‘great-nephew / g-grandson’

.

One cognate changes in the same way (-oth, -ath) clearly shows that both sets came from Latin or other Italic before extensive changes in Et. reducing V's. Optional retention of -ōt- as -ath- in Et., > -oth- in Lem., p > p / ph / f, show a common origin, with no other nearby IE having the same word. The simplest way for this to work, consistent with my other claims, is that a group of Etruscans lived on Crete, one later going north to Lemnos, the other (returning?) to Italy.

.

H5. o > a

This is found in Macedonian (whether a G. dia. or not, most words match G. ones). In G. môkos 'mockery', L. maccus 'a buffoon', *o: > *a: is also likely (then opt. V:C > VCC, as in Juppiter, etc.).

.

H6. e \ a

For *ele-? > NG Cretan ἐλαίτρινος >> L. alaternus ‘buckthorn’, *ela- \ *ala- > Itn. ilátro, Sic. alastra ‘broom’, etc., I think *H2al-H1-tlo- 'sharp thorn' > G. *aletl- might fit best. The opt. V-asm. as in megatho- \ megetho-, etc.

.

H7. Though it would look as if PIE *H2piso-m 'pear' existed, Wigman mentioned it could be rel. Shina pisō ‘small pear’, Burushaski pheṣo (these 2 languages spoken near each other, 1 certainly a loan), Khinalug bzɨ ‘pear’. A *Hapis(V) might fit as well.

.
H8. Wigman treats G. ὑάκινθος ‘hyacinth’ >> L. vaccīnium ‘whortleberry, bilberry’ (both blue/purple), maybe < *wak- rel. Cretan Βάκινθος ‘name of a month’, Arg. ϝάκινθος ‘name of a Laconic festival’. Without knowing its original meaning, I can only say it might be < *wakninth-, *waH2no- 'blue' ( https://www.academia.edu/170903084 ). This allows n-n dsm. of *wakninth- > *wakinth-, but *wakninth- > *wakkinth-yo-? in L. The varying suffixes might show that -inthos & *-inthyos > -issos, etc.

.
H9. Since PIE *gli(H1) -> R. glëkъ 'mucus, lymph', the very similar G. γλάμων \ γλαμυρός 'bleary-eyed', γλαμός 'mucus', γλάμη >> L. glā̆mae \ grām(i)ae p. ‘eye rheum’, grammōsus aj. (Hsx. γλάμπτειν 'to be dirty' might show *my > mpt (like khrimpt-?)) might be contaminated by G. lḗmē \ λήμη 'a humour that gathers in the corner of the eye, rheum', L. lāma 'marsh, mud'.

.

EIther *en-glaH2-mo- or *en-gleH1-mo- > Al. nglomë \ ngjomë ‘humid, moist', so it provides no further ev. Wigman mentioned another group, which would look like *gWr(o)mz- > Go. qrammiþa ‘moisture’, Li. grim̃zti, R. grjáznut’ ‘to sink into something sticky, boggy’. Since no *z not next to *b\d\g is known in PIE, I say that it came from *-zdm- ( > *-zm- \ *-mz-), rel. Slavic *grVměždžь ‘pus in the eye’ (if < *gWrmzd- with met.; likely also *gWrozdm- > Go. qrammiþa, *gWrzdm- > BS *grizm-, etc.).

.
H10. u \ 0 by P

The need for G. *καύπηλος > κάπηλος >> L. caupō (instead of L. >> G. or ? >> L, G) is seen in many G. words with u \ 0, often by P (otherwise, Cu) :

G. thalúptō \ thálpō ‘warm up / heat’, thalukrós ‘hot / glowing’

G. dáphnē, Perg. láphnē, Thes. daúkhna- \ δαύχνα-

G. korúdūlis \ kordū́lē ‘club / cudgel'

*H3owi-selpo- ‘sheep oil’ > *owiseupo- > G. oísupos \ oispṓtē ‘lanolin’ (lC > uC as in Cretan)

*melo-wokW-s > G. mélops ‘sweet sound / good singer’, *melup- > mélpō ‘celebrate with song & dance’, melpḗtōr ‘singer’

G. *καύπηλος > κάπηλος ‘huckster, innkeeper’, L. caupō, -nis g. ‘id.; trader’

.

If rel. Li. kaũpas 'heap', maybe 'heap (of things) > possessing, rich, trader'. The alt. of w \ H3 ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ) also allows *koH3p- > Li. kuopiù, kuõpti 'heap or draw earth around plants', etc.

.
H11. G. Kúklōps 'cyclops' >> L. coc(u)les ‘one-eyed’, coclitis g.

-

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cocles Possibly related to Ancient Greek Κύκλωψ (Kúklōps, “cyclops”).

-

If a loan, it would be from a dialect preserving *kWokWlo- 'wheel, round' before most *o > u between W's, or sonorant and W, or sonorant and P, etc. There are other variants within Greek with o vs. u, but there is no known Greek dia. with *koklo-, etc.

-

Also, why -ps > *-ts > -s? In https://www.academia.edu/168297982 I said that Etruscan Vilates is apparently the gen. of *Vile(ts) not expected **Vileus (*Wīleús > G. Oīleús). The source was the Messapians, who had names of men with -et- (Dazet, older gen. *Dazet-as > Daštas). I say this is because they spoke a dialect of Greek with Cretan features, unlike standard theories ( https://www.academia.edu/115992490 ). The Messapians, said to have come from Crete in ancient sources, provide the needed link for Etruscan loans with odd features. If it is clear that *-ps > *-ts in Etruscan, why not also in Latin? The match of Kúklōps & *Koklots would be quite good, esp. with no other IE source, and many other Greek words from myths (lumpa, Pollux, etc.).

.

These include r / l, o > a, ph > b, which I have described in Cretan before.  The source was certainly the Messapians, who spoke a dialect of Greek, unlike standard theories ( https://www.academia.edu/115992490 ).

.

H12. Wigman also considered G. ἄλειφα(ρ) ‘unguent, oil’, ἀλοιφή ‘anointing; ointment, grease' >> L. adeps ‘fat, lard’, *aleps > Logudorese *alibe- > abile, MFrench auve ‘lard’. However, Witczak has related several of these to a PIE root *H2ad- 'thick / full / fat', with details in https://www.academia.edu/121891631 , seen in:

*H2ad-ro- > G. hadrós ‘thick/stout/full / fat (of animals)’

*H2ad-H3op-s > L. adeps ‘lard’

*H2ad-H3op-ko- > *adepok ? > Ar. atok’ ‘full / fat’

*H2ad-H3op-uko- > Rushani aðawog ‘piece of lard’

*H2ad(e)tyo-? > Proto-Tocharian *ātsätse > TA ātsäts, TB ātstse ‘thick’

*H2ad()- > TA āt-klum ‘thickened (with/like sticky rice)’ or ‘containing thickened rice’?; with -klum from PT *kluw, TA klu ‘rice’ << Old Chinese *gləwʔ ‘rice(-paddy)’ (Adams)

.

H13. In https://www.academia.edu/170829642 there is a small chance that plumbum is a loan:

*molHo- > S. mála- ‘dirt / filth’

*mHol- / *bhHol- -> G. molū́nō \ pholū́nō ‘soil/defile/debauch / stain/pollute / dye'

*mHolu- 'dark' + *-mldho- 'metal' > *mHolumdho-s > G. *molumdo-s \ *pholumdo-s 'lead' > mólubdos >> L. plumbum

.

H14. Though not certain, the alt. of r \ l, th \ d, etc., above might allow:

G. θάπτω 'bury', *thaphthro- 'burying, digging (animal)' >> L. talpa ‘mole’, darpus '?', *darbon- > OProvencal darbon, etc. ‘mole’

.

I. Of course, the reverse must be true as well, & any Italic loans >> Greek should be looked for. The source of G. μάκαρ(ς) \ mákar(s) 'blessed, happy (of the gods & the blessed dead); 'blessed, fortunate, wealthy (of men)' is not clear. Some say it's related to G. μακρός 'long; tall, high; great' (as in 'great > blessed'; even 'short > jolly, happy' is known for E. merry). If so, why the very odd (for Greek) ending -ars? The cognate Latin macer '*tall > lean' had changes *makros > *makrs > *makərs > *makərr which would match mákar(s) (even for -rs vs. -r ( < *-rr) if due to sandhi).

.

J. PIE *sweidos- 'shining thing' > L. sīdus nu., sīderis 'group of stars; a star' and Greek σίδηρος \ sídēros ‘iron, steel’, Dor. sídāros could be related ('shine' -> 'metal' is common in IE). Maybe also Lithuanian sidãbras 'silver' & Slavic *sьrebro (*sw > s in some, Li. sesuõ 'sister' < *swesorH). There is no *-b(h)ro- ending in IE that could produce -āros vs. *-abros, but *-a(:)brum was common in Latin words for objects, tools, etc. This came from *-(V)H-dhrom (likely < *-trom with "pre-aspiration"), & no other branch but Italic had the change. This allows *swidadhro- > *swidabro- > sidãbras, *swidadhro- > *swidadro- > sídāros (d-d dsm.). Italic as the source might be due to historical reasons now unknown, esp. if they lived on or near Crete (center of much trade).

.

K. If L. salīva 'spittle, saliva' >> *siwalo- > G. síalon ‘spittle, slobber, saliva’ (with met.), then the need for *siwalo- > *siwalo- > LA si+au+re 'fattened?', LB si-ha-ro, G. síalos ‘*fat/grease > fat pig’; síelon, Ion. síalon ‘saliva / slobber’ would show the timing. LA si+au+re appears next to the logogram for 'pig' & likely shows the sign AU used for WA also (as above, NE \ EN).

.

L. PIE *twi(s)-tlo-s 'standing on end (of hair, 1st from fright)' ?? > L. titulus 'title of a book' (originally an appendix to the scroll), G. síllubos ‘strip of parchment or paper attached to scrolls’. This shows common ti- > si-; some Italic seems to have *tl > ll (some claim after short V, etc.), but dsm. of t-tl > t-ll before ti- > si- would also work.

An older meaning 'fringe (of hair)' seems needed for G. síllubon 'an edible thistle', sílluba p. ‘fringes, tassels’, silléa 'hair growth'. From Beekes, "Fur.: 67 compares Lat. titulus, originally an appendix to the scroll, and reconstructs *tit(o)l-ob’- > sisl-ub-".

.

M. G. sésīlos ‘slug’ & Lac. sémelos ‘snail with a spiral shell’, semeloirídai p. 'slugs?; those w/o shells' might be <- 'lazy'. TB ṣäm- ‘sit; remain, etc.' < *sed-m-? might show the needed root for one, & L. sessīlis (<- sedēre 'to sit; sit still; remain, tarry, stay, abide, linger') might show the other (ending for animals like "reptile"). Latin has some words with variants with -m- anyway (prem-, trem-), so Italic *sed-(m-) is not impossible.

.

N. In some way, L. simpulum ‘a small ladle’, simpuvium ‘vessel for offering liquids, a sacrificial bowl’, G. símblos ‘beehive, larder, sipús / supúē / sipúē ‘meal-tub; box for keeping flour and bread’, síphnis ‘id.’, sipuḯs ‘jar’, sibaíā ‘wallet’ (see Beekes). If from PIE *siP- ‘drip’, the L. meanings would be older (the rest 'a liquid measure > jar containing one liquid measure').

.

O. In *sH2isk-no- > G. iskhnós there is unexpected -kh-, maybe from met. of *H. In *sisku- or *sisko- dsm. > L. siccus 'dry; sober', an older *sikkhos (with the same) would allow a loan >> G. sikkhós ‘disgusted, picky, especially concerning food’ (with 'sober > avoiding drink, unwanted drinks, food, etc.?; less certain relation than those ex. above). A dsm. of s-sk > s-kk is not odd, needed for Latin anyway.

.
P. L. pampinus ‘shoot or leaf of a vine’, *(la) ampina\ola\etc. > Sardinian zampina ‘wild grapevine’, Tuscan ámpola \ lampone ‘raspberry’, G. ámpelos \ ἄμπελος ‘grape vine’.

Wigman's mention of Li. pam̃pti ‘to swell, bulge’ seems reasonable based on other IE (*bhuH1- 'swell, grow; plant'). L. would have the p-p dsm. based on internal ev., so likely the donor.

.
Q. L. ervum ‘bitter vetch’ >> G. orbo+, ὄροβος ‘bitter vetch’, ἐρέβινθος ‘chickpea’

The PIE *H1orw-, *H1erw- (in Gmc., etc.) require a direction *w > Italic *v adapted as G. b. The VRC > VRVC as in (R).

.
R. VRC > VRVC

This change is common in Italic (not Latin), & also in some Greek:

L. ervum ‘bitter vetch’ >> G. orbo+, ὄροβος ‘bitter vetch’, ἐρέβινθος ‘chickpea’

*kelp- > OI cilurnn ‘urn’, W. celwrn, G. kelébē ‘cup / jar’

LA ka-ro-pa3, G. kálpē ‘pitcher’, L. calpar ‘wine cask’, Calpurnius > G. Kal(o)pórnios

LA da-ro-pa, G. terpós \ tarpós \ tárpē \ tarpónē \ dárpē ‘large wicker basket’

.
In https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1hzfycl/minoan_cups_jars_linear_a/ I described more ev.:

>
That draft has many other LA signs that come from Greek words. Sticking to vessels, Chiapello has done more with this. He compared pictures of vessels next to LA words he took as G. ( https://www.academia.edu/90350059 ), finding the same in HT 31 for kálpē : ka-ro-pa3 & qa-pa3 : -bapha. I should also mention Chiapello’s idea ( https://www.academia.edu/99652728 ) that LA da-ro-pa next to an LA logogram *403VAS, which looks like a Minoan basket-shaped vessel, can be explained by da-ro-pa : G. dárpē ‘large wicker basket’. These all have IE cognates :

LA qa-pa3 = *gWapha, G. oxú-bapha / báphion ‘saucer / small vinegar saucer / shallow earthen vessel < *dipping vessel’

*gWabh-ye- > G. báptō ‘dip / dye / draw water by dipping a vessel’, ON kvefja ‘submerge (tr) / sink (intr)’

*kelp- > OIr cilurnn ‘urn’, W. celwrn, G. kelébē ‘cup / jar’

Linear A ka-ro-pa3, G. kálpē ‘pitcher’ >> L. calpar ‘wine cask’, Calpurnius > G. Kal(o)pórnios

LA da-ro-pa, G. terpós \ tarpós \ tárpē \ tarpónē \ dárpē ‘large wicker basket’, Arm. t’arp’ ‘large wicker fishing-basket / creel’, t’arb ‘framework of wooden bars / wicker trellis-work’ from *terp- ‘turn’ (referring to weaving or plaiting)

The spread of dárpē ‘basket’ from Crete might have to do with the basket-shaped vessels known from there. These might just be made for artistry, or could show that baskets were important in sacrifice and/or ritual (as he points out for the scene on the sarcophagus from Aghia Triada) and so kept the shape even when technology had made the use of plant-based objects used to carry bloody objects or liquids unneeded. More in https://www.academia.edu/126883342

When I contacted Chiapello, he did agree with some of my ideas (based on Greek dia. changes found later on Cr.), including support for his Linear A ka-ro-pa3, G. kálpē ‘pitcher’ based on alternation of lC / rC with lVC / rVC (he added L. Calpurnius > G. Kal(o)pórnios, also from a loan cognate with kálpē). There are many more I’ve put up online, incl. :

G. skórodon / skórdon, Alb. hurdhë, Arm. xstor ‘garlic’

? > L. ervum, G. órobos ‘bitter vetch’, orbo-pṓlēs ‘vetch-seller’

*H2albho- > L. albus, Greek alōphós ‘white’, alpho-prósōpos ‘white-faced’

*bher-tro-m > L. ferculum ‘bier / litter’, G. phér(e)tron, Skt. bharítra-m ‘arm’

I also mentioned Chiapello’s (2024) idea that LA ka-u-de-ta is an ethnonym *Kaudētās related to LB ka-u-da, G. Kaûda / Klaûda (compare di-ka-tu ~ di-ka-ta-jo ), L. Gaudos. Another important idea of his is that LA accounting terms came from G. ( https://www.academia.edu/95076672 ), and I’ve added to this: Greek dia-dómata, diadidómenos; Linear A da-du-ma-ta, da-du-mi-ne ( https://www.academia.edu/114620158). His po-to-ku-ro ‘grand total’ is a compound of ku-ro & *proto- ( https://www.academia.edu/69651288 ), but I prefer a simple and close meaning with *panto- > ponto- (with a / o by P, as above) & I also think Linear B ku-su-to-ro-qa ‘total’ (also abbreviations ku-su-to-qa / ku-su-qa), Linear A ku-ro ‘total’ which could be another abbreviation of the same (Whalen 2024e), instead of his taking of ku-ro as a whole word. He also had LA mi-ja-ru ‘honey’, which I’d accept due to *melit-on with Cr. changes of e / a, etc. He has made many other good translations, but I think they could be improved. I’ve talked about this and given some of my own, like LA au-ta-de-po-ni-za as *auta-despotnidza- ‘absolute ruler / queen’.

>

S. t \ l \ b

The need for *swidadhro- > *swidabro- > sidãbras, *swidadhro- > *swidadro- > sídāros, etc., requires alt. of b \ d (as in *dh > L. -b- \ -d- \ -l-). Others in G.:

*wekatos ‘to be obeyed / lord’ > Hekatos, fem. Hekátē, *Hekádē > Hekálē, Hekábē / W(h)ekaba

Hekátē, *Hekádē > Hekálē, Hekábē

G. bátrakhos, Pontic bábakos, etc., ‘frog’

*mlad- > G. blábē ‘harm/damage’, *mlad-bhaH2- > blásphēmos ‘speaking ill-omened words / slanderous/blasphemous’

Hal(a)Hto- > S. alāta- ‘fire/coal’, *alada: > G. alábē ‘coals’

With so many ex., there should be no reason to doubt it, but what is the cause? In Italic, at & *ath > *af > ab vary (due to *Ht(h)). It would be very odd for these G. words, all for -at-, etc., to be unrelated in cause. It is possible this came from a group of Italic speakers who retained this alt. even for words in which a did not come from *H (there would be no way for the current speakers to know its old cause). Since also at \ al (Hekátē, *Hekádē > Hekálē, Hekábē), the same change next to a could be at work (see ev. in https://www.academia.edu/40366912 ).

T. (u > i?; which direction?)

G. φρύγω \ phrū́gō ‘to roast, dry, fry’, phruktós 'roasted', m. 'roasted bean; torch, beacon' L. frīgō ‘to roast’

Since ev. from IIr. requires PIE *bhre(i)g- (and met. > *bhregy-; Ir. bra(i)ǰ- 'fry, parch, roast, bake, burn', S. bhrajj-, bhr̥kta- 'roasted, fried') only Italic can be directly from PIE. A loan from Italic > G. would explain *ei > *i:, then *i: > u: by P as in other u \ i alt.:

*siP- ‘drip’ > G. sipuḯs ‘jar’, sipús / supúē / sipúē ‘meal-tub'

*H2ukWno- > OE ofen ‘oven’, Go. auhns, G. ipnós (? S. ukhá- ‘cooking pot’, L. aulla ‘pot’)

*bhlud- > G. phlidáō, phludáō ‘have an excess of moisture / overflow’, TB plätk- ‘arise/swell/overflow’

G. striphnós ‘firm/solid / hard’, struphnós ‘sour/bitter/harsh/astringent’

stiphrós ‘firm/solid / stout/sturdy’, stuphelós ‘hard/rough/harsh/cruel / sour/acid/astringent’

stîphos- ‘body of men in close formation’, stū́phō ‘contract / draw together / be astringent’


r/HistoricalLinguistics 9d ago

Language Reconstruction Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 1:  ‘Boar / Goat’ (Draft 2)

3 Upvotes

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 1:  ‘Boar / Goat’ (Draft 2)

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

August 22, 2026

-

There are problems with traditional PIE reconstructions of ‘boar’.  For ex., in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/eburaz they give *H1ep-r-, which is certainly unable to account for all data :

*wepriyos > Lt. vepris ‘castrated boar’
*epuros > Gmc *ifuraz or *iburaz > OHG ebur ‘wild boar’
*eperos > G. Aeo. éperos \ ἔπερος ‘ram’
*epros > Th. ébros ‘male goat’ (& met. > *erpos > LB e-po ?)
*apros > L. aper

.

Many irregularities for these cognates require some explanation.  Though we- vs. a- could be analogy with *kapro-s ‘male goat, boar’ there is the same in *wersen- \ *H2arsen- 'boar, etc.'. I think *H2w- often became *H2- or *w- (as in *H2w- ? > *wed- \ *H2ad- 'water').

.
In the very similar *(H2)wero-H2g^ho- \ -u- > S. varāhá- \ varā́hu- m. 'wild boar' the varying accent points to a compound with *H2wer- 'above, cover' & *H2ag^hiH2- (S. ahī- 'cow', Av. azī- 'pregnant') as 'one who covers/mounts a female > stud, male (animal)'. No previous attempt at explaining the "suffix" *-VHg^ho- has been accepted. This also allows *H2wer-H1sr-(on-) 'mounting a woman' > *wersen- \ *H2arsen-, also *w(e)rH1es- (with mix. of s- or n-stem in each group; dsm. of r-r).

.
Thus, also *H1ep(i)-H2w(e)ro- 'on-top mounting' > *H1epH2(u)ro- 'boar' (with middle -H2- or -u- from the same cause as H2w- > H2- \ w- before compounding; maybe some H-H dsm. if needed). This might allow met. or H1-H2 > H2-(H2) in Italic, if H1e- > H2a- > a-, but analogy could still work just as well.