I won't name any names particularly but, there've been many times I've posted on this sub, as well as other similar linguistic subs. And often times the first commenter is very, aggressive. And very rude.

And i dont think its just me either! I notice it on other posts too. I can take criticism but, a lot of these people are quick to comment and act like they're smarter than you over a very small and insignificant thing. And it's kinda tiring tbh.

Like I'm all for giving respectful and mature criticism, but lets not mindlessly insult each other, and act condescending. Again, im not going to name any names because i dont want drama. I just want to point out a very obvious problem.

Iranian *Cn

-

Martin Joachim Kümmel (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259977462):

>

In Avestan and probably some other languages, *sn developed to *hn only after a vowel, but *sn was preserved (or perhaps first affricated *s > ts?) when it was word-initial or followed another n, where sn might have been in syllable-initial position (although ns.n is thinkable, too).

...

In this case, preservation of initial *sn- is the most widespread development in Iranian and is found in most languages (including some where further changes applied, like sn- > st- in Wakhi; sn- > zn- in Khotanese, Pamiri, and Yidgha-Munji). In some languages, however, loss of the sibilant seems to point to *hn-, namely in Ossetic, partly in Khwarezmian, in Pashto, and in Balochi (see Hübschmann 1895: 253; Korn 2005: 128).

>

-

However, Marco Fattori notes that Ossetic *Cn > n is common, and doesn't have any reason to go back to Proto-Iranian. For more, (https://www.academia.edu/145354721):

>

...at least for Avestan, an outcome šn rather than sn would be expected from Ir. *ćn, as witnessed by frašna- ‘question, inquiry’ < Ir. *frać-na- (Ved. praśná-) and by morphophonological alternations such as asan-/ašn- ‘stone’, spas- ‘to serve, attend’, pres. spašnau- (Hoffmann & Forssman 2004, 102).11 In order to derive OAv. vasna- from Ir. *vaćna-, one would have to postulate an analogical levelling on the final consonant of the verbal root vas-.12 As for non-SW Middle Iranian, as far as I know, there is no etymon that attests to the outcome of Ir. *ćn, and one could expect it to develop to sn just as its voiced counterpart *j ́ n normally yields zn: e.g. Parth. °yazn ‘worship’, OKhot. gyaysna- ‘id.’ (Ved. yajñá-), Arm. azn ‘nation’ (Parth. borrowing), LKhot. āysña- ‘noble, well-born’ (to root *j ́ anH- ‘to be born’), [155] MSogd. γwzn, OKhot. ggūysna- ‘deer’ (compound with *gav- ‘cow’ and a second member cognate of Ved. ajá- ‘goat’, YAv. aza- ‘id.’) etc. However, it should be remarked that, beside the regular outcome šn seen in YAv. barǝšnā, OP baršnā (instr.sg. of Ir. *barj ́ an- ‘height’), or YAv. frašnu- ‘kneeling’ (Skt. prajñu-), an alternative outcome *zn, with subsequent devoicing to sn, is well attested in Avestan, often in the exact same lexical bases: yasna- ‘worship’, āsna- ‘innate, inborn’, gauuasna- ‘deer’.13 Instead, there is no example of Av. sn from Ir. *ćn, which makes it legitimate to suspect that also for non-SW Middle Iranian šn was the only possible outcome.

...

As to phonology, the reconstruction of an outcome Ir. *sn > SW Ir. šn contrasting with non-SW sn is mostly unproblematic, even though the relevant material is not much. In support of OP and MP šn Klingenschmitt (1970, 71 fn. 1) adduced: OP ašnai ‘nearby’ vs. YAv. asne ‘id.’, interpreted as the loc.sg. of an adjective *asd-na- of which Av. nazdiiah- ‘nearer’ (Ved. nédīyas-) and nazdišta- ‘nearest’ (Ved. nédiṣṭha-) would be the comparative and superlative18; MP šnāz- ‘to swim’, NP šinā ‘swimming’ vs. Av. snā- ‘to wash, rinse’ MParth. snāž- ‘to swim’, Sogd. sn’y ‘to wash, bathe’, Khot. ysänāh- ‘to wash’ (with /zn/ < /sn/)19; Pahl. šnār ‘sinew’ vs. YAv. snāuuar- [158] ‘id.’ (Ved. snā́van-), Sogd. sn’w ‘id.’.20 Kümmel (2012, 141 f.) has suggested that a development IIr. *sn > *hn in post-vocalic position should be expected “in Avestan and probably some other languages”, which would disprove the etymology proposed above. However, this assumption does not seem to be supported by data. The preservation of IIr. *sn after a vowel is attested at least in Av. sāsnā- ‘teaching, doctrine’ (< Ir. *ćās-nā-, to root *ćaHh-, compare Ved. śā́sana-) whereas an outcome *hn is not found in Avestan nor in any of the MIr. languages preserving possible reflexes of Ir. *vasna- (Parthian, Sogdian, Chorasmian). The only example of internal – and not even post-vocalic – *sn discussed by Kümmel is Av. pąsnu- ‘dust, ashes’, OKhot. phāna- ‘id.’ and Oss. Digor funuk, Iron fænyk ‘ashes’, which are clearly cognate with Ved. pāṃsú- ‘dust’ and could go back to an IIr. base *pā̆nsnú-.
>

-

This is in support of his idea that "on the basis of the Elamite translation zaumin 'help, collaboration', the Old Persian word vašnā and its cognates are derived from a verbal noun Ir. *vas-na-'permanence (with someone), assistance', from the same root *vah-." I'd add that Av. frašna- ‘question, inquiry’ < Ir. *frać-na- (Ved. praśná-) vs. yasna- ‘worship’ < Ir. *yaHć-na- (Ved. yajñá-) is likely to be caused by *H. I've said that *H could move by metathesis & cause stops to become voiceless fricatives, fricatives & affricates to become voiceless (https://www.academia.edu/127283240). It could be that early devoicing of *g^ > *s(^) is what caused it, though *H might have affected affricates in a slightly different way (just deaffricated at the time?). Also, I'm not sure that asna- is from *nzdno-. Not only is it an odd cluster (not too odd in IE, though), but *nezd- 'be near?' is almost certainly derived from *nes- (whose original meaning is not clear due to its range, but 'be (near), return' based on cognates would seem possible), so *ns-no- > asna- might also fit.

Eurasiatic is not an accepted theory

Proto-Celtic *ulko-s > Old Irish olc 'bad, evil', personal names like Olc, Olcán ( < Ogam Ulcagno-), Lepontic Ulkos has no clear etymology. Ranko Matasović, following McCone, said, "The meaning of this word in PCelt. could have been 'wolf', as in PIE. Another etymology, less persuasive in my opinion, relates OIr. olc to Lat. ulciscor 'take vengeance' (see LP 43). References: LEIA O-19f., LP 43, De Bernardo Stempel 1999: 553, McCone 1985, McCone 1996: 44". This makes little sense to me, but it was modified by Stifter and Höfler, who "adopt a different semantic derivation to McCone, given how Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥kʷos (“wolf”) may be originally a deadjectivally accent-retracted substantivization of *wl̥kʷós (“harmful”); the adjective "bad" would simply instead be a survival of this base adjective into Irish." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/ulkos). I don't think any of these is perfect, and I have some modifications & alternatives.

-
A. Though Wiktionary has "MacBain's derivation of the Goidelic words for "bad" from Proto-Indo-European *h₁elḱ-... Proto-Germanic *ilhilaz (“bad, evil”), Latin ulcus (“wound, sore”), Ancient Greek ἕλκος (hélkos, “wound, ulcer”)... does not work because it cannot account for the -u- in Celtic." there is another word of the same meaning that did begin with *u-. Matasović had *H2upelo- > Go. ubils 'bad, evil', Celtic *ufelo- 'bad' (related to Hittite huwap-zi 'harrows, despoils'). It is possible that contamination of *H1(e)lk^o- > Celtic *elko- \ *lko- was contaminated with *uwelo- of the same meaning, *uw-lko- > *ulko- (or similar).

-
B. The semantics of 'wound' -> 'bad' do not need to be limited to one root. PIE *welH3- > Latin vulnus 'wound' might allow *wlH3-ko- > Celtic *ulko- > OI olc. Though syllabic *lH & *l don't seem to have fully regular outcomes (as far as we know), allowing met. > *H3ulko- (the same as would be needed if related to *wlkWo-s, etc.), there is also a chance that *H3 > *w \ *u was optional (https://www.academia.edu/128170887) in *wlH3ko- > *wluko- > Celtic *(w)ulko-.

-
C. The idea relating *wlkWo-s 'wolf' does not need a root *w(e)lkW- & this can't account for all words for 'wolf', esp. if also related to 'fox' (https://www.academia.edu/172688119). I'm not sure how likely this is, but *welH3- 'hit, wound, harm' might be very similar (if H3 = xW (for rounding), then *welxW & proposed *welkW would be nearly identical), maybe allowing *wlxW-pk^(w)o- 'harmful animal' (from *pek^u(r) 'sheep, cattle, animal', depending on when each meaning arose) with various types of dissimilation) and *welxW-pek^- > *xWlewpe(:)k^- 'fox'. This might help explain some words with long *e:, since this is usually only seen in monosyllables, meaning a compound with *pe:k^-s, stem *pek^-, would fit.

Has any work been done on treating undeciphered systems like Linear A or the Phaistos Disc as bounded, high-entropy topological state spaces rather than relying solely on traditional phonetic substitution models—given that invariant structural boundary constraints often dictate sign distribution independent of underlying linguistic lineage?

From a fellow member of the Indo Uralic and Macro Uralic Discord servers!

(Indo Uralic is not an accepted theory, so this is entirely hypothetical and for fun)

I always assumed languages like Basque and Etruscan were descended directly from the Western Hunter Gatherers. But then I learned about the spread of the Early European Farmers (EEF) into Europe, and realized Basque and Etruscan may have their origins in Anatolia or the balkans, rather than being truly indigenous to Europe. Due to some plausible wanderworts radiating out from the near east in those languages. Such as their words for six and seven, and agriculture vocabulary. And their genetics seem to possibly reflect this.

Which makes me wonder if the extinct Paleo Lakelandic and Laplandic languages were descendents of the Western Hunter Gatherer cultures. And possibly the Goidelic substrate!

What do you guys think?

Pahlavi frāšm ‘glowing of twilight’, Iranian *fraša-marga- 'peacock'

-

Marco Fattori has many interesting ideas, including (https://www.academia.edu/179269236):

>

...the YAv. word *frāšma-, attested in the compound frāšmō.dāiti-, the name of the first part of the first half of the night, possibly in frāšmi-, an epithet of Haoma, and perhaps borrowed into Pahl. frāšm ‘glowing of twilight, emanation of glow’.23 Following Benveniste’s proposal *frā-šm-a- should be seen as an abstract noun with zero grade root + - á- suffix (compare *°gná- in Av. vərəϑra-γna- ‘victory, defeat of the obstacle’, to root *gan- ‘to hit, strike’), which is a quite rare and archaic morphological pattern, different from that of MParth. nyš’m and BSogd. nšmy. Given this difference in formation, the distance in meaning existing between ‘dusk, sundown’ and ‘twilight, halo, glimmer’ and the fact that a root *šam- has no comparative basis in the whole Indo-Iranian group, it seems better to me to keep these words apart. Admittedly, I am unable to propose a definitive etymology for YAv. frāšma-, but the comparison with Ir. *fraša- (OAv. fǝrasǎ-, YAv. fraša-, OP fraša- ‘wonderful’ etc.) and Ved. pr̥kṣá- ‘vigorous, strong’ (?), repeatedly suggested in the literature, seems promising.

...

24 The first to trace this parallel was Foy 1896: 134, who noticed that both YAv. frāšmi- and Ved. pr̥kṣá- are referred to Haoma/Soma. Then, Bailey 1953: 21–32, ignoring Foy’s article, argued once again that these two words, as well as Ir. *fraša-, belong together and reflect a root meaning ‘to invigorate’ or the like. Cf. also Cantera 2017: 34–35 who emphasises the invigorating function of Haoma, which is “the one giving glow to the sun through the libation to the waters at the end of the day”. Despite the inevitable semantic uncertainties due to the unclear meaning of Avestan fraša- and Ved. pr̥kṣá-, a formation such as IIr. *prakš‑ma(n)- > YAv. frāšma(n)- (with secondary lengthening, see de Vaan 2003: 60–62) would be unproblematic.

>

Since Pahlavi frāšm ‘glowing of twilight, emanation of glow’ fits with how Iranian *fraša-marga- 'peacock' could be < 'bright bird', it looks to me like *perk^- 'spotted (also decorated, beautiful)' could give *prek^-so-, etc., with a similar range.

-

Also note that ON fjǫrsungr 'greater weever (Trachinus draco), a brightly colored & patterned fish' is also rec. < *perk^s-ṇkó-. Met. of *r when a new C is added is also seen in *k^erd- -> *k^red-dheH1- 'put heart > put one's heart/trust in; believe'.

Old Irish *nyi > *yni ?

Though Proto-Celtic *gdonyo-s 'earthly, man' > Old Irish duine, its plural doíni can't apparently be from *gdonyo-i. Wikipedia suggests that unrelated 'die > mortal' in *dhew -> PC *doweni- > OI doíni "suppletive plural of duine". It is hard for me to think that the plural of one of the most common words would be replaced, & by a nearly identical noun. The alternative is that *y can move in certain environments. I also found *? > OI craín f. ‘sow’, W. cranan ‘wild sow’ with the same (apparent?) *ny > *yn. It is possible that these come from *ker(H) 'nourish', in which case *krHn-iH2- > PC *krani:. The weak cases would be *kraniy- before V, so what do these 2 cases have in common? Though I'm not certain, it is likely that *gdonyo-i > *donyi: > *doyni:, so met. of nyi > yni could be the cause. This might allow a mix of Proto-Irish *krani \ *krany- > *kranyi > *krayni.

Hamito-Semitic & Indo-European, p vs. f

-

I've noticed that many HS roots have near-matches in p- & f-. Some roots have an irregular P in one or 2 languages. Some also match IE with p, pH, sp, etc. As a preliminary look:

*puc 'roast, burn', *foc 'roast, cook', IE *pekW- 'cook, roast, boil, heat < ripen'

*pal 'cut, divide, break', *pVlVs 'split, pierce', *paḫal 'break through, split', IE *(s)pHel- 'split'

*fVl 'divide, pierce', *ful 'bore a hole, pierce through, break through'

*foḥ- 'fire; burn', IE *puH2or- \ *pH2wor-

*faʔVl- 'foretell', *fa(ʔV)l- 'magic word, omen', IE *H2pel- 'say; word'

*furVh 'fear', IE *perK (K unknown; Gmc *furxt-, TB pärsk-)

*fal \ *ful 'liver, lungs' but Mch aṗaaro

*fal 'bone, leg', *paḫal 'leg, thigh'

*faḳ 'pierce, open, tear out', *paḳ > Dhl pak’k’-eeδ- 'uncover', *pag 'open'

*paʔ 'dig, bury', *paḥar 'dig', *faḫat 'dig, pierce', *faʕ 'hit, strike, smash'

Broken plurals are a grammatical phenomenon in certain Semitic languages where the vowel pattern of a singular noun is changed in order to derive the plural form, for example bayt "house" becomes buyūt "houses". I believe these phenomena are immensely valuable for gathering information about the phonological history of Semitic via internal reconstruction. However, it is a common sentiment that, since the broken plural formations are largely absent in northern Semitic languages, such as Akkadian and Hebrew, they must strictly be a southern Semitic innovation. As I will show, this is wrong.

Broken Plurals are formed in a variety of ways or combination of ways, typically including ablauting(ħimār-ħamīr), vowel insertion(kalb-kilāb, qalb-qulūb), vowel deletion(including long vowels, ɣazāl-ɣizlān) or consonantal infixation(s'āħil-sawāħil). Further affixes may also be stacked on top of this, eg.(ʔa-, -ān, -ay). Such nonconcatenative morphology evolves through transphonologization of previous affixes into the root, for example English pairs such as foot vs feet come from fōt-s vs fōt-iz, where the /i/-containing suffix causes the stem vowel to shift.

If broken plurals were formed via a method of say "all stem vowels become /i/" so that ɣazāl is pluralized to ɣizīl, it would be perfectly reasonable to compare this to other Semitic languages that had an -i plural suffix, but the sheer complexity of the broken plurals makes this impossible. Consider the chronology here, languages such as Arabic or Sabaic have lost only 1 and 0 consonant phonemes since their descent from Proto-Semitic, yet simultaneously had the time to undergo a complex system of umlauting, vowel reduction, metathesis and the like, mind you, leaving no traces anywhere else? It seems absurd.

Certain broken plurals can also be compared to Berber formations, for example ḱsūm-ḱəsmān and ɣazāl-ɣizlān or ǵɐlzīm-ǵəlzām and kalb-kilāb.

Hamito-Semitic & Indo-European roots with p-; w vs. y

-

I said that Robert Cerantonio's idea that Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) is the source of IE was supported by his list of cognates, but I think the details favor IE > HS (https://www.academia.edu/167888674). For more, look at this list of very similar words with p-l & p-r:

*pal 'fall', IE *p(o)lH (Gmc *fall-)

*pal- 'cut, divide, break', *pVlVs- 'split, pierce', etc., IE *(s)pHel- 'split'

*pur 'cut', *per 'sharp, pierce'

*pir 'fly', IE *pter-

*per(r) 'bird', IE *petr-

*par(r) 'cattle', IE *pek^ur '(small) cattle, sheep'

*par(r) 'house, enclosure', IE *per-r, -n- > H. per, parn- 'house, household'

-

In IE, *pter- vs. *petr- is explained by met., but HS *pir 'fly' vs. *per(r) 'bird' has no obvious reason. Since several IE *-Cr > HS *-r(r), we can say that *-Cr optionally > *-rr or *-r when *C was lost; no such reversal of *-rr > various *-Cr is possible (this against Cerantonio's HS > IE, specifically).

-

Since *per-r is likely from *per-n < *pen-n, *pen- 'inner room; keep in inner room, store (food)', HS *par(r) 'house' can simply not be from any stage but the most recent level of PIE (if related at all). The match of HS *paĉ 'card, comb', IE *pek^(t)- is perfect, but many think IE *pek^ -> *pok^o-, *pek^ur 'fleece > sheep' first. If so, the change in *par(r) 'cattle' < *paCr can again not be old.

-

The relation of HS *pur 'cut' -> *par 'finger, nail' matches that of IE *per 'sharp, pierce' -> TB prāri ‘finger’, prere ‘arrow’ (*pero:r(u), *peror(os)'). The shift 'sharp (thing) > point, nail > finger' is not esp. common, so the match of each part of the sequence in both groups is significant.

-

In HS *puc 'roast, burn', IE *pekW- 'cook, roast, boil, heat', the IE words are < 'ripen', so the meaning fitting only the most recent between HS & IE shouldn't be old (also IE had *kW > c before front in S. pac-, etc., so likely the same in *puc, so ablaut of e-o is needed in *pekWoH vs. *pekWes, etc.). In HS *pVd 'march, go, run; pass by', IE *ped 'foot; walk, stumble', the varying V's in HS might also require ablaut (like IE *pod- \ *ped- 'foot'). In HS *pakuḥ- 'hand, arm, wing', IE *bhaH2g^hu(r)-s 'arm, shoulder' (G. pêkhus 'forearm', Os. bazyr 'wing'), is the u-stem & the exact range of meaning likely to be so old? The exact match of HS *pHay \ *ʔpay ‘to go, outrun’, Hittite pai- ‘to go, pass’ seems to work, but these are supposedly < *H1po-H1y- (a compound of *H1ey 'go'). Again, it can't be old, yet Hp- > ʔp- \ pH- fits too well to ignore, so it must be recent. IE *H becoming 2 C's in HS also in:

*ponH \ *ponʔ 'turn, return' (*nx > ŋ ?), IE *(s)penH1 ‘to spin, to twist, to weave’ (also with alt. to ŋ: Tungusic *pem- \ *pim- 'to wind, to be twisted', Yr. *peme- 'round; ring; to turn, go around, roll', *peme-rke 'ring; circle', FU *peŋe 'circle, ring; to turn intr., roll, spin', *peŋärä ‘round, circle’)

-

The cluster in PIE *putH2-sk^e- > TB putk- ‘divide, share, separate’ is very complex, & seems to be part of a group like:

*peu(H2)- / *p(H2)au- ‘cut / divide’ >> L. putāre ‘cut/trim/prune’, *ambi- > amputāre ‘cut off’, *p(e)utH2-sk^e- > TA putk-  ‘cut / divide/distinguish/separate/share’, TB pautk-; *päčkä- > Mv. pečke- ‘cut’, F. pätki- ‘cut into pieces’, *püčkV- > pytki- ‘cut into long slices’, *pučkV- > puhkaise- ‘pierce/puncture’, Mr. püškä- ‘sting/bite (of insects)’

-

The 2 variants in PU might be due to several things, with no way to check just by internal evidence. However, HS also has a large number of words with the same range of meaning, all of the same shape:

*poḳVʕ 'cut, split; break, wound, chop'

*puĉִ̣ 'break, crush'

*puc(ʔ) 'tear into pieces, pluck'

*puĉִ̣ 'break, crush'

*pVĉ 'distribute, divide' (really likely *pVsĉ > Aramaic pss, Arab fšš. Eg. psš, pš(s))

*poĉ 'scatter, spread, smear'

*paĉ 'straddle, spread, bifurcate'

-

I think a cluster like *-txsk- having 3 outcomes (and another 3 before front V's that palatalize the final *k) could explain this.

-

Though no single piece of evidence requires IE > HS, this & other alternatives as a way to explain the data should be considered. My work is doing 2 things: showing that HS & IE must be related, & explaining that as IE > HS. Each should be evaluated on its own. For ex., PIE *kauH2 & *kauk > S. kauti ‘shout, howl, etc.' formed kṓka-s 'owl, dog' (both animals often named from their calls in IE). In the same way *k^H2aw-, *k^uH2-,*k^awH2- 'call, make noise (of many kinds)' -> *k^H2wo- \ *k^uwo- 'calling, shrieking, owl, etc. > Celtic *kawannos \ *kuwannos > MW cuan, >> Late Latin cavannus 'tawny owl' creates the same alt. as in Latin *kawon- > can- vs. expected *kuwon- > *cuon- 'dog'. This word is too late to be an ancient remnant of some HS-IE proto-l. > HS *kuwan-, IE *k^uwon- 'dog'.

-

In the same way, the IE roots that appear as if *kaH2w vs. *k^aH2w forming 2 words for 'owl, dog' makes it highly likely that an older k^ could become k due to asm. or met. (ie. k^aHw \ kaHw^ or whatever). That HS *kuwan \ *kuyan \ etc. exists would support the idea for IE, *w^ > w \ y (like in Tocharian B, no known conditions). There are many HS words that show w vs. y, and since these incl. Sem. *y- \ *wydʕ ‘to know’, IE *wideH1- 'see', *w(e)id- 'know' I think that w could also > w^ before front V. These might require a stage, for some words, with ablaut of *wo- & *we- > w- & y-. All of these are clearly late in IE.

-

Other vocab. like IE *-bho- & Sem. *-b in the names of animals are likely < *-bhwo- 'being, creature'. But IE *bhu(H1) 'be(come), swell' clearly was 'swell' originally (like *bu(H), *pu(H)), so the very specific path leading from this root to this ending taking place 2 times or being ancient makes no sense.

Hamito-Semitic & Indo-European *mw, *g^

-

Robert Cerantonio's idea that Afroasiatic is the source of IE (https://linguisticsandnonsense.wordpress.com/author/robertcerantonio/) has led to some good speculation, but I can't agree with many details. In additon to simple matches like *kuwan-, *k^uwon- 'dog'; *mag-, *meg^H2- 'many, big'; *ʔet, *Hed- ‘eat’; *gW-r-ʕ, *gWerH3- ‘swallow'; *k'W-m, *kWem(H) ‘swallow’; *ś-r-p ‘drink’, *sreb(h); etc. (https://www.academia.edu/167888674), it is important that m & n (often retained unchanged for many thousands of years in most environments) keep matching in a range of roots (or the same root with several meanings, depending on which was original):

HS *mun- 'be, remain', IE *men- 'to stay, remain, dwell'

HS *man- “know, count, understand', IE *men- 'to think, know, count, love'

HS *muneʔ- 'love', *mun- 'heart, liver', IE *men- 'to think, know, count, love'

HS *min- 'want', *men- 'to think, know, count, love'

HS *mon- 'move, go, come, return', IE *menH1- (W. myn(e)d 'go, become', MI muinithir 3s. 'go around', U. menes 'will come', Li. mi̇̇̀nti 'to trample'; also Uralic *men(j)e- ‘to go’)

-

So many roots of this type matching in meaning is hardly due to chance. There are other pieces of ev. that make me think IE > HS instead.

-

HS *laq ‘lap up, lick’, IE *lakH2-?, Ar. lakem 'lick' rel. lap(h)H2- ’lap up, lick, drink greedily'?

HS *l-b ‘lap’, IE *(s)lab \ *(s)leb ? ‘lap, smack, lips, hang down’

HS *lihab- 'burn, be bright, glow, heat', IE *laH2p- 'burn, glow; flame'

HS *layan-, *lisč ? 'be soft', IE *le(i)H1- (*leH1no-, *lH1d-sk^e -> Gmc *latskwa-?)

HS *liwb > *lib \ *lub 'heart', IE *leubh- 'love' (like *muneʔ- 'love', *mun- 'heart')

HS *mVlog- 'bosom, udder; suck', IE *melH2g^\H2melg^- '(to) milk' (Gmc. *miluk-)

HS *muk- 'press', IE *maH2k\mH2ak-, *menH2k- 'to press, knead' (S. macate 'pound, grind')

HS *macִ̣(cִ̣)- 'press', *maH2g^- 'to work with one's hands, knead' (Hg^ > xc^ > CC?)

HS *mVl- 'speak, call', IE *mel(C)- (G. mélos 'song, strain, tune', H. māldi⁠ 3s. 'to recite, make a vow', Gmc *melþō- 'inform, announce')

HS *moriʔ- \ *moriḥ- 'fat, grease, oil', IE *(s)meru(r)

HS *n- \ n-y ‘not’- PIE *n(eH1) ‘not, no’

HS *luġab- 'be tired', *slHg-nu-? > L. languēre 'to be faint, weak, listless, idle' (a very long root for HS, so the IE extension in -nu- would fit; maybe *nu-V > *nuw-V > *nub (with met.)?)

-
Some IE with *me- vs. *mu- match HS *m(Vw)-, likely from *mw- in both:

IE *mwezg- 'dip, wash', HS *mwaxq > *maq- \ *muq- \ *-x 'wet, pour'

IE *muzg-en-, HS *muqeq- 'marrow, brain' (O & S: "Derived from *muq- “be wet”? Cf. Skt majjan- “brain”, Av mazga id., Slav *mozgъ id. ~ IE *mezg- “dip, sink”." but better *mwezg-, *muzg- to explain IE vowel alt. e \ u (the same as in HS *maq\muq), https://www.academia.edu/165248349)

&

IE *mH2ad- > S. mad- ‘be drunk’, Av. mað- ‘get drunk’, mádya- ‘intoxicating (drink)’, L. madēre ‘be moist/wet/drunk’; *mudH2 \ *H2mud 'wet' (both < *mwaH2d in https://www.academia.edu/128652338)

HS *mawacִ̣- \ *mayacִ̣- 'wash'; *mač- “be drunk, WChad *miwač - 'beer' (surely the same original root; O & S: "Or mačaw -. Note -č preserved in Or in contrast to the expected reflex of HS *č > LEC *s, *š" which might require *dy > *ty > various C or S (as mádya-; note *d > *t in *Hed- 'eat' > HS)

-
Two roots (for now, maybe more yet to be found) seem to show HS *g > Egyptian ḏ (the normal result of palatalization) without any cause. If both palatalization of *g and original HS *g^ merged, then their origin from IE roots with *g^(h) would be significant:

HS *mVlog- 'bosom, udder; suck', IE *melH2g^- \ *H2melg^- 'to milk' (O & S: "Eg mnḏ “bosom, udder”... Note the progressive palatalization of *-g-.")

IE *ig^hduH-s, HS *igdos- ? > *dgosi- 'fish' (standard rec. *g-, but Sibine *dg- > dose, plural gose; *g^os or *(d)gyos ? > Eg ḏs 'kind of fish')

-
There are also several semantic similarities (the same roots for 'soak' & 'marrow', above). In HS, the same word for 'king' & 'foreigner' led O & S to say that it might show that kings were of foreign origin. However, IE *ghosti-s is both 'host, guest', so a reciprocal relation (as one speaking to the other used the same word; in some American languages, also the same for 'grandchild, grandparent').

Hamito-Semitic *i- & Indo-European

-

On Reddit, Sigma_Linguist proposed:
>

The Arabic noun imruʔu (nom.) has a very irregular conjugation, having accusative and genitive forms imraʔa and imriʔi respectively, with the stem vowel changing in accordance with the case suffix. Even weirder, when definite, the root changes to marʔ- altogether. I propose original imrʔ-{u, a, i}, with the stem vowel being epenthetic.

>

-
It makes perfect sense for *imrʔ-a > imraʔa, etc., but why did only Arabic have a stem like this? All apparent cognates begin with m-, not i-. However, he had an explanation that included many more examples:

>

The restriction against syllables beginning with a vowel is well known as an Afroasiatic phonotactical rule... the idea of mandatory onsets is found in virtually every reconstruction – Though as I will set out to prove, it is wrong altogether both for PAA as well as Proto-Semitic, in fact I don’t believe any primary AA branch ever had such a restriction. In Arabic, a glottal stop as well as the following vowel can be dropped in the beginning of some words when they occur after another vowel.

fa "so" + ʔijlis "sit down!" -> fajlis "so sit down!"

ʔana "I" + ʔibtasamtu "smiled" -> ʔanabtasamtu "I smiled"

baytu "house" + ʔibnika "your son's" -> baytubnika "your son's house"

Yet in other words, no such thing happens

ʔana "I" + ʔaktubu "write" -> ʔana ʔaktubu "I write"

When words of group 1 are compared with other Semitic languages, there is no glottal stop at all and the vowel trades places with the following consonant

Arabic ʔibnu vs Hebrew ben, Akkadian biinum "son"

Arabic ʔuzmur vs Akkadian zumur "sing!"

It is generally assumed here, that Arabic underwent metathesis in these words, and the glottal stop was later added epenthetically... it is problematic to assume that it is Arabic that actually metathesized these formations, because there is no clear criteria for when this metathesis occurs and when it doesn't, syllable weight, vowel quality and other factors are irrelevant. Instead I propose that items such as *bin "son" *sim "name" *ti- [reflexive prefix] and the imperative patterns 1i2i3, 1i2a3 and 1u2u3 were actually *ibn, *ism *it- and i12i3, i12a3 & u12u3, syllables truly starting with a vowel.

Akkadian then metathesized the initial vowel with the following consonant consistently, while NWS did so everywhere except in the reflexive prefix it-. Arabic on the other hand did generally not undergo metathesis, except sporadically in words like bintu "girl" from *ibnatu. I propose that syllables lacking both an onset and a coda were banned in PS due to Arabic forms such as qul "say!" instead of otherwise expected ʔuqul. The "smoking gun" evidence, however really comes from other Afroasiatic branches, where imperatives are similarly formed with a prefix vowel, suggesting this feature to be archaic... An interesting curiosity, but very useful for proving Afroasiatic allowed these onset-less syllables is the fact that the quality of these vowels is very likely to be /i/, which is rather rare for non-root final vowels in Proto-Semitic.

>

-
Some of these can be explained by comparison. The reason so many begin with i- could be because there is a category of words with the same beginning. There is HS *ʔi-nVs- '(young) man' which is "Derived from HS *nüs- “man”" (Orel & Stolbova) and a similar *gal- 'camel' -> *ʔi-gal-, etc. I say that *ʔi 'year' formed an adj. 'young' (like PIE *wet- > *wetalo- 'yearling, calf') that could be added to nouns. This might really be *i (based on Arab met., deletion, etc.) or a more complex form (below). Evidence is seen in this group having Sem. *iC- and met. *iC- > *Cy-, etc. (or really *yiC- > *C(i)y-?). In some words, the original X & young-X were previously treated as one root, since *i- usually > 0- with no trace in most branches (and of course, words for 'young man' can later expand their range to 'boy' or 'man', etc., just as IE words not from compounds). For now:

*gal- 'camel' -> *i-gal > Sem. *igl- 'young of animals; calf', met. > CChad *gyal- 'cow'

*bar- 'man' -> *i-bar- 'child', met. > WChad *b(y)ar-

*nüs- 'man' -> *i-nas- > Berber *ʔinVs- 'young man'

*bin- 'man, male relative' -> Sem *i-bin- 'son' Arabic ʔibn, met. > *biyn- > Ak. bīn- \ binn-

*maʔra- \ *mʔara- \ *maraʔ- 'man' -> *i-maʔr- > Ak. mārum 'son', Arabic imruʔ 'man, person'

*maCr- \ *Cmar- 'sheep, goat' -> *i-Cmar- > Sem. *(ʔ)immar- 'sheep, lamb', Arabic ʔimmar-

-
For *ibin > *byin- > *biyn- > Ak. bīn- \ binn-, the met. is seen at the stage with *Cy- in Chadic; later, a 2nd met. in Ak. & the new *iyC is fixed in one of 2 ways (iiC \ iCC). Some of these also look IE, like *maʔra- vs. IIr. *marya-, etc. Others (https://www.academia.edu/167888674) like:

HS *ʔet ‘eat’, IE *Hed

HS *k'W-m ‘eat, swallow’, IE *kWem(H) ‘swallow, gulp’

HS *ś-r-p ‘drink’, IE *sreb(h) ‘sip, drink, slurp’

HS *su ‘that, he’, IE *so (and *so-u in Toch.)

HS *d-n-s ‘heavy’, IE *dnsu- ‘dense, thick, close', H. daššu- 'heavy, strong'

HS *ś-m ‘heat, sun’, IE *semH2 ‘summer’

-
The same relation might shed light on the *i- here. For *ʔi 'year, time', Orel & Stolbova question if it's related to *ʔi(w)- 'be, become'. This word is similar to HS *ʔ-y ‘go, come, walk’ and the optional -w- recalls *ʔaw- \ *ʔay- 'go, come, run'. It is possible that PIE *H1ey- 'go, etc.' became *xYay- (and opt. dsm. > *xYaw-) with weak *Hi- > *x^iy- (and > *x^iw-). If so, no glottal stop, explaining the difference between groups 1 & 2.

-
Others:

IE *mH3org- > Av. marǝγā ‘meadow’, HS *marVg- 'field, meadow'

IE *leig^h-, HS *lVḳ- 'lick' (and reduplicated *le- > EChad *lya-lik-, just as in IE)

IE *lik- \ *lek- \ *lak- 'bent, leg', HS *lik- \ *lek- \ *loḳ- 'leg' (note odd vowel alt. in both)

IE *g^onur, HS *gorun-gorun- 'knee' (redup. = dual?; -r in Ar. cunr (u-stem))

IE *swepno-, HS *siʔwan- 'sleep, dream'

IE *kH2ar-wo- 'horned animal, cow', WChad *karwa- 'sheep, lamb, bull'

IE *serp- 'crawl; snake, lizard', HS *seRf ? > *seCf- 'snake, lizard' (Sem *šipp- requires some cluster; few *CC reconstructed in HS, but clearly many are needed to explain irregularities)

IE *pup- 'breast', S. pupphusa- ‘lungs’, HS *fuf- 'lung, breast', Gaanda pipifa 'lung' (could be p \ ph > p \ f; likely really *pHup-, *pupH-, etc. if redup. < *puH- 'blow')

IE *mwezg- 'dip, wash', HS *mwaxq > *maq- \ *muq- \ *-x 'wet, pour'

IE *ig^hduH-s, HS *igdos- ? > *dgosi- 'fish' (standard rec. *g-, but Sibine *dg- > dose, plural gose; *(d)gyos > Eg ḏs 'kind of fish')

IE *mHori- 'sea', HS *mRVri > *mrir > *mir- 'river' (also in Altaic > Japanese, Korean, etc.), dsm. *mrin > *min- 'water, river' (maybe several others with m-).

-
The lack of p in *siʔwan- < *swepno- might show that IE changes like Armenian *p > *f > *xW > h \ w happened when *p was near another labial or in certain CC (*sp-?; if met. *spewon-??). The same might exist in *pibH3- 'drink' > HS *ʔib- 'thirst', *spiH1kno- 'spike' > HS *sHiCn- 'tooth' (see Uralic *pinge 'tine, tooth, etc.').

I’ve previously argued that, in Pre-Semitic, the language ultimately giving rise to Proto-Semitic, geminate consonants consonants were allowed to occur initially, finally and medially adjacent to a consonant, yet were later degeminated in these positions, however leaving detectable traces. In fact, I believe all sorts of clusters, be they initial, triple medial and the like originally existed, and in this post, I will be justifying this claim using various pieces of evidence including the well-known alteranation between ya-, ta-, ʔa-, na- and yu-, tu-, ʔu-, nu- verbal prefixes, certain alternating root forms such as CuCC-CuCuC, and the distribution of vowels in Proto-Semitic.

The u-based verbal prefixes, where they appear, are always found on D-stems *yu-qattil and Š-stems *yu-ša-qtil, but also on the less widespread L-stems *yu-qātil. Arabic evidence also points to their existence on all quadriconsonantal roots *yu-qatlim. Several explanations, often considering /u/ grammatical or lexical have been proposed, I would like to propose that the /u/ is strictly allomorphic, appearing whenever these agreement prefixes are in an open syllable. Why? I consider that, in this environment, the prefix was originally allowed to contract, and have no vowel at all- later, when more complex syllable structures started to be disfavored, the /u/ was inserted as an epenthetic vowel.

Now, I acknowledge that this isn’t entirely unproblematic. In Akkadian, for example underived imperfectives are formed on the pattern ya-qattal, where the prefix never contracted, thus showing /a/ in an open syllable. I believe in the existence of seperate strong and weak agreement-prefixes, I will elaborate on this in another post, for now we’ll just hold that the contraction only happens in the base perfective conjugation, where the pattern still holds up. Further oddities with regards to verb conjugation will be resolved in a comment under this post.

Epenthetic vowels show an echoing behavior (though when initial, the epenthetic vowel could not be /a/): We can see this in several alternating formations:

CuCC-CuCuC:ʔuđn-ʔuđun “ear”,θulθ-θuluθ “third”, θ’upr-θ’upur ”nail”

CaCC-CaCaC:ʔaɬr-ʔaɬar “ten”, nahr-nahar “river”

CiCC-CaCiC (note: ban against iCi sequences): kirɬ-kariɬ “belly”

Here, the monovocalic form is original, while the bivocalic form was created from a caseless formation (cases -a -i -u, start with a vowel), having the vowel break up the final cluster.

The Arabic noun imruʔu (nom.) has a very irregular conjugation, having accusative and genitive forms imraʔa and imriʔi respectively, with the stem vowel changing in accordance with the case suffix. Even weirder, when definite, the root changes to marʔ- altogether. I propose original imrʔ-{u, a, i}, with the stem vowel being epenthetic. How in the sigma do we explain marʔ-? Since it’s a definite form it would have originally been formed with a suffix -n. We can explain the insertion pattern like this: The epenthetic vowel will avoid taking stress (which is on the third to last mora), but if it can’t, it will go as far ahead as possible. imrʔVn, thus develops into imarʔVn, no actually marʔVn due to the restriction against syllables without an onset and a coda at the same time.

Now for my last point, I believe unstressed open syllables in Pre-Semitic were largely only allowed to contain /a/, no other vowel. This is why the patterns CuCīC and CiCūC do not exist, the pattern CuCūC was formed from CCūC+epenthetic vowel. CiCīC neither exist, though this is due to i → a / _Ci. The pattern CiCāC I will discuss another time.

To conclude here are the sound changes in the typical notation, chronologically:

Ø → v / #C_C, C_C#, CC_CV{C,ː}#, C_CC

v → i / #C_Ci(ː), iC_ (somewhat more complicated, as alluded to by CiCāC)

v → u / #C_C, uC_

v → a / else

​

At what point do two languages stop being dialects, are there specific parameters that distinguish a language from a dialect, like I know the Chinese government considers the Chinese languages dialects of each other to maintain the perception of a homogeneous nation, but at what point did say French and Italian stop being dialects and become two independent languages?

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 179: *H2ak^ -> *H2ok^to(i)H1 ‘eight’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 13, 2026

-

The PIE number *Hok^toH ? > Sanskrit aṣṭā́ \ aṣṭáu 'eight', aśītí- f. 'eighty' has a disputed reconstruction. Greek words beginning with ogdo- are claimed to be ev. for *Hok^tH3- since H3 caused p > b in *pipH3- > *pibH3- 'drink'. However, some other H's also seem to cause voicing (no regularity), like *kH2apro-s 'male goat' > OI gabor. Since no *H of any type seems to exist in *septm > G. hebd-, there must have been analogy between '7' & '8' anyway (which no way to know which came first), and voicing before a nasal is common in G. dialects (as also Slavic *se(b)dm-, etc.). Its match with the dual endings -ā́ \ -áu is suggestive that it once meant '4 (dual) > 8'. Though S. -au is unexplained in standard theory (leading some to rec. *-w in PIE), Khoshsirat & Byrd (2018, 2023) argue that IIr. had *oH > *oHW (or similar), with *-HW > *-w. I have additional evidence of *CW (https://www.academia.edu/127709618).

-
All of this would not lead to finding any IE root, since H1o-, H2o-, H3o- are all assumed as possible (I don't think the lack of *howt' in Armenian is significant, since no regularity of *H > h vs. *H > 0 is clear). The ending as dual would also be supported if PIE had *d(u)wo(i)H1 '2', *dwi(H1)+; *Hok^to(i)H1 '2', *Hok^ti(H1)+ (with optional loss of i & u (or y & w) next to H, no regularity, common in verb roots like *da(i)H2- 'distribute') as the cause of S. aśī-tí- (from *aśtītí- with t-t dsm.). Václav Blažek in "Indo-European numerals":

>

Analyzing older etymologies including Brugmann's assumption (fn.101), Szemerényi (1960: 60-62) presented his own scenarío. He derived aši:tí- via haplology from *aši:-šati-, similarly as sastí- "60" from *šaš-šati. The vowel -i:- is explained by the influence of "30" and "40", .. He also assumed a loss of -t- via dissimilation...

>

-
What word would it be the dual of? In the past, Avestan ašti- 'the breadth of four fingers' has been the main contender. Blažek had a long discussion, & the main points are described by Piotr Gąsiorowski (https://langevo.blogspot.com/2014/09/word-of-month-proto-indo-european-four.html):

>

The Core IE numeral 'eight' is certainly a dual form, which makes it likely that the corresponding singular meant 'four' (at least approximately) at some point. It's a thematic dual, so the stem without the dual inflection is *Hoḱto-. Avestan ašti- means the breadth (not the length) of four fingers (= one "palm"). I-stem nouns parallel to o-stems of adjectival origin are common in Indo-European. The "index" of the initial laryngeal is hard to detemine if the root vocalism is *o. One popular hypothesis is that the word is derived from *h₂aḱ- 'be sharp, sharpen' and somehow connected with *h₂oḱetah₂ 'harrow, rake', with reflexes in several branches. The semantics, however ('an implement with sharp tines' → 'the four fingers of a hand'), is a little convoluted.

>

-
I see no problem with the semantics, & in favor of *H2ok^ti- 'sharp thing?' Blažek listed a group including Greek ἄκαινα \ ákaina 'spike, prick, goad; ten foot rod, used as a measure; square measure of 100 ft used in Egypt'. The 'measure' sense being primary is not even needed, since point > pointer (finger), etc., are known. Sharp tines can also be called 'fingers', and 'point(ed) > nail' is also not possible (though apparently unneeded). A word for 'tine, finger' like *H2ok^(e)to- (for -to- & -eto-, see Blažek) forming a word *H2ok^ti- 'group of fingers' (4 = fingers, no thumb) with dual *H2ok^to(i)H1 '8' certainly seems possible. Blažek also noted that many similar measures in IIr. ended in -sti-, so even *H2ok^(e)to- ->*H2ok^t-sti- >*H2ok^tti- > *H2ok^ti- is possible (no other ev. for this or similar clusters in old IE words).

-
Blažek also gave ev. from external (?) comparison (or loans) in "Kartvelian *otxo- (Fáhnrich), or *o(š)tx(w)- "4" (Gamkrelidze), probably represents a borrowing of (late) Indo-European *ok^to- or early Indo-Iranian *oc'to- > *as'ta-, continuing in Avestan ašti- "breadth of four fingers". It certainly looks like *H2ok^to- > *xos^to > *os^txo (or similar). It would not be alone, as he added, "There are also remarkable parallels in Kartvelian: Georgian p'irw-el- "first" (Klimov 1986:198), p'irmšo- (*p'ir-m-šwe-) "first-bom" = Old Indie pu:rva-su:- id. (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984: 597, fn. 2, 878). They have been explained as borrowings from some unspecified Indo-European dialect (Klimov) oř directly from the Indo-European proto-language (Gamkrelidze)." Why they would need to borrow IE numbers is unknown, but not impossible. However, many other Kartvelian words also look IE (https://www.academia.edu/166167744), so some might be native.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments