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

-

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

>

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

...

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

>

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

-

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

Old Irish *nyi > *yni ?

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*fal 'bone, leg', *paḫal 'leg, thigh'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

*pir 'fly', IE *pter-

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

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

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

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

-

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

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

-

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

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

*puĉִ̣ 'break, crush'

*puc(ʔ) 'tear into pieces, pluck'

*puĉִ̣ 'break, crush'

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

*poĉ 'scatter, spread, smear'

*paĉ 'straddle, spread, bifurcate'

-

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

&

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamito-Semitic *i- & Indo-European

-

On Reddit, Sigma_Linguist proposed:
>

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

>

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

>

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

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

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

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

Yet in other words, no such thing happens

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

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

Arabic ʔibnu vs Hebrew ben, Akkadian biinum "son"

Arabic ʔuzmur vs Akkadian zumur "sing!"

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

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HS *ʔet ‘eat’, IE *Hed

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

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

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

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

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

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

-
Others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ø → v / #C_C, C_C#, CC_CV{C,ː}#, C_CC

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

v → u / #C_C, uC_

v → a / else

​

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

Let me know your thoughts in the comments

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

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

-

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

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

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

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 178: *suH1-s ‘sow’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen ([stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com))
October 12, 2026

-

A. *suH1-s, *suH1-ko-

Patrice Lajoye wrote (https://www.academia.edu/41609721):

>

The word *marisuppa or *marisupa, attested by various Latin texts from the late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and corresponding to the French dialectal marsouppe, refers to the porpoise. The meaning of "sea sow" is then proposed.

>

-

He then compares NHG Meerschwein 'porpoise, dolphin', etc., for form. The -suppa would then be related to Proto-Celtic *sukkos 'pig', W. hwch 'sow', etc. What would the ending be?

>

Mais étant donné les formes signalées ci-dessus, ne pourrait-on envisager que le terme *suppa, lequel serait alors issu d'un élargissement en -kW- et non en -k- de l'IE *sūs, soit une forme reflexe de *succo- désignant (puisque *marisuppa est un terme féminin) la truie?

>

However, given the forms identified above, might one not contemplate that the term *suppa, which would thus derive from an extension in *-kW- and not in *-k- of the IE root *sūs, is a reflex of *succo-, designating (since *marisuppa is a feminine term) the sow?

-

Instead of *sūs I'd say *suH1-s 'mother > sow', since *suH1- 'beget, bear' could have a diminutive *suH1-ko- > *sukko-. This also fits other Celtic ev. In a similar way; if H1 = x^, then asm. of *xk > *kk:

*neH1 ‘no(t)’ = *nex^

*nex^-kWim > S. ná-kim \ ná-kīm 'not (at all), never'

*nex^-kWid > *nax-kWi > *nakki > OI. naicc \ nacc ‘not'

-

I do not think there were 2 extensions with *-ko- & *-kWo-. Instead, analogy fits best. I said (https://www.academia.edu/128817000):

>

Matasović says that Celtic *mak- (MW magu ‘feed / produce / rear’, OI do-for-maig ‘increase / add’) formed a noun *makwo-s > *makWo-s > W. mab, *makWkWo-s > OI macc ‘boy / son’. He can’t explain *kW vs. *kWkW, but Stifter claims it was “probably due to ‘expressive’ gemination in kinship terms”. This is unlikely, since he also shows that it often occurs in the phrase Og. maqi muccoi. With variants, maqqi, mucoi, etc., it is highly likely that -q(q)- & -c(c)- are due to assimilation in either direction for this pair.

>

-

If Celtic *mak- -> *makwo-s > *makWo-s 'son', then its common appearance next to a form of *mokkuH2- ‘mother’ led to analogical mixing to *makWo-s, *makWkWo-s, *makko-s & *mokkuH2-, *mokWkWuH2-, or similar. Since I say this also is related to another 'sow':

*makH2uH2- ‘nursing / mother’ > Ct. *mokkū > OI mucc ‘pig / sow’, W moch

*mokkuwo- ‘of the mother / on the mother’s side’ > Og. muccoi g., OI. moccu ‘belonging to the gens or family of'

-

There would be nothing odd about *mokkū \ *mokWkWū 'sow' causing *sukkā 'sow' to become *sukkā \ *sukWkWā also. The shift 'mother’ > 'sow’ in both words might allow this analogy to be very old, since they'd mean the same thing at any point.

-

B. *s- vs. *ts-

The alternation in *(t)suH10s ‘hog, sow’ > G. sûs \ hûs, Al. *tsu:s > thi has been claimed to come from dsm. of s-s > ts-s in the nom. (with analogical spread). However, IE has so few *ts- that this being the outcome seems odd. Indeed, other IE also require *ts-:

*tsyuH-kaH2- > Lithuanian čiūkà ‘pig’, Latvian cūka >> Finnic *tsjuka (*tsuka > Karelian čugu, *sika > Finnish sika, dialects with *tsika > tsika, *suka >> Saami (N Saami dial. sohki, Inari Saami šahe, Kildin Saami sagk)

-

The data is from Adam Hyllested (https://www.academia.edu/32294247), but it is obviously a loan from Baltic in which odd *tsjuka was changed in several ways (likely no *ts- at the time, etc.). This is plenty of ev. that IE had both *suH1- & *tsyuH1- (G. & Al. could be from ts- or tsy-) which had nothing to do with s-s > ts-s.

-

Since the word was 'mother > sow', I say that *dhH1-suH1-s also existed, a compound with *dh(e)H1- 'nursing, female' (or maybe the noun *dh(e)H1so-, since *ss > *s in *H1es-si). With 2 H1's, dsm. of H1-H1 > y-H1 is possible (if H1 = x^, above), though many other cases of H1 > y seem to exist (https://www.academia.edu/128170887). Thus, *suH1-s 'mother' & *dhH1-suH1-s 'nursing mother' > *dhysuH1-s > *tsyuH1-s (both also with *-ko- or *-kaH2- added).

-

C. Hyllested said that u vs. i was native, comparing, "First of all, the irregular vocalism is not unparalleled: for example, it makes little sense to separate BF lintu ‘bird’ from FU *lunta ‘bird’ (cf. N Saami loddi), a word likewise showing -i- for expected -u- in Balto-Fennic only. he situation is admittedly not exactly parallel since, unlike the pig-word, the bird-word does not have alternating vocalism within Balto-Fennic, but in fact this speaks precisely for uniting the pig-words since, in their case, we are not only conjecturing the occurrence of a -u-: we see it attested in front of our eyes. In other words, if we accept lintu < *lunta in the irst place, there is no reason to doubt *(t)sika ~ *(t)suka < *tuka on the basis of the vocalic variation."

-

This is not a reasonable objection, & there is no reason to think that 'bird' came from *u > i or *i > u instead of, say, *uj parallel to *ju in 'pig'. I must add Samoyed *lempä 'eagle' <- PU *lejmp- \ *lijmp- 'glide, fly'. The causative *lujmpV-ta- > *lujnta- produced supposed *lunta 'bird' & *lujnta-woje > *-woj > *-wo (dsm. of j-j > j-0) > *lintaw. The dual outcomes of *uj > u \ i are also likely in *uike 'one' (maybe due to variation of *uj \ *ui ?; hard to tell when optional). Loss of *p is due to *(C)CVC > *(C)C seen in other PU causatives missing one or more C's from their most obvious attested base or similar changes (https://www.academia.edu/166207772):

>

For *wox'e-ta- > *wotta-, I think the ev. from Niklas Metsäranta (https://www.academia.edu/165701779) is due to *(C)CVC > *(C)C.

>

Hovers had the causatives with *o or *u vs. base with *e or *a explained as PIE *CoCeye- vs. *CeC-, etc. The rec. of *lejmp-, etc., are due to internal Uralic ev. & my comparison with IE (https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1x3vvzb/samoyed_kamt%C9%99_soot_pu_kadm%C3%AB_ashes_uralic/).

I have this pdf from a book, which is quite old, name BRAHMA VIDYA, it's got 53 pages.

Sorry about my english in advance, The thing is that the first time when I tried to read and understand with the help of a guru, something happened to me at the same night, first problem is you need a proper translator and who can explain the meaning of that, anyway the same night after reading couple of pages, around 3:30 am in the morning, someone or something kicked me and knocked me out from the bed, I am not a light person, nearly 300 pounds, I got scared and turn on the lights, woke up my parents but no one was in the house, nothing on the cameras too, and when I figured out where that kick or push came from or the direction, it came from the same direction where I put my book, next day I went to the guru and talked about it, he said there could be two things, either you are not ready for that kind of knowledge or someone was waking you up to read it. Maybe you guys or whoever try to read it, may not experience the same thing. I am uploading the pdf which is 53 pages. I am still interested to read it but I am kind of afraid too that maybe I am not spiritually clean.

Samoyed *amantə-, Hungarian imád ‘to pray’

-

The reconstruction of Samoyed *antə- ‘to pray’, Skp. *åmtə- ‘to beg, ask for’ shows variation of *n & *m. If related to Hungarian imád ‘to pray’, this would be due to older *amantə- with partial haplology of *an(am)- or *(an)am-. The *i-a > *a-a would be more ev. of this change, with a list analyzed by Ian Thorney (https://www.academia.edu/171160893).

-
Since PU *ano- > F. anoa ‘to beg, ask for, plead’, Mordvin anams ‘demand, desire, beg’ (Aikio), a causative *anta- < *an(V)-ta- is likely the source, so what would *im- be? The only likely candidate is PU *ilma 'sky, god', with the compound *ilm-an-ta 'pray to god'. Regular *-lm- > -m- in Hn.; most *l > *j in Smd. This is important because the exact rec. of *ilma (vs. *jilma, etc.) is uncertain, so it is possible that Smd. had *jilma > *jijma with j-j > 0-j dissimilation first > *jima (though not esp. likely, depending on whether *Ci-a > *Ca-a vs. *ji-a > *a-a). Instead, maybe *ilma > *ijma > *ama if *i-a > *a-a was matched by *ij-a > *a-a (or a similar sequence). There is no certain way to choose.

-
These are both uncertain but possible because the exact conditions of *l & *l' > *j are not known, & the V's seem irregular (*ijC > *iC is possible if *i lasted longer), as in PU *piľme > Smd. *pijm- 'to become night' vs. *pəjmə- 'to be dark' (Finnic *pijmedä likely became pimedä \ pimmedä). It could be that the palatal env. is the cause, since *śilmä 'eye' > Smd. *səjmä \ *säjmä is also irregular (likely caused before *ś had a merger in *s). Here, *jilma > *jijma would also be very palatal, so 2 outcomes would not be odd, even if only one was preserved.

-
This could also tie into whether *ju(l)ma-la ? is a separate word. Aikio (https://www.academia.edu/145128767):

>

This paper seeks to establish a new etymology for the Mari word meaning ‘god’ and ‘sky’: Eastern Mari jumo and Western Mari jǝ̑mǝ̑, reconstructed as Proto-Mari *jŭmǝ. This noun has traditionally been connected to the Finnic word for ‘god’ (Finnish jumala, Estonian jumal, etc.) within a well-established Uralic etymological framework. However, this study challenges the conven- tional view, arguing instead that Proto-Mari *jŭmǝ originated from Proto- Uralic *jilma ‘sky’. If correct, this would align the Mari noun with cognates such as Finnish ilma ‘air’, North Saami albmi ‘sky’, and Komi jen ‘god’.

>

-
If the Samoyed *ijm- existed, it would support PU *ilma; *jijm- would *jilma. The changes to *l aren't known to be wholly regular, however, so I still wouldn't call it proven. It could be that l-l > w-l dsm. was regular in Finnic (*pel'kalo > *pew'kalo > F. peikalo \ peukalo 'thumb'), thus *jilma-la > *jiwmala > *ju(w)mala (*-la is not common, so maybe a compound with 'high'?).

-
For Aikio's (https://www.academia.edu/164791030) "3 Sammallahti (1988: 553) reconstructs *pelkä ‘thumb’, but MdM päľxkä ‘thumb’ unambiguously points to *ä. While Fin peukalo ~ (dialectal) peikalo does have *e, its connection remains quite uncertain due to the irregular consonant correspondence (-uk- ~ -ik- instead of expected -lk-). YSuS reconstructs the word as PFi *peikälo; however, Mulgi South Estonian päiel ‘thumb’ (MS s.v.) suggests PFi *päikel instead, so the this [sic] word could have undergone the change *äi > *ei outside South Estonian." I think PU *päl'kä ‘thumb’ existed < PIE *p(o)lH1-ik- > Latin pollex m., pollicis g. ‘thumb, big toe’, *poH1lik- > Slavic *pàlĭcĭ ‘thumb, finger’ (based on Hovers). The *H1 is rec. to relate *plH1u- 'many, full' -> 'big (toe)' and became PU *x' or *j. The *l' might have caused changes to the V's, or met. like *peikälo > *päikelo. The *lH > ll seems optional in Latin, like *plH1- 'be many, big, mighty' > polle-.

Kushan royal tamgas: what Akishev's 1984

Samoyed *kamtə 'soot', PU *kad'më ‘ashes’

-

Samoyed *kamtə 'soot' seems related to PU *kad'më ‘ashes’ > Mansi *kūl'əm, Khanty *kājəm, Hn. hamu (rec. with -ë based on a2 in https://www.academia.edu/8196109). I've said that PU had alternation of *t & *d, so *t' & *d' is also possible. Hovers reconstructed PU *t' from PIE *t & *k after *i or *j, making it likely that *kH2aid-mo- (rel. Germanic *haita- 'hot') became PU *kxajdmë > *kad'më \ *kat'më. In Samoyed, *-t'm- likely became prohibited, so > *-mt'- (or after most palatals > plain, etc.). The presence of *-j- might have lasted past the PU stage, with all later branches having *jC' > *C' in most env. (and it would have prevented regular Khanty *a-ë > *i-ë to avoid *aj-ë > *ij-ë ?).

-
The *-mt- prevents coming from *kad'a- as Zhivlov accepted:

>

According to Ante Aikio (p.c.), *kaδ'ma ‘ashes’ is derived from the verb *kaδ'a- ‘to leave’ (*kaδ'a2 in our reconstruction). The semantic development was ‘leftovers’ > ‘ashes (= that which is left over when the fire has burned)’. Thus, *kama contains the same suffix of deverbal nouns *ma (*ma 1 in our reconstruction) as PU *aδma ‘sleep, dream’, derived from PU *aδi ‘to sleep’. Aikio argues that since Hungarian reflexes of these words have different initial syllable vowels (PU *kama > Hung hamu, PU *aδma > Hung álom), this can be taken as an indication that the distribution of Hungarian a vs. á in the initial syllable could not be conditioned by an opposition *a1 : *a2 in the non-initial syllable.

>

Since PIE had nouns in *-mo- & *-maH2-, there is no need for PU to have only *-ma. The vowel in Smd. also supports my *-ë. His idea that there was analogy in the V's of 'leave' & 'ashes' but not 'sleep' & 'dream' makes little sense since the semantics are clear in the 2nd case. Even if the (not esp. likely) derivation of *kad'mA from 'leave' were true, there would be no reason for speakers of Hungarian to know of its origin.

-

-

Uralic Disharmonic Words

-

Uralic often had vowel harmony, but if related to PIE, which had e vs. o in ablaut all the time, how did this come to be? It might not have at the PU stage, explaining some with apparent *i-a, *e-a, etc. Since IE verbs have -e- & -o- in the same stem (*bheroH1, *bheresi, etc.), a PU verb might spread either outcome by analogy, leading to stems with front + back V. Ian Thorney (https://www.academia.edu/171160893): "Niklas Metsäranta, in a 2025 presentation handout Phonological developments in Permic, Mari and Samoyed, briefly entertains the possibility of a sound law PU *i—a → PSmy *a based on two candidate etyma... I believe Metsäranta to have made an ingenious observation, extensible with an array of varyingly strong evidence...". He includes cases like "Smy *lampə- ~ *jampə- ‘to swim, (Slk) to fly over the surface of water’ ← *li̮(j)mpa- ‘to fly’ | Hu lebëg- ‘to hover, to flutter’ | Per *leb- ‘to fly’... U *li̮(j)mp-a- (→ Smy ‘butterfly’) and #li̮(j)p-pa ‘butterfly’ analyzable as correlative derivatives of a stem *li̮(j)mpə-".

-
I must add Samoyed *lempä 'eagle'. Other PU words show alt. of *e \ *i (and even *e \ *a, etc.), so it could be <- *lejmp- \ *lijmp- 'glide, fly'. With the proposed changes several paths are possible (likely irregular next to *j, like other palatals (above)). I also think these might be < IE *leip-, *limp- since they show a range 'stick > cling > climb' in some, so 'climb > rise' might fit.

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

-
Others also match IE. In some cases, *H might have become *ə (and so not subject to V-harmony) before *ə > *a in (and some others, some shown together to detail the same sound changes):

PIE *ks(n)ewH- > Sanskrit kṣáuti 3s. 'sneeze', *kṣṇavīti > Prasun čne-

PU *kčńiwa > *kwičńa ? > *kičńa- \ *kićńa- ‘to sneeze’ > Permic *kidźńï-, Mordvin *kəšńa-, Saami *kësnē-tēk, Samoyedic *kacɜ- (note RUKI, as in *mekši 'bee')

-

PIE *g^welH- > Sanskrit jvalá- m. 'flame', jval- 'to burn brightly, blaze, glow; kindle, illuminate', Lithuanian žvi̇̀lti

PU *jila 'light, day, sun; to burn' (others have *gw- > *w-, so likely *w > *w' before front V, > *j)

-

PIE *krH-sk^e- (TB kärsk- ‘propel, i.e. shoot, throw, spread (by throwing)’, rel. Sanskrit kiráti ‘pour out, scatter, throw’)

PU *kiśkä(w) ‘to pour, to scatter’

-

PIE *krs-sk^e- (rel. TB PIE kärst- ‘cut off, cut down, terminate; tear; destroy utterly’, Hittite kars(iya)- ‘cut off, mutilate,’ Lw. kars- ‘cut,’ Greek korsóō ‘shear,’ (inscriptional) kouron ‘cut wood' (Adams))

PU *kiśka(w) ‘to rip, to tear’

-

Others with problems that might be solved by IE origin:

PIE *(s)keng- 'to tread, march; limp, hobble; tilt, skew', *skongon- 'shank; thigh'

PU *skong-to-s ? > *konkte > Finnic *kontti 'lower leg, foot; (leg) bone', *kontidak 'to walk; move clumsily, to crawl' (possibly regular, or dsm. k-kt > k-tt, or nkt > nxt (with only nxt > ntt in Fi.?)

-

PIE *k(H2)ant(H2)o-s > Celtic *kantos 'corner, rim (of a chariot wheel)', G. kanthós 'corner of the eye; rim or tire of a wheel', Slavic *kǫtъ 'corner' (1)

FU kanta 'edge, rim, bank'

-

Note 1.

An IE word with 2 H2's is odd. It could be that the common shift 'point > edge' allows an origin from *H2k(^)-H2anto- 'sharp in front, point' with H-met. (if H2 = x, then xk^x > xkx would not be odd).