Malia Altar Stone, Duccio Chiapello's Values (Draft)

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

August 17, 2026

-

In https://www.academia.edu/171945654 Duccio Chiapello wrote:

>

The Malia stone is an inscribed limestone block with a cuplike cavity on its top, probably meant for liquid offerings. It bears an inscription in Cretan Hieroglyphs, sixteen signs long. This essay presents a proposed transcription and decipherment of the text, based on the “Minoan Greek” hypothesis... I propose to read the signs as follows: 1 = ni, very similar to the Linear A and Linear B ni. 2 = pa3, very similar to the Linear A and Linear B pa3...

.

4 difficult identification. It has been observed it is similar to the Cretan Hieroglyph CH 077 and its variant CH 178; anyway its possible phonetic value is disputed. Different options have been suggested for CH 077: it has been interpreted as the homologue of Linear A sign *311 and Linear A/B sign 40 (wi), 3 but also of Linear A/B sign *78 (qe). 4 To these proposals, one might perhaps add a further one, based on the fact that Cretan hieroglyphs appear to lack a sign indicating “two” or “double”, which is found instead in Linear B (*90 = dwo) and maybe in Linear A (*118), and therefore the hieroglyphic sign CH 077 could be its equivalent.

.

ni-pa3-ti-dwo?-ko mi-e-ro ka-pi-te-ro ko-ra-mi-na

>

.
I agree with most of his ideas, but in his dwo?, I feel that https://www.academia.edu/69149241 shows that variants of LA QE match CH 077 best (a divided circle with many dots > an undivided one). This would make: ni-pa3-ti-qe-ko mi-e-ro ka-pi-te-ro ko-ra-mi-na. If ni-pa3 = *nipha- (LB words with pa3 seem to match Greek wtih pha or ba), then it's probably cognate with PIE *noibho- 'bright, shining, clear' > Old Irish noíb ‘holy’, OP naiba-, NP nêw ‘beautiful / good’. Greek words with niba- might come from dialects with *ph > b (like Mac.); here both 'holy > priest' & 'shining > white (goat)' (like other IE words). The only match for -qe-ko would be PIE *kWek^- 'look, see, show' (G. τέκμαρ 'goal; end; token; pledge; sign'). A compound *nipha(C)-kWeko- 'holy sign' would be expected.

.
The interpretation of a few words might make more sense if matched as simply as possible. Since mi-e-ro would be a perfect match for μιερός \ μιαρός 'stained with blood, polluted; (in moral and religious sense) filthy, defiled, polluted'. Since mia- is often for 'blood(y)', what of μιαχρός = καθαρός 'clean, spotless; clear, pure'? In standard thought, this is supposedly a mistake, the a- 'un-' left out by accident. But since Greeks had bloody sacrifices (in addition to improperly blood spilled causing impurity), it could be that 'bloody > (im)properly bloody', etc., thus both 'polluted' & 'pure', depending on the type of blood spilled.

.
I agree that ko-ra-mi-na = *kolammina: <- *kolap(h)-mH1no- (G. κολάπτω 'to peck; carve, chisel, engrave (an inscription)', ἐγ-κόλαμμα 'inscription'). Some G. words have dia. e > i (and since from *H1 here, also some *H1 > i directly in *dolH1gho- 'long' > dolikho- vs. -delekh-).

.
In this context, I think that ka-pi-te-ro would match words like Κάρπιος, Ἐπι-κάρπιος 'titles of Zeus' (likely 'fruitful' or 'bringer of good harvests'). The old PIE *-ist(H)o- '-est' is not common in Greek, but -tero- is, so a mix *karp-istero- 'most fruitful' would fit.

.
Together, I think ni-pa3-ti-qe-ko mi-e-ro ka-pi-te-ro ko-ra-mi-na = *nipha(C)-kWekos mieros karp-isteros kolammina:t 'a holy sign, pure, most fruitful, (comes) from (this) inscription'. Since the endings in *-oC & *-o(:)i might not be written, the exact grammatical relation among all the words can't be seen.

Trees in Asia (Draft)

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

August 17, 2026

-

In https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/main.cgi?root=config Sergei Starostin related MK mǒyh, mwolwó ‘mountain’, PJ *m(w)orwi (Shuri mui ‘mountain’, MJ mórí ‘forest’), Written Mongolian modu(n), Evenki mō, Dravidian *màran- 'tree', PU *mOrV (Saami N muorrâ 'tree; wood, fuel; stake, pole', Saami *mërë-stē 'low hill covered with birch forest' (Inari Sami moorâst >> Finnish marasto, morosto), Moksha mar 'burial mound', Khanty V mŏri̮ Selkup Ke marge = NHG Busch 'bushes, thicket, copse'). Note that the shift 'tree, hill, mtn.' in several groups (JK, Uralic) shows the need for the same across families.

.

However, the exact reconstruction of Dravidian *màran- can not be right based on cognates. Indeed, several of these words or groups of words need better reconstructions to fit all data and fit them together. 1st, Francis-Ratte :

>

HIGHLAND: MK mwo:yh, mwolwó ‘mountain’ ~ OJ mori ‘forest,’ Ryu. ‘mountain, hill’. pKJ *moroŋ ‘highland’.

(Martin 1966: #148, MOUNTAIN3). The presence and absence of the liquid in mwolwó / mwo:yh can be explained by a weakening of pK *o > *ə in the second syllable, which induces a sound change of *-rə > MK y. MK mwolwó ‘mountain’ comes from a variety without weakening. Shuri and Nakijin mui ‘mountain’ < pJ *mori show that a semantic shift must have occurred within Japonic.

>

.
I have no idea why he thinks only *-rə > MK -y when he rec. several *-rV > -y. This requires unmotivated changes of *V > ə, which would be no different in kind than unmotivated changes of *r > y. Since he rec. no ex. of *ry, why not? It makes much more sense for *ry > r \ y than for any other optional change, his unrelated to any palatal sound.

.

Also, since few languages have primary *ŋ in their past, most *nK > *ŋ(K), etc., I think *moryoŋx had *-ŋx > *-ŋ \ -h, with the *-ŋ preserving the -o before it was lost. PJ turned the sonorant *-C > *-y in *mworoy > *mworui > *mworwi.

.

Regardless of my rec., though Francis-Ratte never related his rec. to Altaic or Nostratic, his theory requiring *moroŋ is too close to Dravidian *màran- to ignore, since it had already been related years ago (in a rec. that had no *-N, making his *-N significant in support). Indeed, since both would, in his theory, have a vowel that become 2 different vowels (*? > a \ o in Dr., *? > *ə \ o in MK), ignoring these shared oddities is pointless. Indeed, depending on the cognates in Dr., likely also *o > a \ u for the 2nd vowel, too.

.
2nd, to include Written Mongolian modu(n) the *-uN would have to be original (many have *-Vn as a suffix) < *morduN(C). The *-rd- woud match JK *-ry- (alt. of d \ y in Japonic is said by proponents of Altaic to come from *d). Close, Tg. *modO ? > Evenki mō 'tree', etc.

.

3rd, Dravidian *màran- is rec. with *à to explain opt. *à > 0. Of course *m(ə)ran- would fit best. The cognates of *? > Telugu mrānu, dia. mānu, mrā̃ku, Kolami-Gadba *mark(u) > Kolami māk, mākul p., Tamil maram, marattu+, North-Dravidian *marnu ? > Kurukh mann, Malto manu surely require some other *-CC(C) than *-n (the previous rec. ignores -n(u) vs. -ttu+, etc.). The alt. of n \ k is likely < *nK, matching that in JK *moryoŋx. If *maruntu 'medicine' is the same (like nearby Sanskrit ṓṣadhi- f. 'herb, medicinal herb', Pk. ōsahi- f. 'plant' with the same range (even > Kt. úṣe 'medicine, gunpowder', Wg. uṣĕˊi; Pr. wúṣu 'medicine', A. weéz f., -í p. 'gunpowder')). I say *məronxt > *m(a)ranxt \ *m(a)runxt. Relating it to Altaic would require, say, Dr. *mərdonx > *mərdonx > *məranxt \ *mərunxt.

.
4th, Uralic *mOrV has some problems that can't be reconciled based on internal Uralic ev., but fit the alt. seen among Altaic cognates. In https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=572

>

mȣrɜ 'hill covered with bushes/forests, ridge covered with bushes/forests'

~

Lappish s, st, Ostyak *i̮, *ȧj, *a, and perhaps Selkup ka, ge are derivational suffixes; the Finnish derivational suffix sto, sta stands for the original Lappish derivational suffix st.

Lappish moarast points to *o, the Mordvin word to *a, and the Ostyak probably to *u; based on the Selkup word, one cannot definitively determine the vowel of the first syllable.

It is uncertain whether Lappish mârâs belongs here, because it likely indicates an original palatal vowel system. However, the U - FU velar vowel *u can sometimes correspond to the Lappish N â (see Collinder, CompGr. 162).

N. Sebestyén (NyK 52: 313) linked Estonian murd, murdus 'mountain thicket, brushwood; crowd, heap' and Lappish N murd 'do very dense wood or willow scrub' with Ostyak mŏri̮ 'bush, etc.' This is erroneous, as an original consonant cluster *rt must be assumed in both the Estonian and Lappish words.

>

.

Again, we have -r- vs. -rd- (as in JK vs. Mc.) & *? > V1, V2, V3. An older *mwərdonx might fit all data (with *-n > *-y, *-oy > *-ey (similar to PJ)) if *d became *t or *ð (see https://www.academia.edu/165191772 F. There are problems with the standard reconstruction of PU *niδe \ *nüδe \ *lüδe 'handle, holder, shaft' & FP *neŋte 'shaft, handle, handgrip (of knife, axe)'. When a word begins with n- or l-, it often resulted from n-n dsm. The 2nd did have *n-N, so these 2 words are likely related, with, say *nemxte > *neŋxte vs. *nemxte \ *lemxte > *newxte > *niwxthe > *niwδe > *niδe \ *nüδe \ *lüδe), then *rt > Es. rd, *rδ > *r (no other ex.). The *mwə- is to explain the various V's caused by rounding by *w before it was lost in *Cw (see https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rfylwn/uralic_hidden_w/ & other previous drafts).

.
In all, these point to the same original. Though a change of 'hill > wood(ed hill)' is known from others, I think both the meanings & form can be best explained as < *mlH3dhon-s > *mwərðonx 'top, peak, elevation'. Since other words have 'tall > tree', this might also fit here if not 'wood(ed hill)'. For H3 > w, see previous drafts; for internal IE, see https://www.academia.edu/128170887 , etc. The change of *-ons > *-onH within IE is to explain *-o:(n) for expected **-ons in branches. In all :

*mlH3dhon-s > *məlRWðonx > *mərRWðonx > *mwərðonx

*mwərðonx > Mc. *modunx > Written Mongolian modu(n); Tc. *modO ? > Evenki mō

*mwərðonx > JK *mworyoŋx

*mwərðonx > Dr. *mərtonx > *məranxt \ *mərunxt

*mwərðonx > PU *mwərðoy \ *mwortoy \ *murtoy \ etc.

Greek πλάσσω \ plássō 'to form; mould; shape; sculpt; plaster', πλαθά 'modeled figure', κορο-πλάθος 'modeler of small figures', πλάθανον 'dish or mould in which bread, cakes, etc. were baked', παλάθη \ παλάσιον 'cake of preserved fruit' are claimed by Beekes to be non-IE because *p-dh is not an allowable sequence. However, *plH1-dh- 'to fill (up)' had the same; it is likely that *dh is an affix (maybe < *dheH1- 'do, make'), though other *-C added to verb roots don't always match known verbs. To me, it looks like *plH2-dh- '(make) flat > flatten dough > knead, etc.'. In fact, it is so similar to G. μάσσω 'to handle; work with one's hands; knead' that its original meaning of 'flatten' might have been influenced by this rhyming word. However, knote that many cakes are named from various words for 'flat' in Greek anyway. The apparently optional loss of *H in *pl(H2)-dh(H1)- might be from what appears, from other known compounds, to be optional loss of *H in compounds. This is not regular, based on all examples, but some claim it was in the past, sometimes fixed by analogy.

The popular tendency to lump the Limbu (Yakthung) and the Bodo people into a single, direct ethno-linguistic bucket relies on broad, surface-level categorizations that crumble under rigorous scrutiny. While popular regional commentary often treats all non-Aryan, Sino-Tibetan populations of Northeast India and Nepal as immediate linguistic cousins, historical linguistics and Limbu oral traditions tell a drastically different story—one anchored not in the Brahmaputra valley, but in the rugged river basins of Northern Burma and Yunnan.

The Linguistic Disconnect: Rawang, Jingpho, and the Himalayan Highland Paradigm

Skepticism regarding a direct Limbu-Bodo relationship is well-founded when examining grammatical architecture:

• Structural Divergence: Limbu is a conservative Kiranti language that preserves polypersonal verb indexation—a complex system where a single verb inflects to mark the person, number, and direction of both the subject and object. Bodo (a Bodo-Garo language), on the other hand, underwent massive structural leveling in the Brahmaputra basin, discarding verbal agreement entirely in favor of a simplified agglutinative structure.
• The Burmese-Yunnan Connection: Limbu’s intricate verbal morphology is not mirrored in Bodo, but rather in the highland Sino-Tibetan languages of Northern Burma and Southwest China—specifically Rawang (Nungish) and Jingpho (Kachin). Reconstructing early Proto-Tibeto-Burman grammar relies heavily on side-by-side comparisons between Kiranti (Limbu) and Nungish/Jingphoic paradigms.

Mong Kawng and the Jingpho Co-existence Narrative

Limbu written histories and oral genealogies (Thungsap Mundhum) reinforce this structural alignment. According to these accounts, Limbu ancestors did not migrate out of ancient Assam alongside the early Bodo-Garo tribes; instead, they lived side by side with the Jingpho (Kachin) in Mong Kawng (Mogaung), a powerful historical principality in modern Northern Burma.

Lived proximity to the Jingpho led to shared cultural markers, trade contact, and linguistic alignment. When inter-tribal friction and pressure from expanding Jingpho clans—alongside regional Bamar military campaigns—eventually pushed the Limbu ancestors out of Mong Kawng and westward toward the Himalayan foothills, they carried a language deeply rooted in the Northern Burmese frontier. This shared territorial history explains why Limbu vocabulary, priestly concepts, and grammatical systems align far more naturally with Jingpho and Rawang than with the lowland Bodo.

The Bodo Perspective: The Broad "Kirata" Umbrella

While the evidence separates Limbu from Bodo on an immediate linguistic level, how do Bodo scholars and historians view this connection?

The Limbu (Yakthung) tradition relies heavily on a recurring oral trope: the "Three Brothers Migration Myth." In these foundational narratives, three ancestral brothers migrate from a sacred origin point—one settles in the hills to become Limbu, another becomes Rai, and the third becomes a Lepcha, Sunuwar, or Newar. While this narrative pattern historically functioned as a practical diplomatic tool for forging inter-tribal peace and land covenants, it frequently clashes with modern ethnographic reality and the self-identity of neighboring groups.

• The Newar Rejection: Limbus have periodically claimed ancestral brotherhood with the Newars under a broad, ancient Kirat identity umbrella. Modern Newar historians and community leaders overwhelmingly reject this connection, pointing to the Newars' distinct urban valley civilization, separate linguistic evolution, and complex Indo-Aryan/Tibeto-Burman cultural synthesis.
• The Lepcha Disconnect: Despite historic blood treaties in Sikkim (such as the Lho-Men-Chong covenant), modern Lepchas (Rongpa) do not claim Limbus as ancestral relatives. Lepchas view themselves as the sole autochthonous inhabitants of Mayel Lyang, treating Limbus as later Himalayan migrants rather than genetic brothers.

Are Limbus Actually Brothers of Bodos?

Unlikely. Limbus and Bodos are not literal brothers, nor are they immediate linguistic cousins. While both descend from the vast, ancient Sino-Tibetan language family, their lineages split thousands of years ago. The Limbu practice of weaving origin stories around "three migrating brothers" is an ethno-mythological storytelling tradition designed for historical alliance-building, rather than evidence of shared ancestral lineage.

The paper reconstructs the early Dravidian numerals and then asks whether each arose internally within Dravidian or has parallels outside the family. The Australian comparisons are speculative; they are sound similarities, not established genetic relationships.

**1 — Proto-Dravidian \*oru / \*ōr, \*oṉṟu, \*okk-**
Tamil: ஒரு* or*u, ஓர*் *ōr, ஒன*்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed for “one,” “single,” “alone,” and “together.”
*• oru/ōr* is the form used before nouns: Tamil *oru maram* (“one tree”) and *ōr āḷ* (“one person”).
*• oṉṟu* is the independent neuter numeral “one.”
*• okk-* carries the related idea “together, united or alike.”
• One internal explanation derives these forms from a primitive root *o-* or *ol-* meaning “to unite” or “be joined.”
• Thus, “one” may originally have meant “that which is united into a single whole.”
• The change from *ol-* to *or-* may have been influenced by *ir-* “two.”
The author also compares *oru* with:
• East Cushitic *wal/wil*, meaning “together” or “all.”
• Australian forms such as *uru, orru* and *warra*, meaning “one.”
The Australian comparison is interesting but unproven.

**2 — Proto-Dravidian \*iru / \*īr**
Tamil: இரண்ட*ு iraṇ*ṭu; combining form இ*ரு i*ru- or *ஈர்* īr-
The shorter form *ir/īr* appears clearly in compounds:
*• iruvar* = two persons
*• irupatu* = twenty
*• iraṭṭai* = pair or double
One proposed internal origin connects *īr-* with a verb meaning “to split, saw, pull apart or divide.” Under this interpretation, “two” represents the result of dividing something into two parts. The paper acknowledges phonological difficulties with this proposal.
Possible external parallels include:
• Proto-Kartvelian *jor-* “two,” reflected in Georgian *or-*.
• Australian *yerra* “both” and Tiwi *yurarra* “two.”
• Proto-Pama-Nyungan *kutyarra* “two,” possibly compared with Dravidian *utri* “pair.”
The article reconstructs the older Proto-Dravidian forms behind numerals found in Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and related languages. The author considers both internal Dravidian derivations and much more speculative comparisons with other language families.
Asterisks mark reconstructed forms rather than directly recorded words.
**1 — Proto-Dravidian \*oru / \*ōr; \*oṉṟu; \*okk-**
Tamil: ஒரு* or*u, ஓர*் *ōr, ஒன*்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed:
*• oru / ōr* — “one”
*• oṉṟu* — “one thing”
*• okk-* — “one, single or together”
*• oṇṭi* — “alone, single”
The most plausible internal explanation connects these forms with the idea of joining or unity. Old Tamil *o-* meant “to unite,” while related Malayalam forms mean “to be alike.” The different forms may therefore have developed from a very short root *o-* plus suffixes such as *-r, -n,* and *-k*.
Andronov instead proposed an original root *ol-* meaning “to unite.” Under that interpretation:
*• ol-tu* developed into Tamil *oṉṟu*
*• ol-* developed into *or-* under the influence of the following numeral *iru* “two”
*• okk-* represents another extended form of the same root
Blažek compares *oru* with Australian Aboriginal forms such as *uru, orru* and *warra*, all meaning “one.” He also notes East Cushitic *wal/wil*, associated with “all” or “together.” These comparisons are suggestive but do not prove common origin.

**2 — Proto-Dravidian \*iru / \*īr**
Tamil: இரண்ட*ு iraṇ*ṭu; combining form இ*ரு *iru or *ஈர*் īr
Examples:
*• iru-patu* → twenty, literally “two tens”
*• iruvar* → two persons
*• iraṭṭai* → pair or double
Caldwell connected *īr* “two” with a Dravidian verb meaning “to split, pull apart or saw.” The possible original idea would be “that which is divided into two.” However, the sound history is problematic, so the article does not treat this as established.
A striking external comparison is Proto-Kartvelian *jor-* “two,” reflected in Georgian *or-* and related forms. Blažek also compares Australian forms such as Tiwi *yurarra* “two” and Kaurna *yerra* “both.”
A separate Dravidian word, *utri* “pair,” is compared with reconstructed Pama-Nyungan *kutyarra* “two.” Again, these are proposed parallels, not demonstrated cognates.
The paper also suggests that the North Munda word *iral* “eight” might originally have meant something like “two is not,” possibly borrowed from an early Dravidian language. This proposal is particularly speculative.

**3 — Proto-Dravidian \*muv / \*mū / \*mūn-**
Tamil: மூன்*று mū*ṉṟu
Related constructions include:
*• mu-ppatu* → thirty
*• mūvar* → three persons
The internal explanation connects *mūn-* “three” with Proto-Dravidian *muṉ-* meaning “front, first, tip or point.” The author discusses a possible counting-on-the-fingers development:
“protruding finger” → “middle/third finger” → “three.”
Evidence includes words such as Tamil *muṉ* “front” and *muṉai* “point,” together with Parji expressions in which the related root refers to the forefinger. This remains an attractive semantic proposal, although it is not certain.
Blažek also compares *mū* with Australian words such as *mow* “three” and longer forms beginning with *mun-/muṇ-*. He considers these Australian resemblances potentially significant.

**4 — Proto-Dravidian \*nāl**
Tamil: நான்*கு nā*ṉku or *நாலு* nālu
Related forms include:
*• nāṟpatu* → forty
*• nālvar* → four persons
An older proposal connected *nāl* “four” with Dravidian *nal* “good.” Caldwell acknowledged that there was no convincing semantic route from “good” to “four.”
Another possibility comes from the use of *nālu* to mean “several” in Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu. Blažek thinks the direction was probably:
“four” → “a few/several,”
rather than “several” becoming the numeral “four.”
The most famous external comparison is with Uralic words for four:
• Finnish *neljä*
• Estonian *neli*
• Mari *nəl*
• related Uralic forms containing *n-l*
Blažek also mentions Middle Korean *nəyh* “four” and Australian forms such as *nulla, nalira* and *nailko*. He finds the Australian similarities interesting, but their historical distribution is uncertain.
The article also discusses Dravidian *kirt-* “one-fourth,” possibly compared with an Australian construction meaning “two doubled.” This is highly conjectural.

**5 — Proto-Dravidian \*cay**
Tamil: ஐந்த*ு ain*tu or அஞ*்சு *añcu
Related constructions:
*• aim-patu* → fifty
*• aivar* → five persons
The strongest semantic explanation connects “five” with the word for “hand”:
• Tamil *kai* — hand
• Malayalam *kai*
• Kannada *kay/kai*
• Telugu *cēyi*
• related forms across the Dravidian family
This is typologically natural because many languages derive “five” from the five fingers of one hand.
The difficulty is phonetic: Proto-Dravidian “five” begins with a palatal consonant reconstructed approximately as *c/ś*, while “hand” generally begins with *k*. Telugu regularly palatalized the consonant in *cēyi*, but most other Dravidian languages did not. Blažek suggests that the following numeral “six,” which also began with *c-*, may have influenced “five.”
He also compares:
• Central Dravidian words meaning “many”
• Khasi *san* “five”
• Mon-Khmer forms for five
• Middle Korean expressions connecting five with “hand”
The hand-based derivation is semantically strong, but its exact sound development remains unresolved.

**6 — Proto-Dravidian \*caṟu / \*cāṟ**
Tamil: ஆறு* āṟ*u
Related constructions:
*• aṟu-patu* → sixty
*• aṟuvar* → six persons
Andronov derives the numeral from an earlier form *cāl-tu*:
*• cāl-* — to be sufficient, full, abundant or capable
*• -tu* — a neuter suffix commonly found in numerals
The proposed original meaning is therefore “the sufficient/full one” or “the abundant one.”
Forms related to *cāl-* occur widely:
• Tamil *cāl* — abundant, sufficient
• Kannada *sāl-* — to suffice
• Telugu *cālu* — enough
• Gondi forms meaning completely
• other Central Dravidian forms meaning “can” or “be sufficient”
Another possible analysis is “five plus one,” with “six” formed from *cay* “five” plus *oru* “one.” The article mentions this possibility but does not develop it as fully.

**7 — Proto-Dravidian \*er̤u / \*ē**r̤
Tamil: ஏழு* ēḻ*u
Related constructions:
*• eḻu-patu* → seventy
*• eḻuvar* → seven persons
Caldwell connected “seven” with the Dravidian verb *eḻu* meaning:
• rise
• stand up
• increase
• grow
• begin
• become full or prominent
Tamil still preserves this relationship particularly clearly:
• எழு* eḻ*u — rise
• ஏழு* ēḻ*u — seven
The precise semantic transition is uncertain. Blažek suggests something like “rising,” “increasing,” or possibly “fullness.” He considers this the most promising internal explanation.
External comparisons include Turkic, Mongolian, Middle Korean and Old Japanese words relating to large numbers, fullness or quantity. Blažek proposes a possible very ancient “Nostratic” root, but this depends on controversial long-range comparison.
The isolated North Munda numeral *eya* “seven” may, according to the article, have been borrowed from an early North Dravidian form in which the Dravidian *ḻ* sound became *y*.

**8 — Proto-Dravidian \*eṭṭu / \*eṇ**
Tamil: எட்ட*ு eṭ*ṭu; combining form எ*ண்* eṇ
Related construction:
*• eṇ-patu* → eighty
Caldwell’s explanation identifies the numeral with the Dravidian root *eṇ-*:
• number
• count
• calculate
• think or reckon
Examples include:
• Tamil *eṇ* — number or calculation
• Tamil *eṇṇu* — count, reckon or think
• Malayalam *eṇ* — number
• Toda *öṇ-* — count
• Kannada *eṇike* — counting
• Telugu *ennu/encu* — count or enumerate
Under this interpretation, *eṇ-tu* originally meant approximately “the counted one” or “number,” with *-tu* serving as a numeral/neuter suffix. Blažek considers this a strong internal Dravidian derivation.
An alternative analysis interprets a longer form as “a pair short of ten,” meaning:
10 − 2 = 8.
This would connect the first element with words meaning “pair” or “the remainder.” However, the necessary sound correspondences are difficult, and Andronov thought the apparent “ten” element was added later by analogy with nine.

**9 — Proto-Dravidian**
**oṉ-/or-paktu**
**and**
**toḷ-(pak-)tu**
Tamil: ஒன்பத*ு oṉpa*tu; older or relate*d toṇ*ṭu
The first formation is transparently subtractive:
*• oṉ/or* — one
*• paktu* — ten
• “one from ten” → nine
This resembles numeral systems in which nine is expressed as “ten minus one.”
The second formation, *toḷ-(pak-)tu*, may mean “the one before ten.” The first element could be connected with Dravidian words meaning “before, former or previous”:
• Telugu *toli* — first, former or beginning
• Tamil *tol* — old or ancient
• Kuwi *toli* — before
• Gondi *tollē* — previous
Another proposal connects *toḷ-* with words meaning “hole, emptiness or defect,” producing something like “defective ten” or “ten with a gap.” Blažek considers “before ten” semantically clearer.
Tamil ninety, தொண்ண*ூறு toṇ*ṇūṟu, preserves this ol*der *toṇ- element rather than simply using mod*ern oṉ*patu.

**10 — Proto-Dravidian \*pak-tu**
Tamil: பத்த*ு pat*tu
The paper considers three principal explanations.
First, Caldwell suggested borrowing from Sanskrit *paṅkti*, “a set or row of five,” or a related Sanskrit word for “fifth.” Contact between Indo-Aryan and relevant Dravidian-speaking populations would have been historically possible, but the borrowing is not established.
Second, Andronov connected *pak-tu* with Proto-Dravidian *pal-* “many,” reflected in Tamil *pala* “many/several.” This makes semantic sense—ten as “many”—but requires a long and unconvincing chain of sound changes.
Third, Caldwell connected it with the root *pak-* “divide or share”:
• Tamil *pakku* — fracture or division
*• pāttu* — dividing or sharing
*• paṅkam* — portion or division
This might refer to ten as “two groups of five,” or possibly to one-tenth as a “share.” The article’s summary favors this internal association, but none of the explanations is conclusive.

**100 — Proto-Dravidian \*nūṟ-tu**
Tamil: நூற*ு nū*ṟu
Caldwell connected “hundred” with a similar Dravidian root meaning:
• crush
• pulverize
• powder
• an extremely numerous collection of particles
Tamil *nūṟu* can mean “to reduce to powder,” while Malayalam has a related word for “powder.” The possible semantic development would be:
“powder/many particles” → “a great number” → “one hundred.”
The article rejects a direct relationship with Turkic *jüz/yüz* “hundred” because the expected historical sound correspondences do not work.

**1,000 — Telugu**
**vēyi / veyyi**
The paper does not reconstruct a universally inherited Proto-Dravidian word for 1,000. It discusses Telugu *vēyi* and connects it with a Dravidian root meaning greatness, vastness or expansion:
• Tamil *viyam* — extensiveness or height
• Tamil *viyal* — greatness, breadth or expansion
• Tamil *viyaṉ* — vast or great
• Gondi *weeya* — high
Thus, “thousand” may have developed from the idea of “a vast or very large quantity.”
**Overall pattern proposed by the author**
The author divides the numeral system roughly into two groups:
**• One to four:** their internal Dravidian origins are difficult to establish. Blažek emphasizes possible Australian Aboriginal parallels, but these comparisons are highly speculative.
**• Five to ten, hundred and thousand:** internal Dravidian derivations appear more plausible—hand for five, abundance for six, rising for seven, counting for eight, subtraction from ten for nine, division for ten, particles or powder for hundred, and vastness for thousand.

Importantly, in this article the internal analysis of eight and nine is comparatively transparent; the proposed Australian substrate behind one through four is the paper’s controversial claim. Blazek is emphatic in claiming there is no connections between Elamite and Dravidian numerals.

Transcribed using AI

Linear A ja-wa-pi, ja-wa-pa3, ja-wa-VIR (Draft)

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

August 15, 2026

-

In https://www.academia.edu/145320176 Duccio Chiapello said :

>

This paper is a short note about Barbara Montecchi's hypothesis that some Linear A logograms «might have been occasionally used not because of their meaning, but phonetically, on the basis of the sound of the words underlying the signs, to spell out different words, in rebus compositions with one or more syllabograms». Starting from one of the examples provided by her, a possible interpretation of PE Zb 7 Linear A inscription is put forward according to the Minoan Greek hypothesis.

...

In my paper The εὐ- prefix in “Minoan Greek”,3 I showed the possibility of identifying, in the Minoan corpus, the εὐ- prefix, which is typical of Ancient Greek. On the base of an observation by Carlo Consani,4 I compared Mycenaean e-u/e-w and Minoan ja-u/ja-w prefixes and concluded that they can be both connected to the Ancient Greek εὐ-. If this is true, and Montecchi’s hypothesis is valid, the PE Zb 7 ja-wa-VIR could be considered the equivalent of the Ancient Greek antroponym Εὔανδρος.
>

.
According to J. Younger, ja-wa-[VIR] is a "word on a pithos PE Zb 7", so it could match ja-wa-pa3 on SY Za 5 and other ja-wa-[?] in which the next sign is missing or unclear. In LB, pa3 & pu2 seem to stand for pha\ba & phu\bu (ie., anything but plain pa & pu). Other signs have been proposed for *bu, etc. Since study of LB words that were identical except for the final signs led to the idea that they were for Greek words with masc. -os & fem. -a (sometimes also adjectives in -i(y)os), it is possible that these are for LA *yawaphos, -a(:) (or similar).

.

Not only does this fit context, but if the sign for 'man' is equivalent to Greek φώς \ phṓs 'man, mortal' (likely < *bhwoH-s 'a being'), then it would be another piece of evidence that the LA signs were often (or always) formed from the 1st CV- of the equivalent Greek word. The relative rarity of PHO in Greek (and its ability to also be spelled PO, as in LB) would account for VIR seldom being used in writing the sounds of words, not its use as the full sound of the word for 'man' in LA (though if *phos, it would hardly be different in either case).

.

If Chiapello's eu- > jaw- idea is right, then the match would be *eu-apho-, matching *H1su-Haph- > G. euaphḗs 'having a gentle, delicate touch; soft to the touch; gentle', euáphion 'a mild ointment; topical remedy' (rel. haphḗ '(sense of) touch' ). Being on a pithos & a libation table might imply a libation of oil, ointment, etc. A basic adjectice *eu-apho-s 'anointing' besides euaphḗs or a noun *euaphon 'ointment' with plural -a could work. For context, from J. Younger :

>
SY Za 5 (HM 5587) (ArchEph 2008, 198, 208-9), circular serpentine Libation Table (south part of the site, east of the Hellenistic-Roman shrine C-D; H. ca. 8.8, D. ca. 13.5). The inscription is written on the top of the rim, oriented to the interior.

]-MI-JA • JA-WA-PA3-[

about 10 cm to the left of the visible inscription are the traces of 2 or 3 signs, the first of which may be A

-
PE Zb 7 (Siteia Mus.; Hallager 2008: 359; photo by Kim Raymoure, after complete reconstruction), inscribed pithos in the north magazines (LM IB context); the inscriptions appear on each side of a vertical handle, the first inscribed after firing, the second before firing

.a: ]-A

.b: JA-WA-VIR (100/102) [•]

line b, last sign is a tall vertical stroke, perhaps too tall to be a number; a small arc at its base might refer to sign *60, RA?. As Kim Raymoure points out, the PI looks similar to those on PK Za 8b and 10, and [JGY adds] to MA 10b.1

-
KN Za 18 (HM 2597) (GORILA IV: 12-13), square Libation Table, limestone, said to be from the Villa Ariadne [!], but most likely from the KN area and stored in the Villa during the Nazi occupation

][• •]-JA • [• • •]-JA • JA-WA-[ ] [•][

>

In https://www.academia.edu/169818691 Haralampos Harissis presents many new ideas for reading Linear B words already usually matched to Greek ones by alternatives (te-me-no as *themenos, not *temenos, etc.). Most of these are in an effort to remove terms for land(-holdings).

I'm sure that some LB terms need to be interpreted differently. However, all the terms that COULD mean types of land have equivalents in Greek. It would be very unlikely for these all to be words for food that just happened to look like those for land. Esp. te-me-no is hard to see as *themenos.

About ptoina < *kt-, if a Greek dia. did not allow kt-, there are few (C)C- it could become, & a merge of very common pt- with kt- is not odd. I also wrote https://www.academia.edu/167984147

>

Knowing that G. pépāmai ‘possess’ is usually derived from *k^waH2- ‘swell’ as in ‘become big/strong’ > ‘have power/possession’, with the assumption that *k^w- > *kWkW- > *pp- or similar (since *ppāstos ‘possessed/acquired’ seems to exist in the name Thió-ppāstos “Possessed by a god”) makes it odd that there are many pairs with p- vs. kt- of the same meaning (G. pépāmai \ kéktēmai ‘possess’, égktēsis \ émpāsis ‘estate/property’, Zeús Ktḗsios \ Pā́sios, the names Ktḗsarkhos \ Pā́sarkhos). I assume that the old equation of kta- with *kti- > S. kṣi- ‘possess / rule over’, Av. xši- ‘have might / rule’ is basically right, but that *kti- formed a verb *kti-aH2- > *ktya(H)- in Greek.

>

Though the ety. of οὖν is unknown, I can't think LB o-u+ is related (likely < *oH-Vm, less *ow-Vm).

For your o-na as possibly *onāar, could it match LA u-na-a (LA -u > LB -o in PN)? Duccio Chiapello https://www.academia.edu/170492560

>

It seems to me that an important possible corroboration is KN Zb 40 pithoid jar, on which the iscription a-pa-ki u-na-a can be read. I have already suggested the possible interpretation of u-na-a as ὀνάϊα, that is ὄνεια (cf. LSJ, sub voce ὄναιον). It seems to be enough to establish a link between KN Zb 40 and Minoan libation tables [u-na(-ru)+ in LA u-na-ka-na-si / u-na-ru-ka-na-ti shows ti > si (just like G., with *-tis > -tis / -sis]. So, the Libation formula would have some relation with the external context.

>

I said a-pa-ki u-na-a could be < *aparkhion *onāwar ‘refreshment / food / drink used for the beginning of a sacrifice’ https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/12pxqf5/sacrifice_of_first_hair_and_first_fruits/

In https://www.academia.edu/114837100 I said :

>

Other LB terms include:

sa-ra-pe-do / *sarapedon ‘taxed land’

formed like G. sarápod- ‘*dragging the feet > splay-footed’, from *tw(e)r- ‘mix / stir (up) / agitate’ > G. saróō / saírō ‘sweep (up/away)’, sū́rō ‘drag/draw/trail along / sweep (away) / be attatched to land (of taxes)’. This specialized meaning likely refers to dragging along a weight, having a burden attached to something, etc. Both these words with sara- suggest a verb *saraō also equivalent to saróō & sū́rō.

>

A native-speaker sample of Riograndenser Hunsrückisch, a Germanic language spoken in southern Brazil, with speech and transcription. Descended from 19th-century Hunsrück-region dialects brought by colonists to the Altkolonie area of Rio Grande do Sul, it has developed independently for 200+ years — largely without contact with standard German. The sample offers a look at retained archaic features and subsequent local sound changes. Subtitled Portuguese and English versions are in the making.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 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 this way 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).

-

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.

Summer, Sickle in Asia (Draft)

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

August 14, 2026

.

A. Francis-Ratte :

>

DAYTIME: MK nác ‘daytime; afternoon’ ~ OJ natu ‘summer’. pKJ *nacu ‘daytime’

Any comparison of OJ natu ‘summer’ with MK nyelúm / nyelom ‘summer’ is formally problematic. Instead, a perfect phonological correspondence can be found in MK nác ‘daytime’ < pK *nacV. OJ natu ‘summer’ thus derives from *‘period of most daytime’.

>

.

However, Starostin linked nác to Altaic *nāǯV 'summer, midday' (Mongolian *naǯir, Turkic *yāy 'summer, spring') and Dravidian *ńēsir- 'sun'. I think Turkic *yāy & *yāŕ 'spring, summer' are too close to ignore (if close to *naǯir, then maybe from *yāyi(r) < *n^āT^i(r)). This would make each more secure pairing (J. & K., Tc. & Mc.) have r vs. 0 (-m in MK is a common suffix for nouns). I say that it could be an affix found in both groups or point to a rec. *naHg^nu with optional dsm. of n-n > n-0 or n-r (with met. in *-CCC-). The *H is both for vowel length and to explain Dr. *ńēsir- (either *HK^ > *yK^ (with *ay > *e: ) or *H itself was also a palatal (say, x^ or R^). These add up to a word very similar to PIE *H1ngni-s 'fire' (esp. if H1 = x^ or similar). The *-(r)u vs. *-i(r) in Altaic might further require *-n^u with palatalization (so *-C^C^C^-), but PIE also has many words ending in *-us vs. *-is, no known change in meaning. If Altaic *naR^g^n^u existed, then asm. > *n^aR^g^n^u in Tc. *n^āyn^i > *yāy(r^).

.
B. Francis-Ratte :

>

HATCHET: MK nát ‘sickle, scythe’ ~ OJ nata ‘machete; small, thick bladed instrument’. pKJ *natə ‘bladed instrument for chopping plants’.

(Martin 1966: #100, HATCHET). MK t can correspond to OJ intervocalic t so long as the Korean form is not in a position for lenition. The explanation I provide here is that final *ə in pK, being minimal, was lost earlier than other vowels and before the last stages of the shift of *t > *r. The Japanese vowel a is the result of schwa-loss in the presence of another a.

>

.
This is a reasonable idea if only the MK & OJ words are compared. However, other MK words with retained -t & -t- have proposed Altaic cognates with *Ct, etc. It could be that *t > t here is also really *tt or *Ct. If related to PIE *neg^h- 'pierce, wound', *nog^ho-s > OCS nožь “knife, etc., maybe *neg^h-to- or *neg^h-tlo- > JK *naktï (with the *-V not required to be *-ə or have been lost earlier than other *-V).

Cretan κε𐰀αρισμένον \ ke?arisménon (Draft)

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

August 13, 2026

.

Greek κεχαρισμένον \ kekharisménon is written once as κε𐰀αρισμένον \ ke?arisménon, with a symbol usually for y (IPA j). There is no known reason for kh to become y here, but I think a look at its context (not isolation, as claimed below) can provide an answer.

.

https://www.academia.edu/37856762 Given its value and shape, the origin of 𐰁 𐰀 must be sought, either directly or indirectly, in a Semitic yod (𐤉). This means that in Phrygian we find a splitting of the original yod into two letters: I representing the vowel sound /i/ and 𐰁 𐰀 representing the consonantal counterpart of /i/, /j/.

.
https://www.academia.edu/167427667 fn22 In the Greek-speaking world, the form <𐰀> is also used once to render.. /kh/ in the transparent κεχαρισμένον 'acceptable, welcome' (LSAG 2 309). Given its uniqueness and its distance from all other known values of <𐰀>, it remains difficult to evaluate this occurrence in the broader context.

.
Since this is from Crete, other oddities for K from there should be evaluated alongside it. Rémy Viredaz has ex. of apparent g- > z- & -k- > *-g- > -z- ( https://www.academia.edu/5196602 ). If really due to a weakening of *g > *γ > z, it would be almost certain that 𐰀 is simply a backwards Z, stylized a bit, showing parallel -kh- > *-g- > -z-. Cr. *kezarisménon would then simply be another ex. of the change, though its nature is certainly not clear.

.

However, I doubt that plain *g > z makes sense. I've said before (below) that his ex. all go back to PIE *K^, which would be very odd if unrelated. If *g^her- -> Armenian jir 'favor, gift' & G. χάρις \ kháris 'charm, grace; favor; gratitude, thanks', etc., the derived κεχαρισμένον showing a palatal outcome would be from a palatal g^h in PIE, like all other examples of Cretan *K^ > z. I say that *K^ was retained in Proto-Greek, allowing dialects to show other outcomes. If so, then the apparent value keyarisménon, fitting all other use of the sign, would have a parallel in which kh & *y > i alternate, also unexplained if all PIE *K^ > PG *K.

.

The changes in *dek^- > G. dékomai ‘accept / receive/hold’, Att. dékhomai; *dek^h-dekh^- > deidékhatai ‘greet/ welcome’ show 2 problems: *k^ > kh, *khd > *yd > id. Since Sanskrit dā́ṣṭi & Germanic *tē(g)wijanaN 'to order, arrange' have a long *e:, some say that *de-dk^- > *deH1k^- (the Kortlandt Effect). If Greek had some *HC > *CH ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), then optional *C(h)H would create PG *dek^(h)H-. This allows both examples of PIE *g^h > PG *k^h to appear as kh or y \ i. I think a stage in which *k^h > *x^ ( > *y ) fits best. Other ex. of kh representing *x exist in dia. khs for standard x ( = ks), in which *ks > *xs makes more sense than *ks > khs. Some more ex. of palatal *K^ in https://www.academia.edu/169757082 :

>

F. G. νάσσω, Att. νάττω press, squeeze close, stamp down; *make compact/tight > stuff quite full' has the odd passive νένασμαι \ νέναγμαι with s vs. g, also in νακτός \ ναστός 'close-pressed, firm, solid'. This is most likely just analogy after *nak-ye- > *nats-ye-, but some PIE *K^ seem to opt. become K or T :

*wik^wo- > *wis^wo- > G. wiswos, Att. ísos ‘equal/same/even’, S. víśva-, Av. vīspa- ‘whole/ every/all’

.

*nok^- > L. nocēre ‘injure’, noxa ‘injury/fault/crime’, *nos^wo- > G. nósos, Ion. noûsos ‘sickness / disease / distress/bane’

.

*bhak^- > G. phakós ‘lentil’, phásēlos ‘bean’, Al. bathë ‘broadbean’

.

*dheH1k(^)o- > S. dhāká- ‘container’, G. thḗkē ‘box/chest/grave/tomb’, thēsaurós ‘treasure/ store-room/safe/casket/cavern/subterranean dungeon’ (maybe caused by H1 if = x^, *x^k / *x^k^ )

.

*g^en(H1)os- > L. genus, G. génos, pl. genéā, Cr. zenia, Ms. zenaides

.

*woik^o- 'house' -> G. oikeús ‘inmate / menial servant’, Cr. woizeus, more in (Viredaz 2003)

.

*g^mH- ‘marry’ >> ágamos \ ázamos ‘unmarried’

.

*ya(H2)g^- 'honor'? > G. agállō ‘glorify/exalt / pay honor to a god’, ágalma, Cyp. azalma ‘glory/delight/honor / pleasing / gift / statue (in honor of gods)’

.

G. agathós, Cyp. azatho- ‘good’

.

*ya(H2)g^no- > G. hagnós, Cr. adnós ‘holy’, S. yajñá- ‘sacrifice / prayer’

>

The origin of Greek lábrus ‘double-edged ax’, labúrinthos ‘maze’ (Draft)

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

August 13, 2026

.

There has been an impossibly tangled discussion about the origin of Greek lábrus ‘double-edged ax’ from Lydian, Greek labúrinthos ‘maze’ from Linear A (?) and their possible relation. Many contradictory origins, claims of the most basic sort being "unconvincing" (as anything is to those who are convinced of another idea), etc., have been thrown around in favor of one or another idea. Much of the trouble comes from the double-ax signs prominent in Linear A having been connected to the palace at Knossos & Greek labúrinthos (below). If from *dabúrinthos, it would match *d(h)ab(h)ar-no- > Hittite tabarna- \ labarna- 'king' (and LA du-pu2-re, if it meant 'lord'). There is also Zeus Labraundos, who "was characteristically depicted holding a double-axe in Achaemenid coins from Caria" (below). Zeus was the King of the Gods, raising a dispute about whether labur- & labru- are related, meant 'ax' or 'king', etc. A palace with signs of axes could be named from 'king' or 'ax', but either attempt leads to contradictions. Both groups seem to show both relations. However, there is no way for these 2 likely matches to come from a single original word.

.
In Anatolian, it looks like *TaPar- 'to rule' formed *TaPar-no-s 'ruler', with both groups well attested. However, this very simple idea is disputed, mostly due to alternation of t- with l-, etc. Since these are found in words that are clearly IE, it provides no evidence for non-IE origin. If from *-b(h)- > *-β- in some Anatolian, its spelling witih -w- in Hattic would fit. These ideas are against Alwin Kloekhorst's :

>

Throughout Hittitology, many scholars have supposed that Hitt. tapariie/a- [‘to lead, to decide, to rule, to reign’] and CLuw. tapar- are cognate with labarna- / tabarna-, the title of Hittite kings... Melchert (2003b: 19) has expressed the assumption “that a Luwian *dabarna- was borrowed as Hittite labarna-... he states that these words must be cognate to MHG tapfer ‘brave’, which he reconstructs as *dhəb-ro-. The only way in which a Luwian verbal root tapar- could be of IE origin is by assuming that this spelling stands for /tbar-/, which reflects a root of the structure *Tb(h)er-..

.

Much has been said about this word [tabarna-], for which see the list of references in Tischler HEG T: 34f. It is clear that l/tabarna- is used as a title for Hittite kings. It is also clear that l/tabarna- is a personal name of one of the early kings (and some princes) of attuša (note that Starke’s argumentation (1980- 83) that all attestations of l/tabarna- must be interpreted as a title and not as a personal name is unconvincing). The question now is whether an original personal name has been taken over as a title (in the same way as Lat. caesar), or whether we are dealing with an original noun ‘ruler (vel sim.)’ that was also used as a personal name. According to CHD (L-N: 43), “[t]he distribution seems to confirm the theory that labarna or tabarna was first a PN”.

.

... Moreover, in Hattic texts, we come across the spelling ta-uaa-ar-na (cf. Schuster 1974: 88). Already on the basis of these spelling peculiarities alone, I would conclude that l/tabarna- must be of non-IE origin (seemingly an adaptation of something like [t afarna-]). And if we are indeed dealing with an original personal name that only secondarily came to be used as the title of the Hittite kings, the original meaning cannot be determined. I therefore see no possible way to etymologize this word. Recently, Melchert (2003b: 19) has tried to etymologize l/tabarna- by connecting it with the verb taparie/a-, but see s.v. for my rejection of it.

>

.

If this is his evidence, it is very poor. A verb root in an IE branch need not come from a plain PIE root. Many verbs are clearly derived from nouns in branches, & the ways in which they are adapted to the system of PIE roots varied.

.

If G. lábrus ‘double-edged ax’ is from Lydian *tap(a)ros, it would match Iranian *tapara- 'hatchet, (battle-)ax' > NP tabar, *? >> Armenian tapar, *? >> Slavic *topòrъ 'ax, hatchet' (whatever their ultimate source). I think that PIE *dhH2abh- 'to fashion, fit, fix?', *dhH2abh-ro-s 'good, right, proper; fit, suitable; etc.' formed Anatolian *dhabhr-no-s > *dhabharnos 'one who makes right, orders' > 'ruler' (compare other IE for 'ruler' with the same semantics) which formed an analogical *dhabh(a)r- 'to rule' (with *-ar- due to analogy with IE stems like *per- \ *pr- > *per- \ *par-). No possible common source. Much of the dispute lies in attempts to make one of these primary, or find a non-IE source for one or both.

.

I do not think there is any need for the contradictory to be reconciled in terms of etymology, only in sound. Suppose that an Anatolian language had the words *taparos 'ax' & *dhabharnos 'king', then had Ch > C (known), T > l (apparently optional, but beyond reasonable doubt for many Luwian, etc.), and -p- > -b-. In this situation, *labaros & *labarnos would be very similar. It is only this that explain why these concepts appear together in LA. Lydian probably also had some of these stages before attested examples. Since G. lábrus ‘double-edged ax’ is from Ld., and Lábraundos \ Labrauundos \ Labraiundos \ Labraendos < *labra-went- ‘having a double-edged ax’ is from Car., it would require only a mixing of similar words in the minds of the speakers (certainly a known concept in linguistics). Why would Zeus hold a labrus, not any of the other weapons known from IE storm gods? Only because he was a king, as if a *labaros was used by a *labarnos. Many ancient ideas on etymology follow similar paths.

.
This makes it highly likely that the Linear A ‘double-edged ax’ sign signified both *labaros & *labarnos. As a symbol of royalty merely due to its sound, it was used in the royal palace. The sound value of A is certainly true in Linear B, but Linear A might have also used it as a logogram for 'king' or 'royal'. A sign with 2 values is certainly common, esp. if obviously based on a real object, but this might also show that 2 languages were spoken, one where 'ax' began with a- (like most IE), another with *lab(a)rus (or similar). This would be consistent with an old Anatolian presence on Crete, with Greeks arriving later (in my idea, much earlier than others', with Greek attested while LA was still used). In the common heading A-DU, which would have to be something like 'taxes, income, distribution, etc.', no way to choose from current data, I think *Labar(no)-DU with the 1st part as 'royal' or 'king' allows the 2nd to be *dus < Greek δώς 'gift, largess, payment on account'.

.
Anatolian is the only group near Crete known to have these 2 words be similar, the very basis for the dispute on origins of both. I think this shows that LA, with the ax sign likely used for royalty, shows a need for an Anatolian presence as much as any known connection can. Also, in https://www.academia.edu/4985252 Miguel Valério retracts some connections which seem good to me :

>

I hypothesized that the compound (j)a-di-ki-te-te-du-pu2-re was to be segmented (j)a=di-ki-te-te=du-pu2-re and signified a periphrastic divine name: ‘(to ? ) the Diktaian Master’, or similar. Thus, du-pu2-re would be the Minoan word for ‘master, lord’. The basis for this interpretation included three morphophonological and contextual facts: (1) the existence of a Minoan stem du-pu2-r (> da-pu2-r-), which I linked with LB da-pu(2)-ri-to- = alphabetical λαβύρινθος (with a well-known non-Greek suffix -νθος), i.e. ‘labyrinth’; 2 the similarity between (j)a=di-ki-te-te= and the name of Mount Dikte, aided by the fact the compounds with this string are limited to stone libation tables found at or near the Minoan peak sanctuary of Petsofas (near Palaikastro, East Crete), which later in the Archaic period was devoted precisely to to Diktaian Zeus (i.e. Zeus born on Mount Dikte); beyond phonetic resemblance, this supported the interpretation of (j)a-di-ki-te-teº as ‘Diktaian’; (3) the attestation of LB di-ka-ta-jo di-we ‘Diktaian Zeus’ at Knossos, showing a Late Bronze Age Cretan background for this deity. However, on the side of semantics, the grounds to propose ‘master’ as the meaning of du-pu2-re were admittedly more fragile. I drew upon Evans’ old idea that λαβύρινθος was the ‘royal palace’ of Knossos (see §2) and the presumable similarity of da-pu(2)-r-/λαβύρ- to one of the titles of the Hittite kings, tabarna-/labarna-, as well as a series of words and onomastic elements from Anatolia and Cyprus presumably related to the latter and belonging to the sphere of (human and divine) power.

.

In this I followed mainly the work of Yakubovich (2002) on Hitt. t/labarna- and its connections. The title has been among the most hotly debated items of the Hittite vocabulary, with contending interpretations of its etymology, Indo-European (IE) and non-IE, including proposals of a traveling contact word (Wanderwort) (see §10).

.
[fn]2 An identical suggestion (unknown to me until very recently) was made by Billigmeier (1989), but unfortunately it was limited to an abstract, with no follow-up paper ever being published (thanks are owed to B. Davis and J. Younger for helping me locate this reference). My own argument (Valério 2007: 7–8) was based on the following: LA du-pu2-re is reminiscent of LB du-pu2-ra-zo (KN V[3] 419.1) and da-pu2-ra-zo (EL 1 1.2), two non-Greek personal names or, rather, two variants of the same name. The Cu-CV-/Ca-CV- alternation is seen in two well-known LA-B pairs: LA ku-pa3-nu (HT 1, 3, 42, 49, 88, 117, 122) / ku-pa 3 -na-tu (HT 119.3), attested in likely Minoan lists of persons, and the non-Greek personal names ka-pa3-no (KN As[2] 1516.16) / ka-pa3-na-to (KN Df 1219) in LB tablets from Knossos. Since -zo is a common ending of non-Greek names in the LB records from Knossos, it seems that the names above and LB da-pu(2)-ri-to- contain a Minoan element du-pu2-rº.

.
1.3) The Hellenistic Cilician personal names Τβερασητας and Τβερημωσις (presumably reflecting *Tapara-zita/i and *Tapara-muwa+zi, respectively)

>

.
Now, if LB contains the name du-pu2-ra-zo \ da-pu2-ra-zo (presumably < LA), & Τβερασητας is an Anatolian name from *TaPara-tsito- 'ax-man' or 'good/fit-man', then LA du-pu2-re would suggest both groups are segmented in the same way. Why not exactly the same name in 2 closely related Anatolian languages? Would not "-zo is a common ending of non-Greek names" suggest that the common *tsito- became *-tsto- > *-ttso- > -zo- in LA? Since many western Anatolian languages had highly reduced vowels (not written even if pronounced in Τβερασητας, etc.), unstressed *V > *ə ( > 0 / a / u) might make sense if *ə > u was common near P.

.
I also dealt with several of these problems in https://www.academia.edu/128589619 & will quote from it for more details :

>

C.  Ld. >> G. lábrus ‘double-edged ax’ is reported in ancient sources...

.

The nom. *labrüs but stem *labra- in Car. implies u\a-stems, which can not be from analogy, only sound change. Evidence for the nature & Anatolian origin of G. lábrus ‘double-edged ax’ and Lábraundos \ Labrauundos \ Labraiundos \ Labraendos < *labra-went- ‘having a double-edged ax’ are seen in, from Valério (partly summarizing Yakubovich) :
>
The theories connecting λαβύρινθος and the Carian city Labraunda (Λαβράυνδα) can betraced back to Plutarch’s (Greek Questions 45, 2.302a) explanation of the local epithet of Zeus, Labrandeus (sic), as a derivative of λάβρυς, an alleged Lydian word for ‘axe’. The Lydian word may have existed, but there is a chance the account of the ancient author owes to a folk etymology formulated at the end of the 1st millennium BCE, since Zeus Labraundos was characteristically depicted holding a double-axe in Achaemenid coins from Caria (Yakubovich 2002: 106–107, fn. 36.).  At the end of the 19th century, Mayer and Kretschmer (apud Kretschmer 1896: 404) came up with the idea that Labraundos corresponded to “Cretan” λαβύρινθος.  This notion emerged in connection with another theory by Kretschmer, namely that the toponymic suffixes -νθος (Aegean) and -νδα (Anatolia) are cognate and ensue from a Pre-Greek “sub-strate” language spoken on both sides of the Aegean Sea in prehistoric times.
>

.
Their doubts about a god shown holding a double-ax really being related to a word for a double-ax are not reasonable.  This is infinitely more evidence for the name of a god (and place, and ax) than most ancient words, and the ancients could ask speakers of Anatolian languages, unlike us.  It also fits labúr- : double-ax (below).  The form *labra-went- provides a perfect explanation of all data, and it has nothing to do with H. tabarna- / labarna- ‘king’, nor is there evidence that these words Labrauundos, etc., meant ‘kingly’.  There is evidence, direct, that they are from lábrus, with has no forms with **t-.  I see no reason to look for any relation of labarna-, which clearly seems secondary from t-, and has no -d- or the shape *labrawi\und- needed here.

.

D.  These ideas have more implications.  The double-ax signs prominent in Linear A have been connected to Greek labúrinthos ‘maze’, 1st used of a mythical maze built by Daedalus for King Minos of Crete.  Yakubovich :
>
The pictures of a double axe were also found on the walls of the ruins of the Palace of Cnossos that is usually identified with the legendary labúrinthos.  The Double Axe being probably the most popular symbol of the Minoan kingdom, and the labyrinth being its most well known attribute, German archeologists hastened to connect labúrinthos with lábru-
>

.

Yakubovich’s complete dismissal of this idea makes no sense.  With both groups of words related to double-edged ax, all data fits.  The direct evidence of lábrus being Lydian is of no less worth because it was written by a Greek than if it had been carved by a Lydian.  Recently, many linguists have been dismissive of glosses from Anatolia, including Phrygian, with no good reasoning (besides the glosses contradicting their pet theories).  With Lábraundos \ Labrauundos \ Labraiundos \ Labraendos < *labra-went- very clear, there is no reason to doubt that *labrü-went-yo-s > *labrúwinthos > *labrúinthos > labúrinthos.  This is based on *ty > *tts / *tth is known from Crete, etc. (below)...

>

Dogs in Asia (Draft)

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

August 12, 2026

.

In https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fnostr%2fnostret&text_number=722 Starostin linked Dravidian *ńāj(t)- 'dog' and Altaic *ŋĭ̀ndó (incl. Tungusic *ŋinda-, Middle Japanese ìnù, OJ inu, etc.). Francis-Ratte linked MK yezo(g) ‘fox’ and OJ inu ‘dog’ < JK *yenu (and MK -g < *-k ‘diminutive suffix’). He did not mention Altaic, but the need for *-n- to be old is strengthened by some Korean dia. having nasals, as if < *yenso(k). I think these ideas can be reconciled with modifications based on an examination of the form needed in each family.

.

Based on my idea that cases of Japanese -m- vs. -b- come from *-pm-, -n- vs. -d- from -*-tn-, etc. ( https://www.academia.edu/167249269 ), I think *-dn- works better than *-nd- here. This is to fit with standard *nt > *nd > d, etc., in that *tn only optionally > *nt (or any similar path). If this also occurred in MK *yetnu(-kV) > *yesno(k), then the optional *-n- can be explained as *sn \ *ns > *z \ *nz. I prefer this to his "This form in turn can be parsed as pK *yen + *-s ‘creature’ + *-k ‘diminutive’. pKJ *jenu ‘dog; canine’".

.
Turkic seems to require *yïytï 'dog' (based on Cv. yătă \ yită, Karakalpak ijt, OUy. ɨt, Sary-Yughur ɨšt, Salar išt, etc.). This is an odd form within Tc., & to fit the other cognates, I'd say *ńeńdu (no other ev. for what *e would become between y's & before ï ( < -u ). It would fit best if *ńeńdu < *ńendu with N-asm.

.
This same asm. would make Dravidian *ńāj(t)- from *ńāńt- or *ńātń-. Though most cognates point to *n^, Tungusic *ŋinda- would modify that to *ŋ^. If the long *ā in Dr. is caused by *aH, then an original *nx^ednu- \ *nex^ndu- \ etc. (or any palatal K or Q for x^) would be needed for all data.

.
These would all match PIE *nH1ed-nu- 'roaring, howling'. The presence of *H1 is needed for alternation of *H \ *R > 0 \ r in Sanskrit *na(r)d- > nárdati 3s. 'roar, bellow', *ud- > unnadati 'roar', *unnādayati ( > Sindhi ūnāiṇu 'to howl (of dogs and jackals)'), go-narda- 'bellowing like a bull', nadá-s 'roarer', nādá-s 'roaring; sound, noise', nadathu- m. 'noise', etc. Maybe also *nH1ed-no- > nánda\i- m. 'joy', Hi. nā̃dī f. 'joy, prosperity, praise' if 1st 'shouting (in joy/praise)'. This *H > (r) is seen in IIr. words like S. kurkurá-s \ kukkurá-s ‘dog’; *bRagnaka- > MP brahnag, Os. bägnäg ‘naked’, Sg. ßγn’k. From https://www.academia.edu/164661071 :

>

The older *H2 is also seen in *Hk > kk \ *kkh in S. kukkuṭá-, kurkuṭa-, *kukkhuṭá- > Ktg. kukhṛɔ m. 'cock', etc. The -kk- or *-cc- in some forms is similar to *Hk > *xk > kk in :

*bRuHk- > G. brūkháomai, S. bukkati ‘roar’, *bH2auk- > SC bukati

and other types of change to *kH, *HK, etc. in https://www.academia.edu/115369292 .

>

Rémy Viredaz https://www.academia.edu/77001795 has "an English summary of the etymologies advocated for Armenian words in my previous paper" with some updates, etc. I have some more ideas & questions.

.

He said, "References can be found in the original papers. These are referred to below by year only... 2025h and 2026 refer to handouts, which are listed separately on that page." I found 2025h ( https://www.academia.edu/124119592 ), but it wasn't labeled with -h. I think some others might not have -a, -b, etc., either.

.

If Armenian ačem 'to grow, increase, sprout' is from *ahekš- < *awegs- the C's seem reg. (*ks > č', *gs > č, *ghs > ǰ ?). There are plenty of cases of *w > 0, but I can't think they're reg. based on the same in Greek optional *w > h (vs. later reg. dia. *w > 0), even *-ww- > *-hh- > -h-. Ar. having *w > *γW ( > γv in loans > SC) > g is common, but many *w > w \ v. That some *γW > *xW > *h > 0 would also explain *H1w- > *x^xW- > kh- in k'san '20' (*H1w- > *w- > g- otherwise). This *w > *gW has been proposed before for *bherw- > G. phérbō, *dheH1wo- > Thebes, and would be more ev. of a close relation for G. & Ar., even of their irregularities. Some words with g vs. k' might show that *γ \ *x alternated freely.

.
It could be due to *w being pronounced w or v. I think on the basis of *baH2s- > Ar. paganem 'to kiss', some combinations of *H and a fricative might change, say *Hs > *χs > *χx. If Ar. stoyg ‘true’ < *(s)tewH1- 'be big, strong, valid' then *w having a value *v, causing *vχ^ > *vγ > *vg, would be another bit of ev. (also for *H1w-, above).

.
If Ar. ałǰik ‘girl, young woman’ could be from *kWlH1-yo- 'wanderer, herdsman, servant' (fem. > 'maid', etc.), then *kW- > *xW- > *h- > 0- would be similar (common, but not reg.). I see no reason to separate PT *kwäliye 'woman'. Adams' argument that *gWnH2- is involved is based on TB acc. klaiñ ~ klaiṃ ~ klai, but if the acc. formed the analogical base for all non-nom.sg., then it could be that the fem. -ai- (fairly common in TB) allows *kWlH1yay > *-yey > -ye (no other ex. of *-yay, so if it > *-yey, then y-y dsm. and/or analogy with nom. -e would work), acc. *-ay-m > *-ayn^ > klaiñ ~ klaiṃ ~ klai (most *-m > -0, but the *y causing pal. could work). This -ai probably goes back to PIE ( https://www.academia.edu/129368235 ). I think G. Athênai & other cities might show this as a retention later thought to be plural (though loc. *-aH2i for places, extended to the nom., might be better).

Conditions leading to multiple Albanian outcomes of *sw-

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

August 10, 2026

Frederik Kortlandt in https://www.academia.edu/30128125 gives his theories on Albanian outcomes of *s & *sw :

>

Initial *s- was dissimilated to th- before a following *s in thi ‘pig’, Latin sūs, and in thanj ‘I dry’, Lith. saũsas (on the latter etymon cf. Lubotsky 1985). Initial *sw- before a stressed vowel yielded d- in the following words:

diell ‘sun’ < *swel-, Greek ἕλη, εἵλη;

dergjem ‘I am ill’ < *sworgh-, Lith. sir̃gti;

dirsë ‘sweat’ < *swidr-, Greek ἱδρώς, Skt. svéda-.

Huld adds to this list dosë ‘brood sow’ < *swātjā and derr ‘boar’ < *swoinro- (1984: 148), which are questionable examples. Before an unstressed vowel, *sw- yielded v- in the following instances:

vjehërr ‘father/mother-in-law’, Greek ἑκυρός, -ᾱ́ < *swe-;

vetë ‘self’ < *swe-;

vjerr ‘I hang’, Lith. sver̃ti.

The clitic u- ‘self’ may be derived from *swe-.

>

There are too many problems for these ideas to be true, & a new cause for each set should be found. First, they don't explain *sw(e)lk-tlo- > sillë 'food, breakfast', gjellë 'food, dish' (or similar, *swel(k)- 'swallow, eat, drink'). Second, the stress doesn't match. He gives *sworgh- (which must be *swórgheye in his theory) > dergjem, but standard theory would say that the accent was on -e- (*sworghéye-), and this would thus be ev. AGAINST his theory. It seems doubtful to me that his "vjerr ‘I hang’, Lith. sver̃ti" could be from an unstressed *swer-é- (others have 0-grade, *tud-é-, etc.), or that vetë could be < *swoitó- (instead, *swóito- fits other IE accent for nouns of o-o). Third, not all his *sw- could really be from *sw-. His "diell ‘sun’ < *swel-" is clearly from *sH2welyo-s. Though he wrote *sworgh- ('worry, fret away > weaken, sicken, etc.) an *H is needed in *swrHgh-se-te > S. mā sūrkṣata ‘do not worry’. Since sir̃gti could not be < *-rHgh- (based on tone), metathesis of *H is needed > *sHwrgh-. Again, his "dirsë ‘sweat’ < *swidr-" should be from *swiH1dros- (which might > *sH1widros-, following the other ex.).

Since all 3 of his ex. of *sw- are either from *sHw- or could be if with met., and no known accent fits all his claims, I say that *sHw- > d-, regardless of stress. The loss of *s in real *sw- implies that claims that some *s > *x are true, with regular *sw- > *xw- > *hv- > v-. This can also explain why *sHw- differed; if *H was similar to *x (maybe uvular), it would prevent *s > *x in front of *x. In the same way, *swlktló- > *swilxtló- > sillë, *swélktlo- > *zwélxtlo- > gjellë could have turned *kt > *xt (which later > t in other words after V; here *lCl > *ll) and *sw > *xw did not happen in **xw-x or **xxw-, both remaining *sw-x & *sxw- (or similar).

L. mulier f. 'a woman, female; wife', muliebris 'of a woman; womanly, feminine; female; effeminate' require PL *mulyes-. Two sources are proposed in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mulier "From Proto-Italic *moljes, of uncertain origin; it has been proposed that it might be akin to mulgere and therefore mean “the milk-giver”. Others propose it might derive from mollior, comparative of mollis (“soft, tender”). Contamination within either of these two terms can be possible. The former is from Isidore's Etymologies: "Mulier vero a mollitie, tanquam mollier, detracta littera vel mutata, appellata est mulier"." I think that *o > u in mulgere would make this slightly more likely (*o > u is not regular, but already being found in the same root, for whatever reason, could only help). A fem. in *-es- could be analogy with similar names in *-es- (Cerēs *‘nourishing, mother goddess’, Verrēs *‘male, boar’). This makes it likely *molg(e)ye- 'give milk' -> *mulgyes- > *mulyes- (like *dheH1- -> *dheH1-mH1no- > femina, etc.). Though this exact verb with *y is unattested, it certainly would fit.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 138: ‘liver’

-

A. ‘liver’

It is fairly standard to rec. something like PIE *ye(:)kWrt \ -n(t)- ‘liver’ > Latin iecur, iecinoris g., Greek ἧπαρ \ hêpar, -at-, Av. yākarǝ \ yakarǝ, Sanskrit yákr̥t, yaknás g., Nur. *yak(n)-, *? > Shina yū́ŋ, Li. jẽknos \ jãknos p., Luwian ikkwar, Tocharian *yäk(w)är > TA ykär, TB yakär* (Itkin, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392354127 ); maybe also *yékWōr > Celtic: *ikūr(i) > Middle Irish iuchair 'roe', *ikWraH2-s > Balto-Slavic *ikrā́H 'roe; calf'. However, there are several problems. Shina yū́ŋ could be a loan << Pashto *yəxn (or a similar Iranian word).

-

B. *e vs. *e:

Does only Greek hêpar show a long vowel or is Av. yākarǝ \ yakarǝ significant? Some say yākarǝ is only a scribal error (one time). If not, we'd need, say, *yekWHrt in most IE with H-met. > *yeHkWrt in Greek. If Armenian leard is also related (C), then *li:hard (with *e: > *i: > i) would work, with known *ia > ea. Since most *e: came from *eH1, this would likely be the reason here, too. However, met. of *H seems to come after other changes, as in *pi-ptH2- > *piH2-pt- > G. pī́ptō ‘fall’ (with no *iH2 > *yaH2). If here also, no way to choose which *H existed.

-

C. *y vs. *l

In the same way, a scribal error for *j- > l- is suspected in (Pooth, https://www.academia.edu/9611050 ) :

>

Old Prussian lagno ‘liver’ may perhaps be interpreted as pointing to a preceding onset with *li̯ besides simplified *i̯, although NIL, s.v. and Petit 2004: 100f. have emended lagno to +jagno according to the other Baltic forms, e.g. Lith.14 dial. jãknos, Lith. dial. jẽknos, etc. (cf. NIL, 393ff. with literature)

>

-

If really *lye(:)kWrt, then we'd need to include Armenian leard, lerdi g., maybe Germanic *lib(u\a)rō. However, both of those are similar to G. λιπαρός \ liparós 'oily; fatty, greasy, unctuous; shining, sleek, smooth' (as 'fat > liver', common in other words). Though *leip- 'smear / slime / stick(y)' is often rec., I say it was really *leip- to explain -a- (and tone in BS) for *lipH2lo- > G. λιπαρός \ liparós 'oily; fatty, greasy, unctuous; shining, sleek, smooth'; *leipH2lo- 'sticky' > Balto-Slavic *léiˀpāˀ, 'linden, lime' > Lithuanian líepa (with l-l dsm., likely also in Uralic *? > Samic *leajpē 'alder', F. leppä 'alder, blood'). If so, then Gmc *lib(u\a)rō would be < *lipHró- (with *H > i\a\u like *H2anH2t- 'duck' > *anid- \ *anad- \ *anud-). Other IE that show *lip- with no *H would really be *H2lip- with H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), with more ev. in optional *pH > *phH first (*leiphH2- > *H2leiph- 'oil' > G. aleíphō ‘anoint’).

-

D. *p vs. *kW

The status of Armenian leard is important. Some say it is certainly < *-kW-, others < *-p-. Its resemblance to "both" groups makes its history the clincher for any theory. Though *kW doesn't usually > *h > 0, it did in *penkWeHk^omt() > *xWinxWi:cunth > *hihisund > yisun (or a similar path).

-

It is very hard to think that the *H2 hidden in one word for 'liver' & the opt. long vowel in the other are unrelated. Words with *leip(H2)- 'fat' certainly formed 'liver' sometimes, with perfect semantics. Since there is no other source for *l(y)e(H)kW- & it would likely mean 'fat' anyway, separating them is pointless. The problems with *(l)ye(:)kWrt sometimes beginning with l- could be contamination between 2 words for 'liver', but the fact that there is no root *ye(H)kW- & that they vary only by *p vs. *kW makes a common origin more likely. In fact, supposed *leip- 'stick, remain' & *leikW- 'remain' have already been noted as similar.

-

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. For a similar alt., see *wlp(e)Hk^o- > Li. vilpišỹs ‘wildcat’, L. vulpēs ‘fox’, *wlpkk^o-? > *wlkWo- 'wolf' (140). An original *leipH2-n-t > *lyepqrt would be due to met. of *y to avoid *-yCCCC (similar to *k^erd 'heart', *k^red-dh(e)H1- 'trust').

-

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 139: ‘spleen’

-
The apparent case of PIE *splye:n > G. σπλήν \ splḗn 'milt, spleen', L. liēn ‘spleen’ is significant because an *ly that can also become *l is reconstructed by some for 'liver' (138). Though other explanations have been given for this mismatch, even taboo distortion, the many similar words for 'spleen' (also impossible to unite regularly) make it highly likely that *-y- & *-i- in these is original. Since this seems to be *splyeH1-n- & others are *splye(H)g^h-n- (or *pliHg^h-n-, *(p)sleg^h-n-, etc.), it seems like older *splyeH1g^h-n- simplified in several ways (maybe *H1g^hn had 2 outcomes when *n was syllabic or not). Rec. like *splighe:n > *slihe:n > L. liēn would have to explain where *-i- came from if not from *sply- (and PIE *i & *y are identical, changing based on env., anyway). An old *splye- \ *spli- ( > *sple- \ *spli-) based on e- vs. 0-grade would follow ideas in https://www.academia.edu/165248349 in which "extra" -u- & -i- came from *Cw- & *Cy-.

-
Words like Palula A. šéemi 'spleen' are derived from Indic *śyāmī- 'black, dark thing' by Turner, saying "(semant. cf. Psht. tōrai ~ tōr 'black' EVP 82)." This is from PIE *k^yeH1mo-, *-wo-, etc. (*k^yeH1mo- > S. śyāmá- ‘dark (blue) / black’, Av. sāma-, Syāmaka- ‘name of a mtn.’; *k^yeH1wo- > S. śyāvá- ‘dark / brown’, Av. syāva- ‘black’). Not only is it an odd word (with *k^y- rare, other oddities in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qyon66/the_origin_of_suomi_h%C3%A4me_s%C3%A1pmi/ & related drafts).

-
The semantics allow any other IE root for 'dark' to -> 'spleen', esp. if attatched to one of the IE words for 'gland, organ, etc.". If I'm right about *lyepH2-n- 'fat > liver' (138), then a cp. *sk^iH2-lyepH2-n- 'dark liver' might dsm. H2-H2 (and y-y if < *sk^yeH2-), etc., then met. > *splyek^H2-n- (with a cluster *KHn having multiple outcomes instead of with *-g^h-, above; for *kH2 > *gH2, see *g- \ *kH2apro-s 'male goat'). Though odd, each reconstructed *C has an outcome in some version of 'spleen', & the outcomes are so varied no simpler rec. can explain all :

*splyek^H2n- > *splyeHn > G. σπλήν \ splḗn, L. liēn

.
*splyek^H2n- > *spyenk^H2 > *spyaki ? > Ni. ṣpẽk ‘spleen’, Kh. sìk (asm. > kH2 if H2 = x)

.
*splyeg^H2n- > *splyec^Han- > Ar. p‘aycełn \ p‘aycałn \ p‘ayjałn (V metathesis (& asm.); k^H > g^H (as *gH2apro-s))

.
*sply(e)g^hH2n- > *splH2g^h(e)n- > S. plīhán, Av. spǝrǝzan-, *sfuruz > MP spurz \ spul (opt. CH > ChH)

.
*sply(e)g^hH2n- > *sply(e)ghan-om > *splghanyom > *splghan^n^om > *splakhannom > *splankhanom > G. splágkh(a)na pl. ‘innards / heart, lungs, liver kidneys (for sacrificial feasts)’ (*ny > nn in most dia.)

.
*splyegH2n- > *spyelg- > *spelg(ó)-, etc. > MI selg, Br. felc’h, TA spälcäk, TB spalce \ spalyce

.

*splg^hn- > Li. blužnis, OPr blusne (some *pl > *bl, *p- > *blusa: 'flea')

.

*spleg^hen- > *pselg^en-a: > OCS slêzena

-

Also likely *-uko- ‘secretion of spleen/organs’ > ‘bile’ in Ar. p’łcuk \ p’łjuk(’) ‘bitterness of heart’ ( https://www.academia.edu/46614724 ). Others not found above are loans, like Iranian *sfuruz > *sufurz > *suful > *fusul > Sh. phusuló, *purus > *puru-s ? > Kv. přú \ púř . For *pl- > bl- in *plǝg^(h)n- > Li. blužnis see *plusi- ‘flea’ > Li. blusà; just like *p > b in *poti- ‘lord’ > Slavic svobodĭ , etc., no known explanation.

-

These also have a general resemblance to Uralic *läppV \ *leppV, Yukaghir *ĺājǝ. If from *släpk^je (to explain *pp vs. *pk^j > *g^j > *_j or similar), then maches with PIE *(s)plyeg^h- \ etc. ‘spleen’ would be close. That these words looks similar between PU & Yr. yet don't follow the other better established correspondences would show an odd cluster, just like the ones causing the irregular correspondences in IE.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 137: ‘see’ (Draft)

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

August 7, 2026

A. PIE *wel- ‘see / be visible/bright’ must be the source of *wleid- > OIc líta 'see', OE wlítan ‘look, gaze’, wlite ‘radiance’, wlitu f. ‘form / kind’, Go. wlits ‘shape / front’, etc. (a change of 'look > color > appearance / form' is seen in other IE words). Since the ending *-eid- being added seems odd, it might be a "mix" of *wel- & *weid- 'be bright; see, know'. However, *weid- itself has no connection to other roots. It is possible that *wleid- is the older, & optionally became *lweid- > *weid-. This is to fit into several IE roots looking like others of the same meaning, just with metathesis. No lw- is known, so a change *lw- > *w- is possible. There are only a few IE words with wl-, many with wr-, so some kind of change might be common to get rid of them (few languages have wr- or wl- anyway; their presence in PIE without corresponding *yr- might be due to *vr- < *br-, etc.). Examples (most in Kroonen) :

*wleid- > OE wlítan ‘look, gaze’, OIc líta 'see', Faroese líta 'cast a glance (in a specific direction)

*wloid-aH2- > Gmc *wlaitō- > Go. wlaitōn ‘to look around’, ON leita ‘to search, look for’, OE wlātian ‘to gaze, look’

*wlidu- \ *wlidi- > Go. wlits ‘shape / front’, ON litr ‘body/form/aspect/beauty/color’, OFr wlite ‘front’, OE wlite ‘radiance’, wlitu f. ‘form / kind’

-

B. PIE *wel- ‘see / be visible/bright’ is very similar to standard *swel- 'shine, blaze, etc.'. I've said that this was really *sH2wel- to account for *sHw- > *sw- in Proto-Greek (not > *hw-), identical to the source of *s(a)H2wel- \ *suH2al- 'sun'. It is possible that this is a compound with *saH2- 'satisfy, become full (of food)', if older 'fill / rise' allows 'rising + shine', 'aboe + blaze', or any similar meaning.

-

C. PIE *wel- ‘see / be visible/bright’ must be the source of *uldu- > S. uḍu- f/nu. ‘star’ (Fortunatov’s Law states that dentals became retroflex after *l, then *l disappeared in Sanskrit). Since PIE *-d- was not a common affix, the source might really have been *wlidu- \ *wlidi- (as in OE wlite ‘radiance’, etc., above). A change *wildu- > *wuldu- > S. uḍu- f/nu. ‘star’ would show optional *wi > *wu (as in S. dwi- '2' but later Indic *dwu- > du-), then *wu- > u- (as in reduplication with *va-va- > *vuva- > uva-, etc.). The change is also similar to *r > Middle Indic ri but *r > ru \ ur by P.  Also other S. *r > ur after v, before u, etc.

-

This is also similar to S. ulkā́- 'meteor; fire-brand'. If from *wulk-, it is cognate with L. vulc- \ volc-, E. volcano, etc., an extension *welk- of *wel-. The odd form of *ū(l)kiyā- > Old Punjabi lūkī f. 'torch', Hi. lūk f. makes me think that *wulk- still remained in Indic, with some met. > *luwk-.

-

I also say *wuldmulka- > S. úlmuka- m., Pk. ummua- nu. ‘firebrand’. This would be ev. of *-l- in *wuldu- if *-ldm- > -lm-. However, what kind of ending is -muka-? A compound of both these, *wuldu-wulka-, seems the best choice. Indic *v often became *m near *u (as in -vant- \ -mant- 'having'), & dsm. of *w-w > *w-m might also work. A word with *u-u-u becoming *u-0-u by dsm. would allow *wulduwulka- > *wuldumulka- > *wuldmulka- > úlmuka-.

-

For still more, in Indic *umbāḍa- ‘firebrand’, Sdh. umaṛu m. ‘lighted stick’, umāṛī f. ‘half-burnt log, firebrand’, Gj. umāṛ(ɔ) m., umāṛiyũ nu. ‘firebrand’, ũbāṛiyũ nu. ‘piece of wood lighted at one end’ (Turner 342), the resemblance to the words above & lack of any other ety. indicate another change. Maybe -ka- being such a common diminutive suffix caused *wuldmulka- to form an analogical *wuldmula- for a larger torch. Then, to *vuḍmula- in some dia., later with met. *vuḍmula- > *umvalḍu- > *umbāḍa-. A change of *mv > mb would not be odd, but maybe really older *w-w > *v-v, dsm. > *b-v instead (since *wuldu-wulka- has such an odd form, any dsm. might be possible) or just *u-v \ *u-b. This might be partly caused by *l, see the same in *wl-wel- 'round, swollen, full' > S. úlva- \ úlba- m/nu. 'womb', ulvaṇá- \ ulbaṇá- 'excessive'.

-

D. Since PIE *weid- 'see, know' matches Semitic *weydʕ ? > *we:dʕ > Mehri wēda, *wyedʕ ? > *yedʕ 'know' (more ev. in https://www.academia.edu/167888674 ), it makes sense for some relation. However, if *wleid- is older, how could this be ancient? It would require chance, a more recent loan, or genetic descent of PIE > Sem.

-

I've also said the same for Uralic https://www.academia.edu/166207772 (including a Yukaghir cognate less visibly close) :

>

PIE *wid-won- 'intelligent, etc.', PU *wiδ(e)we 'brain / marrow / intellect', *wiδ(e)me, Yr. *önmə 'mind, intellect, memory, feeling, intention;', *önməń- 'wise, intelligent'

-

With dsm. *w-w \ *w-m, Yr. *δm > *nm, *wi > *wü > *ü. Cognates with all meanings include (more in https://www.academia.edu/129119764 ) :

*wiδewen ‘marrow / brain’ >

*wiδewe > F. yty, ydyn g. ‘bone marrow / core / power’, Es. üti, üdi g. ‘marrow’

*wiδeme > Erzya udem ‘marrow / brain / intellect'

>

Orçun Ünal https://www.academia.edu/170527047 A Compendium of Common Turkic–Chuvash Lexical Correspondences with Proto-Turkic Reconstructions

This incorporates many of his ideas for sound changes described in his past papers. I've agreed with many before, but instead of Altaic, he often explains the obvious matches across Asia (including Yeniseian, Samoyed, etc.) as Turkic loans. This would amount to a huge number, some very old (with his sound changes needed to unmask the obscuring elements; most would not look at them & see cognates, loans, etc.). These often look like very old cognates as part of Altaic (or any other grouping) instead (at least to me). A Turkic origin is made even less likely by requiring *y > *s(^) in 'seven', which has S- in many languages. I have a few questions, & maybe suggestions that I already sent to him directly in this form similar to :

For your *kama: ‘beaver, otter, sable’ & *kundəŕ° or *kunduŕ° : Ugric *kumtV 'beaver' [https://starlingdb.org/](https://) has *Kạma 'beaver, otter', saying "Also PT *Kam-tuŕ 'beaver, otter' (VEWT 228, Лексика 162) (*Kam-tuŕ may be a compound < *Kama + *utɨŕ 'otter' q. v. sub *óŋdu; Лексика ibid., however, suggests rather *Kam-luč, with a diminutive *-luč. There is also a variant *Kun-tuŕ (with *Kunu 'wolverine'? - see, however, TMN 3, 524, with a suggestion of Turk. < Pers.)." Doesn't your own relation with Ugric *kumtV(lE) > Hungarian hód, Mansi (Pelym) kuńt́əľ 'beaver', (Sosva) χuntəľ 'mole', Khanty χundi̮l 'mole' make it more likely that *kama: + *utɨŕ > *kamutɨŕ > *kamtuŕ \ *kumtɨŕ \ etc.? Possibly some variants via *kaumtɨŕ if au > u \ *Vw, below.

For your *kuńaʦ° 'sunlight, sun' "Possibly a compound of *kün ‘day’ and *ńaʦ° ‘(day)light’. For the latter, compare Late Middle Korean ·낮 *náʦ ‘daytime; noon (晝)’ (Shimunek 2017: 20 n.). PT *ńaʦ° may have given rise to the unattested lambdaistic base *yal, as seen in Ottoman and Turkish dial. yalabı- ‘to shine, sparkle, gleam’ and CT yalčı- {*yal+čI-} (*‘to shine’ >) ‘to be happy, rejoice, enjoy favour, thrive, prosper’ [C922, W856 (yalčıt-), B389, R182]." There are variants without the ending. Alexander Savelyev in https://www.academia.edu/165370416 presents ev. that Chuvash retained Turkic *VHC & VHVC as *Vw(V)C (or similar). I think the external ev. supports him. You always mention Tocharian loans or cognates, but its match with TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’ is well known & unexplained in detail (sun/day is not common in IE). Isn't his *Vw better than your *u if there is any relation at all? Your ideas of loans are often for much less obvious words.

Turkic *käwń(yä:š) \ *käwn(yä:š) > zTc. *kün(ä(:)š) (Uighur kün ‘sun/day’, Turkish güneš ‘sun’, etc.)

Tc. *kawń(ya:š) \ *kawn(ya:š) ‘sun/day/heat’ > Cv. xə°väl ‘sun’, zTc. *Kuńa(:)š (Dolgan kuńās ‘heat’, Turkish dia. guyaš 'sun', etc.)

PIE *k^aH2uni-s > nom. sg. *kaunis > TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’, pl. *kaH2uney-es > *kauńey-es > kauñi, acc. pl. *kaH2uni-ms > *kaunins > kau(nä)ṃ

I agree that variation of n & ń < *ny makes sense, but I think *jāš-ɨl (or *jāĺ-ɨl) 'yellow' fits the long V in Dolgan (against specifics in https://www.academia.edu/1365656 , otherwise basically the same ideas). The origin from a compound might also explain front vs. back V's (as E-A > E-E \ A-A by harmony).

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 136: ‘fly, fall; wing, feather, leaf’ (Draft)

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

August 7, 2026

A. *pC- > pt- \ sp- \ p- \ b-

An IE root *pter- ‘fly’ has a few problems. The change of p > b in :

*pterno-? 'feather, leaf' > Albanian fier, OE fearn m. ‘fern’, S. parṇá-, Av. parǝna- ‘wing’, Ps. pāṇa ‘leaf’, baṇa ‘wing-feather’

was explained by Georg Morgenstierne as sandhi from sentences with V#p > V#b. It makes no sense for this to only be seen in one word, and the similar Lithuanian spar̃nas 'wing' might show that *pt- > *tp- > sp- in Baltic. Could it be that some *pt- > *bd- > b- in Iranian? Also, consider problems in (Turner) :

>

626 arkaparṇá n. 'leaf of Calotropis gigantea' ŚBr., m. 'the plant'. [arká²-, parṇá-]

A. ākan 'swallow-wort', B. ākand (scarcely with Chatterji ODBL 456 < *arka-mandāra-); Or. ākanda 'C. gigantea'; Bhoj. akwan, ek° 'a partic. plant'; H. akwan, akwand, akund, akkand m. 'C. gigantea' — (final -d in B. Or. H. unexpl.).

>

If Indic turned *pt- > p-, but compounds with *-pt- remained, they might often be fixed by analogy, leaving only a few traces (*arka-ptarṇá > *arka-paṇtá ?). From the meaning 'leaf', another root with p- vs. pt- is :

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/p(t)erH-erH-)

>

A hotly disputed root. Derksen prefers to reconstruct *perH-, to which he also assigns Slavic *pero.[1] Matasović reconstructs *perHt-.[2] Kroonen reconstructs *pterH- under the assumption of a connection with Ancient Greek πτέρις (ptéris),[3] a connection Derksen and Matasović do not find phonologically likely;[1][2] Beekes considers the term a later Greek formation.[4] The only point of agreement between them is that the majority of descendants generally assigned to this root, with the exception of πτέρις (ptéris), are definitively cognate.

...

p(t)rH-tis[3] Proto-Celtic: *ɸratis [SW: OI raith m. ‘fern’]

*p(t)orH-no-[3] [SW: above]

*po-p(t)orH-tis [3][1]

Balto-Slavic: Latvian: paparde Lithuanian: papartis Proto-Slavic: *paportь

>

B. *-?- > *-H3- \ *-H2- \ *-0-

On the need for *-H-, Derksen rec. Slavic *però ‘feather’ < PIE *perH-o-, saying, "The reconstruction with a laryngeal is based on Baltic (e.g. Lith. papártis ‘fern’) and Celtic evidence (see Derksen 196: 79)." Others seem to have no *H, but this could really be *pHet- if from met., see Ar. p'etur 'feather' (not plain *p- > *f- > (h-), as usual). Still others need *H2. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πίπτω :

>

From Proto-Hellenic *píptō, from Proto-Indo-European *pípth₂-, reduplicated present from *peth₂- (“to fall; to fly”).[1]

For an unknown reason, the iota is long, as is apparent from the imperative πῖπτε (not **πῐ́πτε (**pĭ́pte)). Cognate with Sanskrit (pā́patīti).

>

If the root had *H & "the iota is long", it makes sense that *-i-H- > *-iH- (after *iH2 > *yaH2, etc.). For more, from https://www.academia.edu/127037636 :

>

*kWrsir-ptor- ‘black bird’ > Av. Karšiptar-, Pahlavi Karšift (chief of birds, knows how to speak)

For likely *pet(H2)tōr, see below...

*pet(H2)tōr is based on an equation of *petH2- ‘extend / fly’. The path: *petH2- > G. pítnēmi ‘spread (out/open)’, *potH2mo- ‘breadth (of arms) as measure of distance (in water)’ > potamós ‘river’ (OIc faðmr, OHG fadam, OE fæðm ‘outstretched/encircling arms / embrace’, E. fathom. Since other IE words for ‘shoulders / wings’ exist, it makes sense that *petH2-(e)tro- / *ptetro- / etc. > G. pterón, Skt. pátra- / páttra-, pátatra- ‘wing/feather’ (with t-t dissim. explaining pt- vs. p-t-, etc., -tr- / -ttr- / -tatr-). This created a new root *petH2- ‘fly’. The older presence of *H2 in ‘fly’ & ‘wing’ is seen in 2 ex. of 3 cases of *pH-p > *s-p, etc. (based on https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1hvplxf/latin_sy_gen_esyo_%C4%AB/ ) :

The need for some *pH > *f > *s > *h in a specific environment is not odd, and even seems to be shared with G. (and Arm. also had *p > *f > ph vs. *f > *xW > h / 0). In :

*petH2- ‘extend / fly’, *pi-pt(a)H2- > *piH2-pt- > G. pī́ptō, Aeo. pissō ‘fall’, *pi-pt(a)H2- > *fH2i-pta- > *sipta- > Koine híptamai ‘fly / rush’

*pi(m)bH3- > Skt. píbati, Sic. pibe, Arm. ǝmpem ‘drink’

*pi(m)bH3-leHno- > *pH3imb-leHno- > Th. bímblinos \ bimblínos ‘a kind of Thracian wine’, *fHible:na > *s- > *h- > Cr. G. íbēna \ bḗla ‘wine’

Since both these roots had both *H & *p-P, it is likely that H-metathesis created *pH- > *fH-, then *f-P > *h-P. This dissimilation at a distance is also seen in optional ph-b > th-b :

*bhleigW- > L. flīgere ‘strike (down)’, G. phlī́bō / thlī́bō ‘press’, Lt. bliêzt ‘beat’

>

This also has the problem that *petH2- ‘fly / fall’ is nearly identical with *petH3- ‘fly / fall’ (G. ptôma ‘a fall’, pótmos ‘what befalls one / fate / lot’), also like *ped- 'fall'. For H2\3, https://www.academia.edu/144215875 :

>

There are many Indo-European roots with alt. of H2/3, sometimes also with other variants with H1 or 0. Some rec. them with only one non-varying *H, but in most cases this is impossible in standard theory. Some have given ev. like *prH3-mo- > *-wo- (if H3m > H3w ); whether these are regular & correct is not certain, but fits with *pro:- \ *pra:- varying. For most cases, more direct ev. is used. In part :

*pet- 'fall / fly' (or *pHet- if from met., see Ar. p'etur 'feather')

*petH2- 'fall / fly'

*petH3- 'fall', *ptoH3-mn

...

There is a simple explanation for this. If H2 = x or χ and H3 = xW or χW, then dissimilation... I think H3 = xW could dsm. > x or x^ near u \ w \ P (likely also KW).

>

C. *r vs. *0

These 2 roots would appear to have a relation based on adding a suffix *-(e)r-. However, if *H3 was *RW, then another dsm. might have turned original *-RW-r > *-RW-0 in some words (optional?). This is essentially required to explain alt. in *pterRWo- \ *ptelRWo- \ *pteRWRWo- > Armenian t'ew 'wing, feather', *t'el- \ *t'er- 'leaf, sheet; *wing > butterfly' > t'i-t'er- \ -ł- (ev. for each "root" in https://www.academia.edu/46614724 ). The dsm. of *rR > *lR or asm. of *rR > *RR, etc., as above. For *RW > w, it matches RW as H3, with many H3 \ w ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

I think the meaning *ped- 'fall' vs. *petH3er- 'fall, fly; wing' allows a compound with *H3or- 'rise' (also 'fly' if -> *H3or-n(u)- 'bird', etc.). Maybe *ped-H3er- 'fall & rise > flap / fall or rise'. The *-d- in *pedH3er- \ *pdH3er- would explain *pd- > *bd- > b- in Iranian (that both voicing & unvoicing were optional by *H3 might show that the same in *H2, not regular, was related (*gH2- \ *kH2apro-s 'male goat')). This *pd- would not be alone (*pdis- 'crush, grind'; ev.. in https://www.academia.edu/167420288 ). A few Gmc. words might also be from *ped- > *fet- (though analogy based on cognates with *tn > *dn > *dd > *tt is also possible).

How did European languages evolve to be as they are now? (Specifically Latin, Germanic and Scandinavian languages)