u/stlatos

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 177: *kH2ap(H1)u-(g^o-) ‘hawk, raptor’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 10, 2026

-

Latin capys 'a bird of prey' ( >> Etruscan capu), Germanic *habuka-z ( > English hawk), Slavic *kobuzъ \ *kobъzъ ( > Po. kobuz 'Falco subbuteo'), *kobьcь 'falcon, buzzard, sparrowhawk, etc.', Albanian gabë \ shkabë \ gabonjë 'griffon vulture, eagle, hawk' (opt. contm. shk- < shqipe \ shqiponjë)

-
Since capys is likely *kapu-s (imitation of Greek words with y), it could be from *kH2ap-u- 'grasping, seizing; raptor'. This would mean that the variation of voicing k, g(h) & p, b(h) would be the same as (https://www.academia.edu/175693920):

&gt;
If *kH2ap- ‘take / seize / hold / have’, also ‘hold > enclose, cover, guard’ is the same as *gab- & *ghabh-:

*kap-ye- > L. capiō ‘seize / take’, Lt. kampt ‘seize / grasp’, G. káptō ‘gulp down’, Go. hafjan, OIc hefja ‘lift’

*gab- > Ar. kapem ‘bind’ (compare Latvian kampt ‘seize/grasp’)

*ghabh- > L. habeō ‘to have, hold; inhabit, etc.’, S. gábhasti- m. ‘hand/arm/fork ? / *forked > *lightning > shining RV / ray/sunbeam’

&gt;

-
and maybe some other roots with mismatched k-b(h), etc. (origin & rec. often disputed). In *habuka-z & *kobuzъ \ *kobъzъ the *-(u)g^o- needs some explanation. The *u: > *u vs. *u > *ъ might show that Winter's Law in Balto-Slavic was optional (many exceptions; VD > V:D). I think the simplest idea is that *pug^- (L. pugnus 'fist') formed *kH2apu-pug^o- 'grasping fists/claws' with haplology. Since several of the verbs from *kH2ap- have *-eH1-, it could be that *kH2apH1u- existed here, with CH optionally voicing or aspirating (as *kH2apro-s 'male goat' > OI gabor, *pipH3- > S. pib- 'drink', etc.).

A Call for Investigation of Gule

-
Raoul Zamponi (https://www.academia.edu/126721374):

&gt;

This book presents the first systematic study of Gule, a dormant East African language isolate, offering a tentative grammatical sketch based on historical documentation collected by Brenda Z. Seligman. Readers will gain valuable insights into a previously unstudied language through systematic grammatical analysis and comparative linguistic examination of the available materials, including a previously unknown audio recording made in 1966 by Wendy R. James. The book delivers this through detailed documentation analysis, identification of areal linguistic phenomena shared with neighboring East African languages, and thorough vocabulary assessment that establishes Gule’s unique status among world languages.

&gt;

However, when I examined the lists I decided that rather than having a "unique status", many Austronesian words were close matches:

Gu. dusuit ‘two’, Au. *duSa

Gu. if ‘hair, wool’, Au. *ipu- 'hair, feather' (no p in Gu., several other p / f matches below)

Gu. au 'dog', Au. *asu (maybe *aswu \ *wasu to explain w- in four Formosan languages)

Gu. tis ‘milk’, *titis 'drip, ooze', *titiq 'female breast; suck the breast' (related like *bandyo- > Old Irish bann(a)e ‘drop’, I. bainne ‘milk’)

Gu. si ‘to drink’, Au. *sip-sip, *sep-sep, *sedut 'sip, suck, drink' (and several other similar roots)

Gu. rus ‘rain’, Au. *rinis 'drizzle, drizzling rain', *rins-rins ? > Old Javanese 'riris soft rain', Balinese riris 'rain gently, drizzle' (likely rel. rin & ren *rintik 'steady dripping, as of sweat or drizzling rain', *rendeŋ 'constant rain, a rainy day, rainy season')

Gu. gŭdĭ-n \ gadˤi-n ‘your head’, Au. *quluh ‘head’

Gu. ki, Au. *kuCux ‘louse’ (likely < *ku-, *kuman 'itch mite, chicken louse')

Gu. tufena 'dust', Au. *tapuŋ 'dust, rice flour' (Manobo tapuŋ 'any fine powdery substance; to brush the dust off something'), *tapuk 'dust, dust in the air; knock the dust off something'

Gu. gără̄wáig, Au. *RuqaNay 'man' (likely < *qaRuNway to explain irreg. pl. gămoi)

Gu. ɟok ‘God’, Au. *qiaŋ 'ancestor, deity, divinity'

Gu. wadus ‘girl’, *wati-qazi 'unmarried'?, Au. *wati 'husband or wife; to marry', *qazi 'no, not'

Gu. fŭ̄m, Au. *pijiko \ *pisiko 'flesh, meat, muscle' (if < *pims- to explain voice vs. un-)

Gu. adatˤwa ‘tongue’, Au. *dilaq 'tongue; to lick', *dilap \ *dilat 'to lick, stick out the tongue' (variation might be < *adilat-qwa if tqw > tˤw, or similar; any rel. Nilotic *ŋaljɛp ‘tongue’ ?)

Gu. adon ‘path, road’, Au. *zalan

-

There were also several that differed in meaning, but seem more or less likely cognates:

Gu. kĕlu 'star', Au. *kelap 'shine, sparkle, twinkle'

Gu. kas, ‘fire’, Au. *kasu 'smoke'

Gu. tos ‘to kill’, Au. *tusuk 'pierce' ( > Toba Batak ma-nusuk 'to stab, kill')

Gu. wɔr \ wɔd \ wat ‘tree; (piece of) wood; stick’ < *wart ?, Au. *wakaR 'root' (since likely rel. *wakir, *wakat 'root', likely < *wakart or *wakiRt (depending on nature of *R))

Gu. taʔ ‘sun’, Au. *taqo 'cook in earth oven'

Gu. of ‘stone’, Au. *oro 'mtn.' (if < *ofro, etc.)

Gu. abū-n 'your belly, abdomen', Au. *kambu 'belly, stomach, abdomen, womb, intestines'

-

I ask that people with more knowledge of each group look into this further. For more notes:

Many Proto-Austronesian words for body parts end in -ŋ, & the cited Gu. words with -n 'your _' might show that the cause is an affix becoming part of the stem.

In Gu. gără̄wáig, Au. *RuqaNay 'man' (likely < *qaRuNway to explain irreg. pl. gămoi), the rec. also might fit the names of people from New Guinea, like Kuruwai, Kumbai \ Kombai, etc. I mention this because I noticed a similar relation between Au. & some languages there.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 173: ‘cover, shade, darken’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 3, 2026

-

A. With limited data, an IE root *skepH2- \ *skaH2p- is reconstructed for:

*skepH2- > G. sképō ‘cover/shield/screen’, sképas- ‘shelter’, skepáō ‘cover’, *skepH > *peskH > péskos- ‘skin / rind’, Li. kepùrė ‘cap / mushroom cap’, Slavic *čepьcь > Sv. čêpec ‘bonnet’, Al. *kaH2pur- > kapurdhë \ kërpudhë \ kë(l)purdhë ‘mushroom’

-
The ety. of péskos is from Liddell & Scott. The "extra" r (and r-r > l-r) in kërpudhë is probably due to *kaH2pur- > *kaRpur- (with other ex. of H \ R in https://www.academia.edu/115369292). A more recent idea also includes Al. psheh ‘conceal / hide’ as *skep-sk^e > psek-sk^e. However, this would not explain the vowel. Since *eu > e, the need for *skeup- here would be very similar to *skewH- > S. skunā́ti ‘cover’, chavi- ‘skin/hide/color’, *skewHo- > Ar. *c’iw-k’ p., c’uo-c’ d. ‘roofing / tiling’. I propose that *skewH- has an extension *skewH-p- that underwent metathesis due to the *wHp (likely the reason for words with skep-, pesk-, *psek-). The cognates with *-e- vs. *-eu- might result from optional loss of semivowels before *H (as in *da(i)H2- 'distribute').

-
For c’uo-, the stages *skewHo- > *skeHwo- > *sćēwo- > Ar. *c’iw-k’ might be needed, but outcomes of *ew are disputed, so it could be that *ew > ew \ iw was optional. Also, for *sk > c’ before front V, outcomes also disputed, but the same as *(s)kelH- ‘split' > Ar. cʻelum 'to rend, break, split, cleave, etc.'

-
B. The *H in *skewH- was probably *H3 if the source of *sk^o(w)H3to- / *sk^otH3o- / *sk^ot(h)wo- > Celtic *skātos > OI scáth ‘shadow, reflection’, G. skótos ‘darkness, gloom’, Gmc. *skadwá- > Gothic skadus, E. shadow. The -w- vs. -0- as for *ske(w)pH2-, above. This apparent mismatch is not ev. against my idea, since many roots show H3 vs. H2 near w, P, etc. I say this is best analyzed as H3 = xW, H2 = x, then w-xW dissimilation > w-x (https://www.academia.edu/144215875).

-
C. Often, there is a shift 'cover > hide, obscure, darken'. With many IE roots showing unexplained met. like *ksep- (also r\n-stem *ksep(o)r, etc.), *krep(o)s- in words for ‘darkness, evening, night’, I think that Latin creperum, Sanskrit kṣáp-, Hittite išpant- are related from *ske(w)pH2- as:

*ske(w)pH2-(or) > *ksepH2- > S. kṣáp- ‘night’, Av. xšap- ‘darkness’, xšapan- \ xšafn- ‘night’
*krepH2os- > L. creperum ‘darkness’, creper ‘dusky/dark’, crepusculum ‘(evening) twilight/dusk’
*H2eksp- > *(x)ixsp-ant- > H. išpant- ‘night’
*skewpH2(o)s- > *kswepH2(o)s- > G. pséphas \ pséphos

-
For *ksw > *kWs being optional in Greek, see (https://www.academia.edu/167984147) and likely *kswizd- > S. kṣviḍ-'hum / murmur', *kWsizd- > G. psíz[d]omai ‘weep’; *mok^s(u) > S. makṣú ‘quickly/soon / rashly/hastily/boldly / early’, *mok^swo- ‘rash/hasty/bold?’, *mokWso-s ‘bold one’ > LB mo-qo-so, G. Mópsos >> Phoe. mpš, Lw. muksa-, H. muksu-s (https://www.academia.edu/168297982). The Hittite word is otherwise rec. as *ksp-ont-, but for met. like this, I'd think there would have to be a good reason to create *ksp. If there was an *H2 (as in *skepH2- and pséphas), then there would be a reason; if H2 = x, then if ksp- > xsp-, dsm. of x-x would be possible.

-
There’s so much optionality in Indo-European ‘evening’ that linguists can't make a secure reconstruction. De Vaan said that it was "clearly" a compound of *we- (of unknown meaning & source) & *k(W)sep-, but if 'night' already had a *w within, and many cases of metathesis for the root, why look for a 2nd part at all? It is hard to claim that complete regularity operated in all words these words, but starting with *skewpH2-(o)r -(e)n- (as above, with w \ 0, as in A.) allows:

mix > *skewpH2er- > *weksperH2-? > *wespero- > L. vesper, G. hésperos ‘evening’
*wepkserH2o- > *wewkšer > *weyšer > Ar. gišer ‘night’ (w-w dsm.)
*wepskerH2o- > *wewkšerH2o- > Sl. *večero- \ *vĭčero- (w-w > w-0 or w-y ?); *weiksero-?? > Welsh ucher
*wewkšorH2o- > *wo(w)koro- > Li. vãkaras (wew > wow or V-asm.?; -or vs. -en\er-?; maybe erH2 > H2ar instead?)

-
Without knowing its root origin, there would be no way to say which of these were older.  If related to another group with -tw-, then all 3 stops, p \ t \ k, would be seen here.  Considering all this, Tocharian must also have a cognate:

*kestwor- > TB käst(u)wer ‘by/at night’

whose meaning resembles Ar. gišer ‘night’ most (among other similarities in vocab., sound changes).  This means *pw > *tw could also connect them to those above (few IE allow Pw) by *skewpH2-or- > *kH2espwor- > *kestwor- > TB käst(u)wer. It is likely that *H2 "protected" *k from palatalizing, but some *K seem not to palatalize near *s, no known details. If related to OHG westar, E. western, etc., it would be hard to find an original, but in this case these are probably from older *wesper- with -t- from 'east', etc.

-
D. The reasons to rec. *kswepH2(o)s- > G. pséphas \ pséphos are also based on form & meaning of the very similar group knéphas \ gnóphos \ dnóphos \ zóphos ‘darkness’. Each one of these has a disputed ety., and there is supposedly no way for an IE original to produce all. However, IE languages tend not to have gm- & similar CC-, so one or more changes to turn *Km- > Kn- must have been at work. Since Greek has many ex. of p \ b \ m alternation (https://www.academia.edu/167984147), I think it is reasonable that *kswepH2(o)s- could also become *ksmepH2(o)s- (maybe helped by w-p > m-p dsm.). Then the ev. favors that *ksm- > *ksn- \ *tsn- in Greek, *kswepH2(o)s- > pséphas \ pséphos, *ksm- / *gzn- / etc. > knéphas \ gnóphos \ dnóphos \ zóphos ‘darkness’. Part of this would be alt. of ts \ ks (https://www.academia.edu/128090924), so *gzn- > gn-, *dzn- > dn- or *dz- ( = G. z- ).

-
E. The rec. *kswepH2- makes others' previous attempts to connect 'night' & 'sleep' easier. If *swep- existed, then what would the reason be? Another root, *ses- 'sleep' has an odd form of *C1eC1-, indicating a likely reduplicated *es- or *seH-. Would a compound *s-kswepH2- 'sleep at night' become *sks- > *ss- > *s-? Maybe, esp. before *w (though I doubt there are any other ex. to be found from *sks- before V). With all the met. above, *swepH2- > *sH2wep- is possible, and *CHw > *Cw seems optional (https://www.academia.edu/164645760). The presence of *H and met. would also be seen in *s(H)wep- but *swoHp-eye- 'cause to sleep, make unconsious/dead'. I do not think there is any special reason to think that o:-grade existed in PIE, let alone in a single derivative of an apparently normal verb stem.

-
F. With all this, PIE *(s)keup- 'cover, hide', Uralic *kup-ma > *ku(m)ma, Mordvin *kubvul > Moksha kovǝl, Erzya kovol ‘cloud’, F. kumuri ‘small cloud; rain shower’, *‘shady, dark, obscure(d)’ > F. kumma ‘odd, strange’, Komi ki̮me̮r ‘cloud; cloudy’, ki̮me̮d- ‘overshadow, darken’, Mansi.N xomxat-‘turn dark, turn poor (of visibility due to fog or drifting snow)’, Hungarian homály ‘darkness, shadow, twilight’ seem like cognates. In these, *-pm- > -mm- \ -m- \ -v- is better than standard *-mm- because other *Cm > m in Hungarian and having *mm > v in a language in which *m > m would be extremely odd. Indeed, there are other ex. in which *pm > v in Mordvin with IE cognates (PIE *tsoubhmo-s > Gmc *stauma-z > E. steam; PIE *tsubhmo- > Gmc *stumV- > Ic. stum ‘dust; hoarfrost, rime; ice fog’, PU *supmV > Fi. *sumu ‘mist, fog’, Mordvin suv ‘fog’, suv+ 'smoke'), with other *Cm > v providing more support (https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rbxu18/uralic\_cm\_mordvin\_v/).

Latin tritavus & strittavus ‘great-great-great-great-grandfather’, Greek influence

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
September 29, 2026

-

Brian D. Joseph (https://u.osu.edu/bdjoseph/files/2021/06/203-BaldiFSstrittavus.pdf) said that Latin tritavus & strittavus ‘great-great-great-great-grandfather’ are based on IE *tri- '3' (as a grandfather being 2 generations back; 3 times that giving 6). Also, "tritauos, seems to represent a numerically based formation,2 and has parallels both in Greek (e.g., τρίπαππος ‘ancestor in the 6th generation’) and in Albanian (e.g., tregjysh ‘great-grandfather’...". In this, the fn. contains, "... trit- part is a Greek borrowing... a totally Latin formation would presumably be *ter-auos." Since the Greek word is τρί(σ)παππος, I say that a partial calque with G. tri- & tris- added to a Latin word is the cause. The t- vs. st- also in his "Greek has a variant stripodo \ στρίποδο alongside the more usual tripodo \ τρίποδο ‘tripod’...", which also probably comes from *tris- > stri-.

-
Since a (s)tritavus is the father of an *ati-avos > atavus ‘great-great-great-grandfather’, it makes sense that the lacking word (few IE have a standard word for anything older than a grandfather) was only partly fitted into the system. This means τρί(σ)παππος influenced the creation of *tri-ati-avos > tritavus & *tris-ati-avos > *tristavus > strittavus. The met. of *s must have left a mora filled by *_t > tt, or (if the met. *tris- > stri- is Greek), just *stri-ati- > *striita-, or similar. However, there's also a chance that "at-auos, if, as Ernout-Meillet 1939: s.v., suggest, the first part is from at- ‘father’ (cf. Hittite attas ‘father’, Slavic otьcь ‘father’, Ancient Greek ἄττα ‘daddy’" shows -t- & -tt- because PIE *H2at(t)a had both. The Greek source is not just based on sound change, since τρί(σ)παππος makes sense mathematically, but a native *tri(s)-ati-avos wouldn't.

-
Later, he added (https://www.academia.edu/26388047):

&gt;

Newmark (1998: 785) characterizes Albanian stër-, which he refers to as a “formative prefix”, in two ways. First, he says that it “expresses semantic enlargement or excess”, for which the glosses “ultra-, super-, over-” are given; it is exemplified by stër-gjatë 'too long/tall' and stër-bujar 'too generous'. Second, he notes that it occurs “with kinship terms”, for which the gloss ‘great-’ is given; examples of that use include stër-gjysh 'great-grandfather'...

A further point of interest regarding stër- is that its range of uses more or less accords with a prefix stră- that occurs in Romanian. In particular, stră- occurs in the kinship use... Moreover, this prefix can be used in an intensifying function with verbs... Only Meyer 1891 mentions it, in the form shtër-, as noted above, and he derives it from Latin extra... presumably, though he does not say so directly, the ‘excessive’ meaning is original and the kin-term usage is an extension of that usage. My suggestion here is that the possibility should be entertained of there being a different source for at least some functions of stër-. More specifically, my claim is that to understand the etymology of this prefix, a look into expressions of “multi-generational” kinship, a kind of “temporal displacement”, in Indo-European is needed.

&gt;

-
I don't think there is any direct relation or any reason why *ekstra- > s(h)tër- wouldn't work. It seems likely to me that *kstra- optionally became *tstra-, leading to sht- vs. st-. There are several systems mentioned here to describe ancestores beyond 'grandfather', & the set of Albanian words with clear 3-, 4-, 5- added don't need to have anything to do with the others, esp. since these start with the idea 'me = 0 back, my father = 1 back, my grandfather = 2 back, my tregjysh 'great-grandfather' = 3 back. This is different than G. 3+X as '3 times X'.

Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction, Indo-Iranian to Old Chinese Loan for 'Amber' (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
September 28, 2026

-

Guillaume Jacques & Anton Antonov (https://www.academia.edu/121590642) disagree with the reconstruction ST *d-ŋurl 'silver'. For its basis in Tibetan dŋul, they say in fn 14, "Since, according to Li [1933] preinitial d- and g- are in complementary distribution in Tibetan, we can posit a phonetic rule of the form *g- > d- / velar". This would remove the need for reconstructions with *d- like Coblin's & LaPolla's (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/d-ŋurl) & allow Turkic *kümül^ to be a loan from ST *kimKɨwl^ (Whalen), or any other similar form. If this rule was known (or proposed) in 1933, why is irrelevant Tibetan evidence being used for an ST reconstruction?

-
It is not just this single word, or any single misstep. No Sino-Tibetan reconstruction is certain & many might be completely wrong, creating a false path for any ST > OCh > MCh word. Since the reconstruction at any stage might be completely different from reality, how can previous proposals be evaluated with any certainty? All others could be just as bad as 'silver', & lead to decades of wasted effort looking for cognates that didn't resemble the real word at all. Here, they try to apply it to Turkic *š or *L being original, & if *L = voiceless l, etc. Even with all ev. for a lateral in ST >> Turkic, the lambdaism vs sigmatism debate is hardly closed. There is no reason why Turkic could not have had a series of palatalized C's, so both *s^ & *l^ could have merged as one or the other in each branch (*s^ > *š ?). This is what I favor, along with *z^ & *r^ > z or r. None of this could have been seen starting from an unsupported *d-ŋurl, & any similar evaluation based on incorrect assumptions is also doomed to fail.

-
One of the simplest methods is to look for confirmation in loans. I tried several (https://www.academia.edu/165334096), most of which would need the Old Chinese form to be much closer to Proto-ST than others' reconstructions (though with only my ex., some "border" languages being close to OCh, yet more conservative, & loaning words to outsiders, later dying out due to the influence of the more populous languages, can't be ruled out).

-
One more now seems likely. For OCh *qʰlaːʔ pʰraːɡ (Zhengzhang's rec.) > MChinese xuX phaek 'amber', instead of being "Probably borrowed from a language in Central Asia during the Han Dynasty; compare Middle Persian khlpʾd (kah-rubāy, “amber”)... Ačaṙean typologically compares Old Armenian (sṙnakal, “amber”, literally “chaff-keeper”)." (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/琥珀) it looks to me more like a loan << Iranian *kaHhu-rafH-aka- 'grabbing chaff' (for its magnetic properties, apparent in attracting small items). Since -aka- is so common in Iranian, a very similar old compound (now lost within Iranian) makes more sense than *-d- becoming *-g (both C's theoretical, of course). The important part is that this is incompatible with *qʰlaːʔ pʰraːɡ or anything similar. At best, it shows a later stage long after the loan (and there is no way to know the exact timing). At worst, it would be evidence against the most basic principles of any previous reconstruction.

-
If Zhengzhang's rec. of OCh was really just an approximation of the youngest stage of OCh (or similar), then the oldest stage of OCh might have been completely different. The changes needed for his rec. to fit any Indo-Iranian loan require many V's to be lost. It seems likely to me that the sound changes that obscured the nature of ST began taking place at this time, after loans from & into IIr. This is seen in the names for Iranian groups with many syllables being represented by only 2 OCh words (previous link).

-
Let's first try to get as close as possible by applying other's theories to one part or another of each word. Martin Joachim Kümmel said that Iranian retained PIE *H (sometimes as attested x, h, etc.) much longer than previously thought. If even at the time of the loan, then a cognate of *Hrebh- or *rebhH-? > Sanskrit rabh- ‘grab / sieze’, Ir. *raβH- \ *rafH- ‘grab / seize / stick (to) / hold (up) / support / mate / touch’ > Shu. raf- ‘touch’, Av. rafnah- ‘support’ might have turned *fH > *ph (or similar). The *H- vs. *-H is likely due to metathesis (), & others say IIr. had *H > *ʔ. This might allow *Hrabh- > *ʔraph > *ʔphra. Tother, these allow the rec. to be closer to the expected original; in the same way, a 2nd *H in 'chaff' might have produced some of the "extra" C's.

-
If not Iranian at all, but close enought to cause this confusion, then an equivalent of *kaHhu-rafH-aka- matching a Sanskrit *kukkusa-rabhaka- or a similar later Indic word might fit (Prakrit kukkusa- 'chaff of rice', Gj. kuskā m.p. 'chaff of rice, bran', Asm. kukuhā 'bits of burnt grass carried about by the wind'). This would be because some Indic had -s- > -h-, -k- > -g-, etc. In this case, there would be no way the oldest OCh loanword could be identical to the short form in the rec. However, maybe we could fit each part of the rec. to those of the original (which is only possible if OCh had many sound changes, which would have to have applied to native words from ST, thus supporting ST having many words of multiple syllables). If we assume Asm. kukuhā was essentially identical to the donor, then *kukuhā-rabhaga- adapted as *ququhāraphag would at least be close. Did sound changes turning a 5-syllable or more word > 2 take place in a relatively short time? If so, then it would almost certainly mean that every other reconstruction that had OCh having almost all monosyllables should be reconsidered. This is the type of examination that can evaluate what was previously internal data for reconstruction.

-
I think Indic is needed, & NP kâh 'chaff, straw, hay' has no clear ety., so it is possible that a loan like *kukuhā > *kuhā (dsm. / haplology) > *kāhu (met.) would be needed anyway (in which case no Iranian word would have been available for a loan >> OCh). Which changes fit best? Let's say that Indic *s > *x > h existed & that one language (or branch) also had haplology (certainly the same that provided the loan to Iranian, reasonably Gandharan (or any nearby language)). If the form *kuxā-Hrabhaga- > *quχāʔraphag is real, then it would show that OCh had turned *k > *q next to *u (backing by back V's is common), had *ph but not *bh. If all non-final short V 's were deleted, a change of *quχāʔraphag > *qχāʔrphag would become closer. It is likely that *q + any type of *H would become *qhH, so *qχāʔrphag > *qhχāʔrphag > *qhχāʔphrag would be close. If *χ > *R (a uvular of any type similar to r, either sonorant or fric.), then *qhRāʔphrag would match *qʰlaːʔ pʰraːɡ in most essentials. If dsm. of R-r > l-r, then *l would not be anomalous. Of course, since *R could have existed but not been rec. before, distinguishing *qhR- from *qhl- (if any) would be hard.

-
Each of these changes is needed for Zhengzhang's rec. to come close to any expected loanword. Knowing that so many changes happened during historical times helps show that current ST rec. simply are too similar to attested languages. Their *CC- & *CCC- might often be *CCVC-, etc., with real confirmation only available in loans. However, knowing the changes needed in loans also must have applied to native words allows a start at better reconstructions. For several of the words I mentioned (previous link), a multi-syllable word would often resemble an IE one, making a search for cognates useful. I feel that the second way to confirm ST rec. is to see if the "new" form would match an IE better. If this happens conistently, it would support a relation between ST & IE.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 163: *gWem- and *yaH2- ‘go, move’, *gWn-aH2- and *-a(i)H2- ‘woman’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
September 20, 2026

-

Many IE words show alternation of m / n. Keeping this in mind can help find the origin of otherwise unexplained words. The cause of most alternation is probably dissimilation or assimilation near a 2nd m / n or P / KW / w / u (https://www.academia.edu/127864944). Languages in which *gW became *gw might have turned *gwem- > *gwen-:

*gWem- ‘come, go, step’ > Go. qiman, E. come, *vemyoH > L. veniō, Ar. *e-kwin-t > ekn ao.3s

-
The reasons for Armenian having a stage with *gw is that *gW is not always palatalized before front (not apparently regular for all KW) & some loans to Kartvelian contain Kw. This shared change is likely why both it & Latin had *w-m > *w-n. Though KW-m > KW-n is possible, it is less common. I doubt that others' theories that derivatives with *-mt- > -nt- caused analogical spread are more likely.

-

Lithuanian gim̃ti 'to be born' & its derivatives must also be < PIE *gWm- (as 'make come > produce', with some other roots like *perH3 having a similar shift: S. pṛṇā́ti 'to grant, bestow', L. pariō 'to bear, give birth to; produce, generate, beget'). The reason to reconstruct *gW here is the theory that *KWC > KiC, *KC > KuC. This also allows the same m \ n in 'come' to apply to 'bear', meaning that 'mother' should be related:

*gWem- > Li. giminė̃ ‘family’, gim̃ti ‘be born’, gamìnti ‘beget / produce’, gãmas ‘innate being/nature’, Phrygian kímeros ‘youth / child?’
*gWem-aH2- > *gW(e)naH2- ‘mother > woman / wife’
*gWeno:n > *kWino:(n-) > Go. qinō, OE cwene, E. queen

-

The reasons to rec. *gWm-aH2- > *gWn-aH2- are based on form & meaning. IE languages also tend not to have gm- & similar CC-, so one or more changes to turn *Km- > Kn- must have been at work. Most exceptions are derivatives in IIr. from this root (if all related). There is some ev. that *ksm- > *ksn- \ *tsn- in Greek, if *kswepH2os- > pséphas \ pséphos, w-p dsm. > m-p > *ksm- / *gzn- / etc. > knéphas \ gnóphos \ dnóphos \ zóphos ‘darkness’ (https://www.academia.edu/128090924). Part of the reason

-

The stage with *-aiH2- for fem. that I rec. in (https://www.academia.edu/129368235) is based on direct ev. like oblique -ai in TB. Also H-H > H-k dissimilation in the (analogical, double-fem.) *gWmH2-aiH2- > *gWmH2-aik- in Greek & Ar. (helping to show that *H was something like x, maybe uvular, maybe R next to voiced, etc.). Others like the change of *-iH2- with nom. *-i:H2 becoming *-i:Hs > *-i:ks in Latin follow the same pattern.

-

Knowing how words for 'woman' might be formed from certain roots in IE helps establish the patterns along which words might change. Since this is still only 'might', its usefulness is mostly in determining if another group showing exactly the same apparent changes is really a 2nd example. In the same way, I say that *yaH2- 'to go, move, walk; enter; travel, etc.' had the same shift as *gWem-. This means *yaH2- '(make) come > produce' formed a base noun *yoH2- 'bearing; woman'. This, when used in compounds, becoming *-yoH2- or *-oyH2- formed the standard IE fem. (with weak *-iH2- also forming analogical *-iH2(-s) in the nom. as a separate group later). I see this as the origin of IE fem. in *-oyH2- > *-aH2- (with optional loss of y & w by H, as in roots like *da(i)H2- 'distribute') and *-oH2i > *-o:i (mostly in Greek, mostly with the nom. as the base of analogical *-oy-). The *o vs. *a seems completely optional, fitting into the 1st person middle *-oH2-or > *-aH2ar. This is the clearest example against all *oH2 remaining (as claimed in standard theory), but also *H2anH1mo- & *H2onH1mo- ( > Ar. *HolHm(o-), etc.).

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 162: *H2wer- and *H3or- ‘rise, raise’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
September 19, 2026

-

PIE *H2wer- ‘rise, raise; up, above’ & *H3or- ‘rise, raise; go above, fly? (if -> bird)’ are very similar. Also, *H2werdh- ‘grow, raise; upright?’ (Sanskrit vṛdh 'to grow, thrive; elevate, praise') & *H3ordh- ‘grow, rise; up(right)’ (Slavic *orstъ 'growth', PT *erto-? > TA orto ‘up(right’) are essentially identical. Since *-dh- is fairly common as a suffix, it would not be odd for 2 unrelated roots to both have derivatives with it, but the close form & meaning in both groups makes a look for a common origin worthwhile.

-

Also, these 2 must be, one or both, behind a word for 'upright, high' rec. as *H2(w)r̥dhwó- (with w-w dsm.), *H3r̥dhwó-, or even *HHr̥dhwó- or *Hr̥Hdhwó-. The many rec. were made to account for features that are (or seem) impossible to unite from one source:

*H3r̥dhwó- > LB *orthwo- (maybe also *orswo- in names (SWO value disputed)), G. orthós ‘upright, (vertically) straight’, Av. ǝrǝðwa- ‘high’, met. > *r̥H3dhvá- > S. ūrdhvá- ‘upright, raised’

*H2wr̥dhwó- > *H2(a)rdhwo-? > L. arduus ‘steep, elevated’, OI ard ‘high’, Hittite harduppi- ‘high’

*H2a- or *H3o- > Gmc. *arðugaz > ON ǫrðugr ‘steep’

-

I see no need for PIE *Hr- vs. *(H)rH-, since H-met. is very common (https://www.academia.edu/127283240). For harduppi- instead of **harduwi- (https://www.academia.edu/172765266):

&gt;

Rieken (201–215) argues cogently that the spelling -(u)-pa- (rarely -(u)p-pa-) in certain Hittite lexemes and Luwianisms may reflect a labio-dental [v, f] or a bilabial [β, φ] fricative and etymologically go back to a glide *u following an alveolar, e.g. ḫašnup(p)alla- c. ‘midwife’ (ḫaš(š)- ‘give birth’ → ḫaš-nu- ‘to make (someone) give birth’ → *ḫaššnu-alla- c. ‘midwife’ (with the Luwian agent noun suffix -alla- c.; but cf. Hitt. arnuwala- c. ‘deportee’). She adduces further lexemes including Hitt. kadupā(i)- (mi) ‘to devour’ from the PIE root *kh2ed-, Hitt. wiz(za)pant- ‘old’ < *uet-s-uént- and Luw. walip- ‘to wrap’ < PIE *uel-u- and ulipn(i)- / walipn(i)- ‘wolf’ < PIE *ulku̯-no-...

&gt;

I am not convinced this change is regular (Tocharian also alternated w & p from *w or *P) or that it was not some *-uw- > *-uv- \ *-uf- > -ub- \ -up(p)-, but the basics are certainly true. Some of these might also be *w-w > w-p (wiz(za)pant-), so if really from *H2wr̥dhwó- it might fit (though *w-w > *0-w before this stage might be needed, if not later *hw-u > h-u dsm.). For arduus, the ar- is a problem if from *H2wr̥dhwó- (*H2r̥tk^o- > ursus 'bear'), but since not all others have the need for *H2(w)r̥dhwó- over *H2ardhwó- (Gmc. ard-, many others ambiguous), I see no problem with both *H2r̥dhwó- & *H2adhwó- existing. Many nouns & adjectives have cognates of the same meaning with e- or 0-grade. Some say *w prevented *dhw from becoming *b, but I think *Tw varied in becoming T or P (many good ex. with either change, especially *dwi- > di- \ bi-).

-

Robert Woodhouse tried to get all from one form (https://www.academia.edu/9230077): "...one gets the distinct impression that the solution is *Hh3rdhuo..." with HH > H, met. in Sanskrit, etc. However, this certainly does not fit the data for the roots. There is a simple solution that is seen in many, many other cases. For some reason, they haven't been united, but there are many "doublets" that have one word with *w, another *H3. This seems clearly like H3 > w, w > H3 being optional (https://www.academia.edu/128170887). If so, *H2wer-(dh-) is older, with variant *H2H3er-(dh-) > *(H2)H3or-(dh-). This allows something like Woodhouse's *Hh3rdhuo, or both *(H2)H3r̥dhwó- & *H2(w)r̥dhwó- in PIE (or maybe early IE branches, depending on timing).

-

However, if *H2H3or- -> *H2H3oron- '(flying) above; bird', then descendants like Go. ara, OI irar, Li. erẽlis ‘eagle’ would have unexplained *o- vs. *e-. This reminds me of *(H)wers- 'rain', in which descendants point to *wers-, *H1wers-, or *H2wers-. If H1 = x^, H2 = x (https://www.academia.edu/115369292), then dsm. of *x^w- > *xw- might have been optional. This allows (and basically requires) older *H1wer-, -s-, -dh- 'high ( > up(right)), sky ( > rain)', etc., usually with dsm. > *H2wer-(dh-) \ *H2H3or-(dh-). Indeed, older 'sky' would fit *(H2)H3ors-ano-s > G. ouranós, Aeo. órănos, Dor. ōranós 'sky, heaven' better than 'rain > sky' (or any previous proposals about its relation to *(H1\2)wers- & lack of **w-). This also makes *H1wer- -> *H1H3eron- > *H3oron- \ *H1eron- 'bird', fitting all data. The meaning of 'up > flying' also fits much better than from the unrelated (I say) root *H1er- 'go, arrive' (which would be needed if we used only traditional sound changes).

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 155: ‘sweet’ (Draft)

-

PIE *dlukus > Greek γλυκύς \ glukús \ *glukwos > γλυκκός 'sweet, fresh (of water)', *dlukw-iH2- Latin dulcis (most u- > i-stems, maybe based on fem. *-wi:(s) being ambiguous)

*glukumo- -> G. γλυκυμή 'licorice' (like ἥδυμος \ ἡδύς 'sweet')

*glukero- > G. γλυκερός 'sweet, fresh (of water)'

G. glukádion ‘sweetmeat, *must > vinegar’

*dleukos- > LB⁠ de-re-u-ko, G. γλεῦκος \ gleûkos 'sweet new wine, must; grape-juice; sweetness', Cretan κλεῦκος, Dor. δεῦκος \ deûkos

-
Greek having *dl- > gl- & *dl- > d- might be related to alternation of d \ l. If even *dl- > *dd- > d-, it would fit with other G. words beginning with C1C1-. Note that the endings nearly all match *swaH2du(mo)-, *swaH2dro- (Tocharian B swāre), including a shift of *-us > *-wis in *swaH2dwi-s > L. suāvis 'sweet, pleasant, delicious'. The 1st part of *swaH2du- is *swe- '(one's) own' (often used in words for 'own (benefit/interest) > enjoyable, etc.') and *-H2d-u- might be cognate with L. adeps m. 'fat, lard, grease; obesity' (Wiczak has related several of these to a PIE root *H2ad- 'thick / full / fat', with details in https://www.academia.edu/121891631). A shift of 'fat, milk > rich, sweet' would fit. In this case, the similarity of the two roots would be *swe-H2d-u- vs. *luk-H2d-u- > *luk-d-u- > *dluku- (with H often > 0 in compounds). The root *l(e)uk- 'white, bright' might have once formed a noun *luk-s 'white thing, milk', since many IE words show 'milk, sweet'.

-
Some say it is related to *dleukaliyōn > Deukalíōn, who is part of a very old myth of the world being flooded with one man surviving, floating on the sea for a long time, and then sending out birds to find land, throwing stones behind him to repopulate humanity. This is somewhat similar to Noah, etc. The idea in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deucalion: According to folk etymology, Deucalion's name comes from δεῦκος, deukos, a variant of γλεῦκος, gleucos, i.e. "sweet new wine, must, sweetness"[4][5] and from ἁλιεύς, haliéus, i.e. "sailor, seaman, fisher".[6] (all the references are to Liddell & Scott). If true, then another old word starting with *dleuk- might have meant 'fresh water' as what he was seeking in the ocean, or what he was sailing on (flood stories in other cultures are often of a lake, with fresh water). The change ‘sweet/fresh’ (of water) > ‘fresh water’ might suggest this story began before PIE people encountered saltwater, the ocean, etc.

-
However, another Deukalíōn was king of Crete. Since the Deukalíōn of the flood was said to then be the 1st to rule over men, I think it is more likely that both names came from 'king, ruling'. Names of this type are common in myths, esp. for words later forgotten. Like L. dux 'leader, commander; ruler; guide', an IE root *deuk- 'lead, guide' -> *deukaliyo- 'ruling' fits best.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 154: ‘rot, ink’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)

September 14, 2026

-

A comparison of PIE *k^y(a)H2p- > Lithuanian šiùpti ‘putrefy’, Greek saprós ‘rotten/putrid’, sḗpō ‘to make rotten/putrid / corrupt/waste’, sḗpomai ‘to rot’, sēpíā ‘cuttlefish’, etc., runs into problems. The 1st is that a stage with *k^yḤ2p- > BS *k^yup- > šiup-, PG *k^yap- > *tsyap- > sap- works fine but the syllabification is unexpected. Why would *k^yaH2p- not have 0-grade *k^y_H2p- > *k^iH2p-? The 2nd is how to unite the meanings of ‘rot’ & ‘cuttlefish’.

-
Though Beekes mentioned that it could be the smell of a rotting cuttlefish, this would work equally well for almost any seafood. Reasonably, to pick out this animal it would be named after its ink or any other of its odd characteristics not shared by fish. This is the path taken by Alexis Manaster Ramer (https://www.academia.edu/164891644):

&gt;

I do not see how the word family of σήπομαι ‘to rot’, σαπρός ‘rotten’, and so on can fail to be directly related to σηπία. I had the experience recently (well, recently when I first wrote this, which was years ago) of pressing on a rotten piece of fruit, which rewarded me with a cloud of black dust that surely could have reminded a prehistoric wordsmith of the squid’s cloud of black ink, the very ink that (as Schwartz reminds us) the Ancients commented on precisely like this. Or rather vice versa, because the acquatic phenomenon was obviously noticed millennia after the effects of terrestrial decomposition must have been named.

&gt;

His idea of *dhwaH2p- > sēp- would leave out šiup-, which is assuredly as likely to be rot : rot as his rot : ink, which "can't fail". Again, the syllabic *H2 needed would still have no explanation.

-
I think it is best to solve one problem with a reanalysis of the other. PIE *k^yḤ2p- is needed for any reasonable relation. Why would *k^yḤ2p- exist? It wouldn't. It couldn't for any known reason. But *k^iHḤ2p- could. Would *k^iHḤ2p- become *k^yḤ2p- later (or the equivalent outcome in each branch, depending on timing)? Maybe. This seems like the best path to take, since it is the only one known to have a change. A form like *k^iHḤ2p- looks like a compound verb *k^iH-Ḥ2p-. These are said to be rare, but I have recently given ev. for others (Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 153).

-
This is where my reanalysis comes in. It is certainly possible that ‘rot, rotten fluid’ > ‘ink’ could have happened, but if we need to start with such an odd form as *k^iHḤ2p- due to sounds, wouldn't the meaning of one suggest *k^iH1-Ḥ2p- ‘black water’? This is much closer to describing ink, so the path would be nearly the opposite, with ‘black water’ > ‘ink’ directly in one word, ‘black water’ > ‘foul water’ > ‘foul, putrid, rotten’ in the other. This *k^iH1- would be the 0-grade of *k^yeH1-wo-, *k^yeH1-wo-, etc. ‘black, dark’.

-
Also, some suggest that *kyaH2ku- > S. kyāku- nu. ‘fungus’, *cyāku > Np. cyāu ‘mushroom(-like fungus)’ are related (rotten > mold(y) > fungus). Without being sure of its, I'd still point out it is possible. This, despite its unmatching sounds, could be reconciled in that p & k can vary by u:

S. nicumpuṇá-s \ nicuṅkuṇa-s \ nicaṅkuṇa-s ‘gush / flood / sinking / submergence?’, Kum. copṇo 'to dip’, Np. copnu 'to pierce, sink in’, copalnu 'to dive into, penetrate’, Be. cop 'blow', copsā 'letting water sink in’, Gj. cupvũ 'to be thrust’, copvũ 'to pierce'

This might allow *k^yaH2pu- > *k^yaH2ku- > *kyaH2ku-. An assimilation of k(^)-k and further optional maintenance of k-k when ky > cy is expected (& seen in later Indic) fits with other similar words with K(^)-K(^). For several ex., see *k^uk- > S. śuktá- ‘sour’, cukra- ‘vinegar’, A. čúkro ‘pungent / sour’; pik^o-H2k^o- > S. piśācá- \ piśācí- ‘flesh-eating demon’ (when *piśāśa- ‘flesh-eating’, expected'), etc. (https://www.academia.edu/164661071).

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 153: ‘snow, rain’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)

September 13, 2026

-

Almost all IE cognates of *(s)neygWh- mean ‘snow’, sometimes ‘rain’, but Indic has a wide range including ‘wet; water, mucus, oil’. Some ex.:

S. sníh- f. 'wetness, moisture', snḗhiti- \ snī́hiti- p.f 'waters', snī̆hiti- f. 'moisture', snīhán- m. \ snīhā́- f. 'mucus of nose', Pk. siṇhā- f. 'snow, dew, mist, drop of water falling from sky', Pj. sinnhā 'wet'

S. nīhārá- m\nu. 'fog, dew, hoarfrost' (RV), nihāra- m., Pk. ṇīhāra- m. 'hoarfrost, frost', Bengali nihār, nīor 'hoarfrost, dew', Hi. nīhār m. 'fog, mist', etc.

S. snigdha- 'unctuous, oily, greasy, sticky; loving, affectionate, friendly', Pa. siniddha- 'wet, greasy'; Pk. siṇiddha- 'wet, juicy, greasy', Sinhalese sini(ň)du 'oily, fat, sticky'

-
The shift of 'moist > muddy, oily > sticky, affectionate' seems odd at 1st glance, but every stage has plenty of parallels. That the words for other kinds of moisture are old may be shown by Old Irish snigid ‘it is raining, dripping, snowing’. Hittite ninga- ‘drenching, cloudburst’, ni(n)k-zi ‘to quench one’s thirst, to drink one’s fill; to get drunk’ might be from *(s)neigWh- or *neigW- (for some reason Alwin Kloekhorst gives neither of these ideas, though I've certainly seen others claim it; many of his entries lack the ideas of those he disagrees with, even if they are believed by most). Also, for Old Prussian singslo 'dough', some say that it should be emended to *snigslo as 'become wet, moist, sticky' (many OPr entries have obviously inccorect spelling). Others have claimed that Gmc. *snig- in words for 'snail' is from 'sticky > slimy' (https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/3655684), but I think a root *sneigWh- 'bend (down), crouch, crawl' existed & was distinct in meaning from 'wet' (also in sound, see below).

-

The real problems are in the sounds. Most show *sneygWh- but *sniHgWh-iti- > snī́hiti- requires *H. Since there are also doublets with short -i- (including the same in nīhārá- \ nihāra-, etc.), why would it seem that *H sporadically appeared "from nowhere"? Pj. sinnhā 'wet' has an "extra" -n- that could be analogy from the verb *snigWh-ne- > *sningWhe-, though this is missing from Sanskrit. The met. in *snihā- > Pk. siṇhā- is not common; though Turner noted its match with Pa. suṇhā- < snuṣā-, this word was likely *sunu\o-so- 'son's woman' (www.academia.edu/129102284).

-
I think all these can be resolved if they're related to *neygW- 'water(y); to wash, cleanse, nourish' in a meaningful way. These words are extremely close in sound & semantics, & a compound with *snaH2- 'swim, wash, moisten' would give *snH2-neygW-. Compound verbs are rare (we assume), though hundreds of them have "stem extenders" (here, *snaH2-p-, etc., & *sn- might be the base if related to *sn-ew-(dh-)). Many of these, like *-dh-, might be the remnants of old compounds, with *-dh- previously theorized to be reduced *-dh- < *dh(e)H1- 'make, do, put'. The oddity of the CCCC cluster in *snH2neygW- might be "fixed" by metathesis > *sneynH2gW-. If so, *HC > *HCh was as common (and optional) as *C(h)H (see work by Jens Elmegård Rasmussen on aspiration of stops after *H, also many previous drafts of mine in support).

-
Many compounds had *H > 0 (not all, not regular), so if *H appeared only in some cognates, it might show its nature as an old compound. Most IE branches might instead simplify the *nHK later (and/or n-n > n-0), but Proto-Indic preserved it, with only most cognates having one or the other dissimilation. This allows *sningWho- > *sningha- \ *sninha- > Pj. sinnhā 'wet' (with analogical spread of -h- from cases with *-gh-e- > *-h-a-), *sniH2gWh-iti- > S. snī́hiti-, etc. In an alternative with an adjective *snigWh-no-, the Indic *-ghn- would not be expected to undergo analogy > *-hn- (see its retention in *gWhen- 'drive (away), hurt, kill' > S. han-, (-)ghn-. It is always surprising how linguists, even those in favor of strict regularity, ignore these problems just because most of the attested words are late or "isolated". Also, trying to find why S. "added" *H or changed *i > i: in these words ignores that PIE had hundreds of roots with one or more *H, often lost for unknown reasons (*g^en(H1)- 'bear, beget').

-
It makes much more sense for an original word with *H to sometimes lose it, with *n-n to sometimes become n-0, than for these to appear "from nowhere". These problems with words are really problems with linguists keeping old reconstructions sacred & unchanging even when new evidence appears requiring different ones. Even old evidence is often unevaluated, such as that seen in branches of Indic. This is especially odd when Indic was so important (overly so, in my mind) in the creation of PIE as it is thought of today.

[removed]

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 151: ‘(turpentine) pine, fir, spruce’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)

September 8, 2026

-

An IE root *gis- seems to appear in:

*gisnó-s > Gmc *kizna-z > OE cén ‘fir, pine, spruce; torch’, OHG kén, NHG Kien ‘resinous wood’

*giso:st > Celtic *gihu:s > Old Irish giús ‘pine, fir’, Gaelic giuthas ‘spruce’

.

These might be from *gei-s- 'humped, slanted, round, twisted; bend, give way, yield to, sway'. This is since other trees from 'yielding' are known, & the original tree so named could never be determined. Many IE roots refer to several trees in cognates, so a change from one to another could have happened many times based on any resemblance.

.

There is no problem with the sounds, however, the ending *-o:st makes little sense as a suffix. I think *giso-stH2-s ‘pine + tree’ makes the most sense. A long *o: > *u: in Celtic fits best with a nom. that lost *s (as *-ons > *-o:n > *-u:n in many other words). Whether *-stHs became *-sts or *-stH is hard to tell, since I think *-ons > *-onH was the cause of *-o:n anyway (https://www.academia.edu/128052798). In support, I gave evidence that *-zdo- in many words for parts of trees came from *-stH2o-s ‘staning > pole, tree’ (https://www.academia.edu/167888664). This allows a relation with *kizd- ‘pine (sap), turpentine pine, etc.’:

*kizdaH2- > S. cīḍā- ‘turpentine pine’, *cīḷā- \ *cīỵā- > A. čili ‘juniper’, Dk. číi(ya) \ číiỵ ‘pine’, Sh. číi(h), Bu. čī̃

*kizdmo- > *kīḷma-? > S. kilima-m ‘kind of pine’, A. kíilum ‘turpentine’, Pl. 'tar', Km. kĕlam m. 'resin of deodar or other fir', Pashai čilúm m. 'torch' >> Kh. čilim-dów ‘torch made of pine splints’ (*zd > ḷ after RUKI, as Vedic)

*keizdlaH2-? > *ke:ḷla: > *ke:la:l > Kh. kelel, Ka. kalál, Sh. kalēl 'resin'

.

Though *-zd- > -l- is not regular, also note that the expected **ḷ of A. čili is not seen, despite its clear origin from ḍ. The expected *ki > *či is seen in several cognates, not others. This is seen in other IE roots in which *k(W) appears before *e, *o due to ablaut. Analogy with one set extended *k to others. Its presence here supports their origin from an IE root, reasonably *kizd, *koizd, etc., not a foreign loan.

.

If *-stH2- > *-zd- was optional, it would explain why these 2 roots have the same meaning. It could be that *gis-stH2o- > *gis-zdo- > *sgizdo- > *(s)kizdo- (since so many IE words have *(s)C-). However, others say that if the first C in a root was b, d, g, followed by V, then the 2nd couldn't be b, d, g (https://www.academia.edu/110928784). This might have turned *stH > *zd, *g-d > *k-d.

.

Also, since I say that *kVs- remained in Gmc (https://www.academia.edu/144486855), it could be that *kizdno- > Gmc. *kizna- > OE cén, OHG kén. There's no other word with old *zdn, so a change > *zn could work. If both roots could have the same outcome, hard to tell.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 150: ‘log bridge’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)

September 7, 2026

A relation of Ar. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ & G. géphūra 'bridge, causeway’ as non-IE is needed for supposed m vs. *bh, or at least it is said by some linguists to be. Both these have uncertain etymologies, so a close look is needed. Martirosyan noticed that many words for ‘log / beam (used as a bridge); bridge’ resembled Ar. kamurǰ too much to be coincidence, especially its proto-form with *gW- (https://www.academia.edu/45035665):

&gt;

That a Mediterranean–Pontic cultural term can demonstrate an irregular from an IE point of view correspondence... in Armenian is parallel with what we observe in the case of the word for ‘bridge’: Gr. γέφῡρα ‘beam; bridge’ with *bh (labial, voiced aspirate) vs. Arm. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ with *m (labial nasal), cf. Hattic ḫamuru(wa) ‘beam’, Abkhaz *qʷəmbər– ‘beam’, Urart. Qaburzani ‘bridge’, etc.

&gt;

but his idea that they ALL were loans is a bit much, even if the ancient & unseen speakers of Mediterranean–Pontic were the greatest bridgebuilders the world had ever seen. That many of these refer to simple log bridges makes a new technical term spreading unlikely. That these show l-r, 0-r, m-r points to old *r-r with dissimilation of 3 types (or more).

I say the use for (things made of) logs, beams, etc., makes PIE *gWeru(C) (Latin verū 'spit; dart', verua p. 'paling or railing around an altar or tomb', Celtic *beru 'spear, spit', Gothic qairu 'stake') forming a compound *gW(e)ru-bhru(H1)-iH2 'small bridge made of (pointed) beams' likely. For a rec. *bhrH1-u-s > *bhruH1-s 'bridge, brow' (https://www.academia.edu/128867037) allowing *H > 0 in a compound, met. or dsm. of u-u, etc., the exact sequence in each group can't be known for sure. The attested alt. l-r vs. 0-r in G. géphūra, Boe. blephūra is called a mistake in standard theory, but *rbh-r > l-ph-r & *mbh-r is the only thing that fits all data. I say that no "mistake" would appear twice in these words that happen to mean 'bridge'.

*gW(e)ru-bhr(H1)u-iH2 > *gWrephurya > G. géphūra, Boe. blephūra, Cr. dephūra ‘bridge, beam, weir, dyke, dam, causeway’, (in Hesychius) Lac. díphoura, *baphūra > bouphára, *wrephura: ? > Ephura ‘*isthmus > Corinth’

*gWerbhurya- > [e-u > a-u] *kwarwurya ? > Ar. kamurǰ ‘bridge’, kamrǰi g., kamrǰa-c' pgd, dia. karmu(n)ǰ \ -č \ etc. ‘bridge; pole of a fence, a long thick pole with teeth on one side (used as a ladder), a piece of wood in water that serves as the base for a water-wheel’ (dia. forms might allow r-r > n-r \ r-n or w-w > w-m)

*kwerphurǰ? > Gr. k'ip'orč'-i ‘log used as a bridge’ (all features fit Armenian loan best, so r-r > 0-r in at least one dia.; spread of glottalization fairly common (bh > ph > p' ?))

NC *qWǝmbǝrla > Bzyb a-XWbǝlrǝ \ a-XWbǝrlǝ \ a-XWblarǝ, Tapant qWǝmblǝ, qWǝblǝ ‘beam over hearth / cross-beam’

Urartian qaburza-ni (plural tantum) ‘bridge’

Hattic ham(m)uru(wa) ‘beam’

It is hard to make any of the last group fit as loans, despite their resemblance. It could be that *rH > *rR > *rl in NC (if *H1 was not lost there). Many IE words, even late ones or very specific compounds, have matches throughout Asia, so a relation of many of them is more likely.

Gandharvá-s & Kéntauros, Comparative Mythology (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)

January 8, 2025 (Draft 1), September 6, 2026

-

Since Gandharvá-s & Kéntauros certainly come from a common Indo-European myth (associated with horses, healing, stealing women), the similarity of these words should not be ignored but analyzed. Other figures in Greek myths have been compared to Sanskrit figures with similar names; if Greek Kérberos \ Kérbelos matching Sanskrit Śabala-, with irregular treatment of r-r, is good enough, why not this as well? Making it even more certain, there was G. kéntauros ‘vagina’ & an odd association in S. between Gandharvá-s and the womb. The charm of saying, “You are the mouth of the Gandharva Viśvavāsu” to one’s wife’s womb was used to get her to quickly conceive. This seems based on 2 words sounding exactly the same in both languages. Since all these connections could not arise by chance unless from a common source (and PIE is known to be that source anyway), I see no reason not to analyze them together.

.

Centaurs and the sometimes half-horse Gandharvas have been connected by scholars before regular sound changes were the norm. When regularity became king, the mythical match was thrown in chains along with the disproven theory that first related them, in contradiction of law and logic. The idea that sound changes alone "prove" they're related, once disproven, should not have any bearing on the relation of the beings themselves & their shared characteristics. The fact that it is impossible to relate S. Gandharvá- & G. Kéntauros in standard Greek does not matter if a G. dialect shows changes that DO allow this connection. It is foolish to deny such a clear mythical match when many Greek dialects show exactly the changes needed to make it fit. Neogrammarian ideals have been held too tightly, causing the iron fist of certainty to crush all ideas opposed to it.

.

One important change that seems relevant is that S. & most Greek dialects had Ch-Ch > C-Ch, like *dhedh(H1)mo- ‘what is established’ > W. deddf ‘rite / decree / law, G. Lac. thethmós, Dor. tethmós, Att. thesmós ‘(a specific) law’. If PIE *ghendharwo-s existed, it could then become *khentharwo-s > *kenthawro-s. Since another very famous half-human creature, the Mīnṓtauros, also ended in -tauros, it is reasonable to assume that lexical analogy could turn *kenthawro-s > Kéntauros.

.

There is more irregularity in certain cognates. Since the Iranian *gandarǝba- / *gandǝrǝva- ( > Elamite kanturma ) / etc. also gave Av. gandarǝwa-, a water monster, it seems these are 2 separate mythical creatures that shared the same name. However, the Gandharvas sometimes also lived in water, or the heavenly waters above. That they were both often hostile to man might show that one group became more hostile over time in stories, the other (mainly) more positive. With this, the irregular v / bh / h in S. words (often from PIE *bh; gabhvara-, gáhvara-; śárb(h)ati \ śárvati ‘hurt/hit/kil’) would be required no matter the relation to Kéntauros. Why would irregularity be accepted in one branch, not another? It is possible that IIr. *-rHw- could have > -rb(h)- & -rv- (no certain examples).

.

Another involves *ghendharwo-s > Gandharvá-s. In Sanskrit *ghe- became ja- when followed by Ch. This would prevent *ghendhar(H)wo-s as the source, maybe *ghondharwo-s. However, G. -e- could still easily be cognate, since other words with accepted etymology (*gWemtu- > S. gántu- ‘course/way’, Av. jantu-; *gWelbh- > S. gárbha-, Av. garǝwa-, G. delphús ‘womb’) show that *e did not always produce ja-. It’s likely due to analogy, which could restore or retain K / KW (probably at a stage where K(W) > K^ before front vowels).

.

Another bit of evidence comes from early Attic. The words of Sophilos have been left in vase inscriptions (about 580 BC), a precious record of otherwise unrecorded sound changes. Very importantly, his ketauros for kéntauros ‘centaur’ is certainly relevant for finding the etymology of this unreasonably disputed word. Since there is no way for *n to disappear before *t, it raises a strong possibility that *kértauros existed, with either dissimilation of *r-r > n-r or > 0-r.

.

Since there is no good way to find the origin by comparison among these words alone, finding fitting IE roots could help. If G. kéntauros ‘vagina’ & S. *gandharvá-s ‘womb’ are relevant, it would make sense to start from there. This additional connection has been ignored in almost all previous attempts, so the failures of the past should be corrected to find the truth. Finding the origin of these words depends on ALL their meanings. Why did the association in S. between Gandharvá-s and womb arise? This seems based on 2 words sounding exactly the same, and there is a likely source.

.

If PIE *gh(o)rdho-s ‘enclosure, enclosed place, cave, protected space, yard’ formed an adjective *gherdho- ‘enclosed, etc.’, then a compound meaning ‘enclosed inner organ > womb’ formed with *H2or(H)wo- \ *H2ar(H)wo- ‘intestines, stomach, womb, etc.’ is possible. The exact reconstruction of the 2nd is not certain & depends on whether Armenian argand ‘womb’ is related (others have <- *H2arku- ‘protected, enclosed, etc.’). The accent of kéntauros & gandharvá-s not matching could be due to an old compound (some are accented as the 1st, some the 2nd, others different than either).

.
If G. kéntauros ‘vagina’ & Skt. *gandharvá-s ‘womb’ are related, then Gandharvá-s & Kéntauros certainly are as well. Since *gherdh-H2ar(H)wo- ‘womb, vagina’ fits one meaning, what is the other word? I say it is the same word, just with an apparently opposite meaning. I think the all-male Gandharvas were named from ‘(having a) penis’, as compounds of this type can be both. For this range of meaning (https://www.academia.edu/127198281) :

&gt;

L. Mutunus Tūtūnus \ Mutinus Tītīnus ‘phallic god of marriage’ probably had dissimilation of ū-ū > *ū-ī / *ī-ū / ī-ī, since it came from *tuHto- \ *tutHo- > OIr toth ‘vulva/vagina / fem. gender in grammar’, G. sáthē ‘penis’, Arm. tutn \ ttun ‘tail / end’ (since many IE words can mean both: G. kérkos ‘tail of a beast / penis’; more below). Note that G. sáthē ‘penis’ has the fem. gender in grammar, OIr toth ‘vulva/vagina / fem. gender in grammar’ has the masc. gender in grammar (old o-stem). Some IE words were used first for male genitals, then any genitals, then only female genitals (Skt. gr̥dá- ‘penis’, sárdi-gr̥di- ‘vagina’; dual sakthyáu ‘pole / shafts of a cart / vagina’; G. baubṓ(n) ‘vagina / dildo’; sélīnon ‘celery / *stalk > *penis > vagina’; Bq. potro ‘testicle’, potorro ‘vulva’; Sino-Tibetan *puta ‘penis shaft / vagina’). Arm. tutn \ ttun might retain *tH > t or be based on analogy with *tit ‘breast’ (merka-tit ‘with bare breast(s)’, titan ‘a nurse’, Luwian titan- ‘breast’, OE titt).

&gt;

.

This would not be an unusual name for Gandharvas. For similarly explicit names, see (https://www.academia.edu/40775603) :

&gt;

váṅgṛda- ‘N[ame] of a demon’ (RV 1.53.8 ) is said to be “Nicht klar” [unclear] (EWA II:489 s.v.), but can be simply analyzed as a compound *ván-gṛda- ‘(one having a) tree-(like) penis’ (for gṛda- ‘Penis’, see EWA I:494 s.v.)… This is not so much a term of abuse for an enemy of (Vedic) humankind as a reflection of the pervasive Vedic fear of the sexual power of demons (perhaps sometimes also representing human interlopers). A good example is AV 8.6 , a hymn that is said be an incantation “To guard a pregnant woman against demons” (WHITNEY1905 II:493-498).

&gt;

Another is tuṇḍéla-, which we analyze as *‘one whose elephant trunk is/has been raised’, based on tuṇḍa- ‘(elephant’s) trunk’ + ĪR- or perhaps ā́ ĪR (compare éru-, a word universally recognized as having some kind of (male) sexual reference (EWA s.v.) but which we more specifically derive from ā́ ĪR- and take to mean ‘aroused’

&gt;

.
As further support, many rituals in the Vedas are to protect a woman woman from being raped by Gandharvas, & there was a Roman ritual to protect the woman who had just given birth from Silvanus (de.wikisource.org/wiki/RE:Pilumnus,_Picumnus). The association of Silvanus with Silenus & the all-male half-animal satyrs fits if there was an old IE myth of all-male half-animal magical beings with large erect penises who dwelled in the wild, with associated rituals needed to protect women. The set of having part of this myth retained, having a word for ‘womb, vagina’ being the same as that for ‘penis’, & naming the half-animals for this is found only in Greek & Sanskrit. The relation was known long ago, and attempts to dismiss it should be rejected. A set of criteria that are so strict they can't allow even obvious connections is only a hindrance to further understanding.

The Marsi of Italy, inscription found at the bottom of Lake Fucinus (Draft).

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
September 4, 2026

A group of people called Martses in their native tongue (case uncertain), in Latin Marsi, who lived in Marruvium, etc., can be explained as from PIE *mr̥su- with native *rs > r(t)s (*rs > rr in Latin, *rts > rts \ rs). This suggests an -u- as part of the stem also in the related Marrucini. The best match is *m(e)rs- 'forget', & since Sanskrit mṛ́ṣyate 3. 'to forget; ignore, disregard, put up with; pardon, forgive' allows *mr̥su- to have meant 'forgiving > generous', it would fit other IE peoples named 'famous, rich'. For more (Robert Seymour Conway (1897) The Italic Dialects):

&gt;

The Marsi, whose chief centre was Marruvium on the Eastern shore of Lake Fucinus, are first mentioned as members of a confederacy with the Vestini, Paeligni and Marrucini... The Latin colony of Alba Fucens near the N.W. corner of the lake was founded in the adjoining Aequian territory in 202... all the coins of the Marsian 'consul,' Q. Pompaedius Silo, have the Latin legend Italia...

&gt;

Alba Fucens is certainly 'Lake F.', with Alba seen in other names for or near water (https://www.academia.edu/5963158). In the Marsian inscription on a bronze plaque found at the bottom of Lake Fucinus near its WSW shore:

Caso Cantovios Aprufclano ceipapur finem Esalicom en urbid Casontonia socie-que donom atolero Actia pro l[?]nibus Martses

Anything at the bottom of a lake for over 2,000 years is likely to be hard to read. For his donom "Büch reluctantly reads doiuom", but it should certainly be donom 'gift' (seen in other nearby inscriptions, also dono). Since en urbid must be loc., maybe analogy with *keiweta:ti > *keiwesad (or another wrong reading)? The name Caso Cantovios Aprufclano > Aprufclans seems best, since an Italic nom. in *-nos > -ns fits (other examples of S here are odd, so seeing S as O would be possible). Separating apruf as < *aprons 'boars', as if this noted a gift of (sacrificial) boars does not fit the context. It also is not needed since -fql- has now been found in other secure Italic words (South Picene múfqlúm 'memorial?' < *monstlo-m). This name might be < *approb(a)-tlo- 'favorable (omen)', or similar.

Marsian shows *nC > *C (probably for fricatives in *anxWitya: > L. Angitia, *anxWitya: > *anxtya: > *axtya: > M. Actia. Also, "...Mr W. M. Lindsay suggests, the two words being atolero actia 'attulerunt Angitiae.'...". This could be *-e:r plus the middle *-o in *at-tolēr(-i or -ont(i) ?) > *at-tolēr-o ? > atolero ‘they brought’.

"All edd. agree in restoring le[gio]nibus." However, there is no evidence of a military title here (the 'and wife' also wouldn't fit this) & I think it likely lnibus should be read tribus (from context, since tribus Martses 'Marsian people' right near their home fits better than a military group). There is one section missing (the bottom middle). This occurs at the possible break in l[?]nibus (others see no -e- in his le-). It is assumed that it was broken after being thrown in the lake, with the letters between l and n lost, but the words before the break are evenly spaced, after it they are squeezed together and not linear, the n seeming to avoid the break. This implies the break happened when the craftsman was making the letters in that very section and he had to fit the rest into a space smaller than anticipated. It would be easy to make a clay model beforehand to know how to space the letters. If it was already consecrated to Actia, simply getting another would likely be religiously impossible. This means that l[?]nibus is indeed one full word, lnibus, so a correction to tribus is likely < Italic *tribhus (dat. pl. *tribhubhis or *tribhu:is (depending on analogy, etc.)), modified by Martses < *marsyois 'Marsian'. This would fit *yoi > *yei, *-ya: > *-ye: (socie).

I think:

Caso Cantovios Aprufclans ceipapur finem Esalicom en urbid Casontonia socie-que donom atolero Actia pro tribus Martses

Caso Cantovios Aprufclans, head of the Italic territories in the city of Casontonia, and-wife brought (this) gift to Angitia on behalf of the Marsian people.

Though Latin socius 'sharing, joining in, partaking, associated; kindred, related, akin, ally; leagued, allied, united, confederate', m. 'partner; companion, comrade; ally' clearly allows a shift of feminine socia, *sokWya: 'related > wife', others translate socie (and other Italic cognates, *sokWya: > Faliscan socia- ‘wife’) as 'girlfriend'. This seems completely unneeded, & several unmarried men with girlfriends happening to dedicate something to or with them is more unlikely. It also would require (https://www.academia.edu/34993242) kapena rufia kaleptia ues saluete sociai ofetios kaios uelos amanos salueto salues seite 'May-you girlfriends Capena Rufia Caleptia be-healthy. May-(you) Ofe(n)tius (and) Gaius (and) Vel/Velos (and) Amanus be healthy. May-you-be healthy'. Were girlfriends mentioned 600 percent more by people whose word for 'girlfriend' was socia? Did they also have 3 girlfriends & were willing to name them in a gift for all 3 and more people? Instead, this is wishing for 3 friends (amanos) & their 3 wives (sociai) to be well.

Caso matches L. Cato, Casontonia matches related words with Caton-; Esalicom : Italicum, it would require *-t- > -s-. A relation with Casentino is possible, but it is not very close. If from Etruscan Casuntinial \ Casntinial, & if this is related to Gasuentini, etc., then more reason for Casontonia to be separate. If *-t- > *-d-, so *-ti > -d word finally (urbid). Since Umbrian had some *l > *d > ř (kařetu ‘let him call’ < *kalē-tō-d, fameřias g. ( = L. familiae)), & since d \ l is very common in Latin, then also (with common Italic *-d- > *-ð- > *-R-, of a value separate from original *r), *potis > *pods > *pols > -pur (or any similar path). This could favor remaining *ð > *z, with Cato > Caso as pronounced *kazo.

The “finem Esalicom” seems to be gen. pl., modifying the title “ceipapur”, meaning “of the Italic territories” (as opposed to Etruscan?). This means Latin Ītalico-, Marsian Esalico-, are cognates, showing intervocalic *t > s. The title ceipapur fits *keiwa:-potis or *keiwai potis 'lord of the town' (L. civis), comparing *wik^a:-poti-s 'lord of the settlement/village/town'. Assimilation of *w to P also theorized in *ma:wortikos > Mamercus ( <- Mars). Similar to dsm. in *weg^he-went- > vehementus. Other C-C asm. at a distance in Venetic vhroroi < *flo:roi (https://www.academia.edu/35853116). A division "ceip apur" (as if < apud) would leave ceip unexplained & nearly unexplainable.

The Sicel inscription of Mendolito, Italic Matches (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
September 3, 2026

-

The Sicel inscription of Mendolito is given as, originally right to left (https://sicily.classics.ox.ac.uk/inscription/ISic003364):

"A monolithic block (subsequently broken in three pieces), weighing approximately 1300 kg. The rock on face a, bearing the main inscription, was clearly worked to create the epigraphic field and is partially eroded in some places, especially on the left side. Face b (upper surface) is moderately chiselled to create a uniform but not smooth surface; the other two faces on the long sides (c, d) are not currently visible..."

.
"Found in excavation by Pelagatti 1962 in east wall of the city gate, inside the fortifications. Moved to the Siracusa museum in 1977 and currently on display in the Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi, Sector C: Mendolito"

.

inscription 1

iam akaram epppaska aigiies geped

teuto werega ies ͱ ekadoara

.
& inscription 2-6 having fragments (PO, WEA, DON, A, RIE)

.
Valentina Mignosa "At this stronghold, Epp̣paska Aigiies (perhaps a bimember onomastic formula) captured the armed body of the community of the city of Iesheikadoara(?)."

.

This can not be right, since ppp in epppaska simply makes no sense, neither would having the last 3 words joined as an incomprehensible name (one not looking IE, unlike the rest). Based on another:

Filippo Stanco, Davide Tanasi, Beatrice Basile, Federica Cordano, Gioconda Lamagna (2016)

Enhanced analysis and transcription of non-Hellenic inscriptions from Archaic Sicily through open source digital techniques (https://www.jstor.org/content/oa\_chapter\_edited/jj.15135938.24)

.

iam akaram epopaska ad?iies geped

do †

touto weregai esθe kadoara

o iea ?

.
Some of the new marks are smaller & likely later (since o iea seems like practicing writing V's, not a word). The 2 new (or matching Greek, but uncertain) signs are given as ?. I say, "Adziyes the horse-tender gave this stone for the city wall. It is a sacrificial altar (?) (or 'altar-cover' ?)". This translation is essentially certain (with the only part not securely matching others in kado-ara, if a compound, but the nature of the stone fits) since it was "in east wall of the city gate", a masc. name followed by geped 'he gave' fits many inscriptions telling who donated them; other matches below. Features like imperfect -ed < *-et fit Italic, epo- like Celtic. Most features in other inscriptions seem Italic (https://www.academia.edu/116074387). The title epo-paska 'horse-tender' (as a masc. a-stem, like other jobs) could just as easily be for a stablehand as for the owner of hundreds, or even > 'marshal' (as in E. marshal). Some of these are more likely to donate a large carved stone, whether an altar or not. Alternatively, ad?iies could be the title (if 'speaker > mayor', etc.), epo-paska his name.

.
iam 'this' [acc. fem. < *(H1)yo-]

akara-m 'stone' [acc. of *H2akr-aH2- with C(V)r (as weregai) or related to *H2okari-?]

epo+, Celtic *epo-s 'horse', PIE *H1ek^wo-s

+paska 'tender, herdsman', Latin pāscere 'to feed, nourish, pasture, tend; graze' <- *paH2-

geped 'he gave' [imperfect 3s. of *ghebh- 'to grab, give, take; seize, have power > be able'; *-et > -ed as in OL, other Italic]

touto [dat. of *teuto- 'people, city'; *-o:i > -o: as in L.; *eu > ou as in Italic & Celtic]

weregai [dat. of *wreg^aH2- \ -iH2- \ -o- 'wall, enclosure'; OI fraig 'wall', S. vrajá-s 'cowpen, cattleshed'], wrV- > wVrV-?

esθe 'is', Sicel esti, PIE *H1esti

kado+, L. cad- 'fall', *-wr > cadāver '*fallen > *dead > corpse, cadaver, carcass' (if 'sacrificial altar' < 'animal-corpse altar')

or?

kado+, PIE *ka(H2)dh- 'guard; cover' or 'helmet, hat'

+ara, L. āra 'altar' < *HaHs- 'burn'

ad?iies, L. Āius Loquens 'a god who warned the Romans of a coming invasion by the Gauls' < *H2ag^yo-s 'the speaker'; *-yos is a common masc. ending for names; *yo > *ye might work, but it seems -os > -es in Sicel eurumakes << G. Eurúmakhos.

.

The unknown sign in ad?iies is within the delta. Since *dy often > *dzy in IE, & no other known sign occurs before an I used as Y here, it almost certainly is Z or a small z attached to D to form Dz as an affricate. Also, since this ety. is from *g^ anyway, a satem *g^ > *dz^ > dz is possible. The unknown dialects might allow several outcomes of K^ & K^, if Sicel iemitom / iemtom, G. gamétēs ‘husband’ < *g^mH1(e)to-; Sicel esuino- < *H1ek^wiHno- 'of horses; horse twin?'.

.
The -a- in akara-m 'stone' [acc. of *H2akr-aH2- with C(V)r (as weregai) or related to *H2okari-?] could be original. I see no reason PIE *H2okari-s 'peak' couldn't have existed (-a- also in *koryano-s 'leader of an army/war-band'), but a discussion by Weiss (https://www.academia.edu/3728421):

&gt;

(e)ochair ‘border, edge, rim’ is not attested in any Old Irish source proper and the crucial genitive singular is to my knowledge missing entirely. Nevertheless what can be pieced together from Middle Irish sources is consistent with an i-stem... this word cannot be an exact match of Latin ocris, because *h2ŏkris would have given †úair/†óir. Cf. dér ‘tear’ < *dakrV- and more to the point ér ‘high’ < *akro-. Some vowel must have stood between the velar and the r and this medial vowel must have been non-front if the absence of palatalization in the syncopated form is to be taken seriously. Thus we are led to a preform *oka/o/uri-. It is rather striking that one of the three possible preforms, *okaris, is exactly the preform required for U. ocar, gen. sg. ocrer traditionally translated ‘citadel’. The Umbrian word has long been equated with Lat. ocris reported by Festus (p. 192 L) to be an ancient word for mons confragosus, but this comparison is both formally and semantically questionable...

fn. 93 An alternative a-stem substantivization of this adjective may be attested in Sicel akaram on the inscription of Mendolito, but of course this might also be by anaptyxis from *akram, in which case it would confirm the existence outside of Greek of *h2ĕkreh2. The only alternative explanation for *okaris that I have found is that of Prósper (1994), who explains the form as an ī-stem derivative of an old r-stem *okar < *okr. This would be phonologically possible only for Celtic and ochair shows no clear evidence of being an ī-stem.

&gt;

.
Also, esθe as 'is' matches Sicel esti (Inscr. of Centuripae / Centorbi (on a jug) has estidurom (durom begins next line) & estiveliom), Camunic esθ (likely showing spread of fric.) (https://www.academia.edu/30530726), with *-i > -e as in Latin in general & Eteocretan este specifically (https://www.academia.edu/126907768). More on IE classification in these links, & those above.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 77, 111: ‘white, cloud, rain, wet, water’ (Draft 2)

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 77: *H2albhwo- ‘white’ (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
June 24, 2025 (Draft 1), September 2, 2026

.

A. Standard PIE *H2albho- ‘white’ does not explain all data.  Anatolian *albo- > H. alpa- ‘cloud’ does not have h- < *H2- (so as if < *H3olb(h)o- or *H1olb(h)o-) and yet other IE begin with a- requiring *H2a-, & some IE must have had *H- of some type.  F. *kalpas > kalvas, kalpea ‘pale’ seems to be from Ir. *xalbas (with the fact that *H lasted so long in Ir. (Kümmel), if *H was similar to a velar or uvular fricative (Whalen 2024b)).  Kloekhorst even rejects H. alpa- ‘cloud’ from ‘white’ because of lack of h- and that, “semantically it is [difficult] as well… alpa- is predominantly associated with rain and thunder, and therefore an oriinal meaning ‘whiteness’ is unlikely’.  This does not seem strong to me, since the etymological origin of a word has nothing to do with what it eventually became. If later people say clouds are white or black, whic (if either) was original can't be known.  He also does not connect H. alpant-, but since it is used of a sick child and a kind of cheese, ‘white / pale’ would cover both.

.

Also, G. alōphós ‘white’, alpho-prósōpos ‘white-faced’, alphós ‘dull-white leprosy’ show variation between what looks like *(H2)albho- and *alH3bho-.  Gmc *albut- \ *albit- > OHG albiz \ elbiz, OE ælfitu \ ilfetu, ON ölpt \ alpt f., elptr p. ‘swan’ also show the need for *-H- > -i- / -u- (for some *-H2- > -i- / -u- / -a-, see *H2anH2t- ‘duck’ > OHG anut / anat / enit).  I also think it’s likely that Sy. áglu ‘swan’ (in Hesychius) stood for *áwlu: (since other cases of -g- are suspected to stand for -w- (gamma for wau)) with nom. *-u: spelled -u or -ou in G. (1).  Since so many other IE words for  ‘swan’ are seen as <- *H2albho- ‘white’, this does not seem odd.  Though *-lb- > *-wl- is possible, especially since Sy. covered a vast territory & likely had many dialects, this would make more sense if *H2albh-wo- ‘white’ existed with -wo- common in IE words for colors.  Most IE branches had no Pw, so it could have merged with *H2albho-.  There’s nothing preventing a change like *lb > *bl > *wl, but if instead *lbw > *lbv > *lv \ *vl, it would have no counterexamples.  The existence of Pw late in IIr. is seen in S. gabhvara- ‘vulva’, gáhvara- ‘deep/impervious/impenetrable / depth/abyss/water / hiding place/thicket’.  With a better understanding of how many variants were needed, and what their proto-forms needed to be, a full analysis of these cognates is possible.

.

B. Was 'cloud' or 'white' the older meaning? In fact, it might be a 3rd. Francesco Perono Cacciafoco (https://www.academia.edu/5963158) :

&gt;

...it seems that paleo-Ligurian place names of the type Alba, old european river names Albis and the like, as well as their ablauting forms Olb- (> Orb- in Romance Ligurian), do not directly relect the proto-indo-european adjective *albho- 'white'; but rather they all seem to continue a pre-proto-indo-european extended root *Hal-bh- 'water'... that is the basis, for example, of the Germanic hydronym Albis, the name of the Elbe River. All these names indicate settlements on waterways, on rivers, lakes, and seas, in practice places situated near water (and even hydronyms,

&gt;

.

I agree that it makes little sense for these places to be from 'white', at least the vast majority. Again, both *H2albho- & *H3olbho- might be needed for the V's. These 2 groups containing the same oddity (as much as discernible in available cognates) fits with the range of standard *ne(w)bh- 'cloud, mist, moist', *H(V)mb(h)- 'water, rain(storm/cloud)', etc., so there is no reason not to see *Ha\olbh- as 'cloud' & 'water'. I think an IE origin fits best, since unrelated loans for 'water' & 'cloud' looking so similar & entering IE from an outside source would be very odd.

.

C. It seems some of these outcomes can be united by H-metathesis (Whalen 2025a).  If G. alōphós requires *H2al(o)H3bho-, then *H2albho- & *H3olbho- might be real, from *H2alH3bho- > *H3H2albho- > *H2albho- & *H3olbho-. The optional *HH > *H of either type is like other ex. (https://www.academia.edu/127283240). With some IE having *H3olbho-, it would solve H. alpa- not having h-.  It is also possible that some *H2alH3bho- > *H3olH2bho-. Knowing if *-lHb- > -lb- was regular in Anatolian is impossible to say (since any specific *-CHC- might have had its own rule, and *H moved by metathesis might not have even become syllabic anyway).

.

Ar. aławni ‘dove’ is also somtimes derived from *H2albho- (as 'the white one', etc.).  If so, this would also favor both *H2- & *-H3- > -a- (*H3C- > aC-, no other ex. of *-H3- > any V), *H2alH3bhniyo- > *alabniyo- > aławni. The environment of *-CHCC- might be the cause.  Some favor another origin (3). Though I can’t deny this possibility, I think loans into Lezghian could support *H2alH3bh- >> *(x)lǝxWf > Kryts lǝf, Tab. luf, Rut. lirf \ lirxW, Ai. xurk’. In support, alawun-k’ \ alawsun-k’ ‘the Pleiades’, if originally the 'rain-bringers' would support *alawo-n- 'cloud(y), rain(y)' (or even 'white > shining').

.

With only this, *H2alH3bho- > G. alōphós would then need to be explained instead of expected **alophós.  However, since *kolH3no- > Li. kálnas ‘mountain’, *kolǝH3no- > G. kolōnós ‘hill’ (2025a), we can at least believe that *-l H3 C- could behave differently. Instead, this root might have had 3 H's (below), with *H2alH3H1bho- > G. alōphós. As a color word with *-wo-, *H2alH3bhwo- could even have become *H2alH3bhH3o- (2), then H-metathesis to *H2alH3H3bho- > *HalHǝH3bho- > alōphós, if regular for *-CHHC-.

.

The large number of oddities in many words that can be explained by H-metathesis supports its existence.  Without it, an individual explanation for every word with a problematic *H would be needed. This would be only one of many ex. of IE roots that have the same meaning but with *H in a different location (or other types of metathesis) discussed in this series.  I am not satisfied having 2 roots like *H2albh- & *H3olbh- that are so similar and both show oddities.  Both the nature of IE roots and some common explanation for a wide range of oddities needs to be found before long range etymologies can be justified.

.

D. What is the origin & connection of *H2albhH3-? Though I only compared its range of meaning to *ne(w)bh- & *H(V)mb(h)-, both these roots also have problems with which *H, which *b(h), whether a *w existed, etc. Three roots for 'cloud, water, etc.' sharing these oddities is beyond belief (in others' claims, any standard reconstruction leaves many forms unaccounted for). Based on *Hal-(H)pa- (below), I think a compound with *H2al- 'high, deep' fits. Changes of *H2al-nH3bh- 'deep water, high cloud' (with IIr. *naHbh- 'cloud', etc. (IERR 111)) > *H3H2alnbh- \ etc. would allow *HVmb(h)- 'water, rain(storm), etc.' to have the same origin. The change of *-ln- to -l- or *-n- ( > -m- before *b(h)) might fit with *H2al-n(iy)o- 'other' having -n- or -l- in IE. The *-H3b(h)- likely shows optional C(h) next to H (despite claims, no regular account for all *CH & *HC fits all data).

.

The exact form of traditional *nebh- can't explain all data. I am also not sure which parts are original. This could, instead, be from *newbhH1- \ *noH3bhH1-, which could have formed *H2aln(H3)b(h)(H1)- 'deep water, high cloud' (IERR 111). If so, then *bH1 \ *bhH1 might be from *(s)newb-(e)H1- 'be wet'.

.

Though the loss of *H in cp. is common, not regular in similar *H2ap- 'water' > IIr. *Hal-(H)pa- 'deep (of water)'; see Os. arf ‘deep’, S. álpa- ‘deep [of water]’. Based on (https://www.academia.edu/127350993) :

Atharvaveda Śaunakīya 4.16.3cd
utó samudraú váruṇasya kukṣī́, utā́smínn álpa udaké nílīnaḥ
me:  also the two oceans are Varuṇa’s stomach; also in this deep water is he hidden.
Whitney:  also the two oceans are Varuṇa’s paunches; also in this petty water is he hidden.

.

Whitney’s version makes no sense, since he took álpa- ‘deep’ as identical with :

S. álpa- \ alpaka- ‘small / slight flimsy’, Li. alpùs ‘weak’, G. (a)lapadnós ‘easily exhausted / feeble’

.

If related to L. altus ‘high / tall / deep’, Ar. ał-k` ‘deep place / depth’, the -p- would not be likely to be an affix.  A source like *H2al-H2po- ‘deep [of water]’ > *H2alpo- > IIr. *Halpa- makes sense since PIE *H is often lost in compounds.  If S. had *-l(H)p- > -lp- & Os. had *-lHp- > -Hlp-, it would produce *ā > a.  A specific ‘deep [of water]’ as the oldest meaning is probably known from Scythian arpó-, which is likely seen in Arpó-xaï- “lord of water” / “lord of the deep” in the story of the 3 sons of Targitaus (the others “lord of the earth” (rip-, lip(o)- & “lord of the sun” (xola- < *xwar-ya-)).

.

Notes

1.  The many IIr. nom. -av or -ō, most attested as early as possible, favor rounding after *o (Khoshsirat & Byrd) of the type *-os > *-of \ *-ov > *-av (Whalen 2025b, d).  Based on (Whalen 2024a, 2025b) :

Ir. changes of KW > P near P / KW :

*g^hwoigW- > G. phoîbos ‘pure / bright’ and Li. žvaigzdė ‘star’
*gWhwoigW-zda: > Slavic *gwaigzda: > Po. gwiazda
(unless K^wo > Kwo was reg. in BS, with analogy in Li. from 0- & e-grade)

*H3okW- ‘eye’, Os. ärmäst ‘only’ >> *arim-aksa- > Scythian ( >> G.) Arimaspoí ‘one-eyed’
(Av. airimē ‘peacefully/quietly’, ‘*lonely/alone’ > Os. ärmäst ‘only’ as a suppletive form of ‘one’ in )

*kWis-kW(o)is- ‘arrange / order / lead’ >> *kWis-kW(o)is- > *kWis-p(o)is- > Sogdian čp’yš ‘leader’, OP *čišpiš- ‘king’, Čišpiš

The Arimaspoí were a one-eyed people in the north, according to ancient Scythians.  Herodotos reports that Arimaspoí meant ‘one-eyed’ (appropriate for a one-eyed people).  Doubts arise because he divided it into arima ‘one’ and spou ‘eye’, which do not exactly match any Iranian words.  I feel it is only his division that was wrong, not the meaning.  Since a-stems would end in nom. -ou (Av. -ō) but -a- in compounds this TYPE of division would normally work, but -a- would instead appear as 0 before a.  Also, the specifics of more complex aspects of the grammar (such as i-stems > a- in compounds) must have been lost on the Greeks.  In S. ákṣi ‘eye’ but ṣaḍ-akṣá- ‘six-eyed’.  Arima- corresponds to Av. airimē ‘peacefully/quietly’, ‘*lonely/alone’ > Os. ärmäst ‘only’ as a suppletive form of ‘one’, not the word itself (since the Ossetians are descended from one group of Scythians, this word being found there is certainly helpful to my theory).

.

2.  H3 \ w is also seen in many other words in IE (Whalen 2025b, Note 1), including :

*k^oH3t- > L. cōt- ‘whetstone’, *k^awt- > cautēs ‘rough pointed rock’, *k^H3to- > catus ‘sharp/shrill/clever’

*plew- \ *ploH3- ‘flow’, Gmc. *flōanaN ‘flow’, Go. flōdus m. ‘river’, E. flood

*troH3- > G. trṓō \ titrṓskō ‘wound / kill’, *troH3mn \ *trawmn > trôma \ traûma ‘wound / damage’

*sk^oH3to- / *sk^otH3o- / *sk^ot(h)wo- > OI scáth, G. skótos, Gmc. *skadwá- > E. shadow

*lowbho- ‘bark’ > Al. labë, R. lub; *loH3bho- > *lo:bho- > Li. luõbas

*doH3- \ *dow- ‘give’
*dow-y(eH1) >> OL. duim sj., G. duwánoi op. (with rounding or dialect o / u by P / W, G. stóma, Aeo. stuma)
*dow-enH2ai > G. Cyp. inf. dowenai, S. dāváne (with *o > ā in open syllable), maybe Li. dav-
*dow-ondo- > CI dundom, gerund of ‘to give’
*dH3-s- ao. > *dRWǝs- > *dwäs- > TB wäs-

.

3. Though I now think *H2alH3bh-, I was formerly convinced by Gippert's idea. From (2025c) :
   &gt;
   Jost Gippert also surveys theories on the origin of Ar. aławni ‘dove’, including a connection with palumbēs (with *p > *f > *xW > h / 0).  It is an -i / -ea- stem, from *-ya or *-yā, just like *pelHwyaH2 > G. peleíā.  In looking, Gippert proposed the Lezghian words for ‘dove’ were borrowed from an older Ar. form.  Since these contain a rare f < *f, it would be hard not to see Ar. w = v > f.  In my mind, the path was :

*pelHwyaH2 > G. peleíā, *palHwyaH2 > *xWalǝxvi >> *xWǝlǝxf > *(x)lǝxWf > Kryts lǝf, Tab. luf, Rut. lirf \ lirxW, Ai. xurk’
&gt;

.

4. Though I think it unlikely, a root like *H2albh- that sometimes had H-metathesis could also explain why -al- sometimes appeared when not next to *H2, but *H2 existed elsewhere, in *bhelH2- \ *bhalH2- ‘bright / shine’ :

*bhalaH2ro- > Mac. Bálakros ‘man’s name’, G. phalārós ‘coot’, phalakrós ‘bald’, Sh. phaṛáro ‘bald’, B. bɔlɔkrɔ ‘shining’

The Indic cognates make it likely that the ety. of phalakrós as 'bald on top' is folk ety. (adding -k- from akros?), & it was once identical to phalārós.

.

Gippert, Jost (2017) Armeno-Albanica II: Exchanging doves
https://www.academia.edu/45112390

Khoshsirat, Zia & Byrd, Andrew Miles (2023) The Indo-Iranian labial-extended causative suffix
Indic -(ā)páya-, Eastern Iranian *-(ā)u̯ai̯a-, and Proto-Caspian *-āwēn-
https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/11/1/article-p64_4.xml

Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008) Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon
https://www.academia.edu/345121

Kümmel, Martin Joachim (2014) The development of laryngeals in Indo-Iranian
https://www.academia.edu/9352535

Kümmel, Martin Joachim (2016) Is ancient old and modern new? Fallacies of attestation and reconstruction (with special focus on Indo-Iranian)
https://www.academia.edu/31147544

Kümmel, Martin Joachim (2020) “Prothetic h-” in Khotanese and the reconstruction of Proto-Iranic
https://www.academia.edu/44309119

Martirosyan, Hrach (2009) Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon
https://www.academia.edu/46614724

Matasović, Ranko (2009) Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic
https://www.academia.edu/112902373

Whalen, Sean (2024a) Three Indo-European Sound Changes
https://www.academia.edu/116456552

Whalen, Sean (2024b) Greek Uvular R / q, ks > xs / kx / kR, k / x > k / kh / r, Hk > H / k / kh (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/115369292

Whalen, Sean (2025a) Laryngeals and Metathesis in Greek as a Part of Widespread Indo-European Changes (Draft 7)
https://www.academia.edu/127283240

Whalen, Sean (2025b) Indo-European v / w, new f, new xW, K(W) / P, P-s / P-f, rounding (Draft 7)
https://www.academia.edu/127709618

Whalen, Sean (2025c) Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 5:  Bird Names, *teu-
https://www.academia.edu/127281006

Whalen, Sean (2025d) Indo-Iranian *e to Uralic *e (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/130077993

-

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 111: 'moist, cloud, sky, heaven' (Draft 2)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
May 19, 2026 (Draft 1), September 3, 2026

.

A. Latin nūbs \ nūbēs ‘cloud’ seems to come from IE *neubh-s, related to *(s)neu- / *(s)naH2(u)- / *(s)neudh- / *(s)neug^h-, etc. ‘wet’ (with *(s)naH2u- 'swimming/sailing > boat', with a semantic range as in *plew-). The plural form would be commonly used of clouds, since a lone cloud is more rare, then becoming sng. by joining the ē-stems after plural *-es > -ēs (analogical to pl. *-eyes of i-stems). This allows Sanskrit nā́bhas f.p ‘clouds’ to come from the same source. If *neubh-s \ *newbh-s became *neH3bhs by alt. of w \ H3 (https://www.academia.edu/128170887), then it would fit many other examples.

.

There is no difference in meaning between *newbh- and *nebh-, *nembh-, *nem-, etc., all ‘(rain)cloud / sky / etc.’ (G. néphos ‘cloud’, OCS nebo ‘sky’, H. nēpis, OI nem ‘sky, heaven’, L. nimbus ‘cloud’, MP nam(b) ‘moist’). These words show oddities that suggest to me that *nebh- is not a good reconstruction anyway. I assume that *newbh- > *nwebh-, mostly becoming *nebh- but also some *nwebh- > *nmebh- \ *nembh- (mef-, MP nam(b)). The *nw- also might explain *nw- > *nH3- > *dH3- in some cognates. Maybe some other path, like *nw- > *nm- > *db- (& *db-b(h) > *d-b(h) ), or a similar sequence. This might be supported by the same group having d- in '9' (when Khowar nyof suggests *nyewN, likely the same as *H1newn with H1 \ y (https://www.academia.edu/128170887)).

.

Since L. nūb-ēs vs. S. nā́bh-as requires some loss of *w (or an unknown change), it makes sense that *ne(m)bh- also lost *w through a similar process, or turned it to *m. Not all -N- are due to nasal infixes (or reduplication *ne-nbh-). The loss of *-w- and gain of *-m- should be related, considering clear w / m elsehwere. The (irregular) change of *w > m near W / w / u is common in IE (*-went- > S. -vant- / -mant-, L. vehere ‘lead/bring/travel’, *vehevent- > vehement-). These irregularities are concentrated in *ne(w\m\H)bh-, so a phonological explanation makes more sense than several types of analogy that happened to affect the same word in similar ways in different branches. The alternative of several types of analogy here would look more possible if both BS and Anat. didn’t have *n- > *d-, for no apparent reason. There is little reason for *nebhos- to become *nemos- in Celtic under the influence of identical *nem- 'bend, bow', etc., as ‘(holy) grove’ just because both it & heaven might be sacred. Less likely still when *nembh- exists, since a sporadic change of *-b(h)- > -m- in Old Irish would have nothing to do with the -m- in other IE, or n- > m-, *-w- vs. *-0- \ *-H-, etc.. The specifics of these changes below.

.

For *neHbh- > S. nā́bh-as p. ‘clouds’, HLw. tipas- (*e: > i needed, if not from controversial rules that might affect *nebhós-, not seen in cognates, Kloekhorst), *H3 would be expected to color *e > *o, but this could be *w > *H3 after V-coloring ended. If H3 = xW, *xWP > *xP might also work. It is also possible that *nebhH1lo- > G. nephélē ‘cloud’ is older & requires a root *newbhH1-, *H1newbh-, etc., with some met. of *newbhH1- > *nweH1bh-. Some IE roots with *-(H1)- might come from stative *-(e)H1- being added to some derivatives, but I will go through both versions as they would be if *H1 were original or not. I feel that the version with *H1 is easier to accept, as it requires less metathesis, & some words seem to contain 2 H's. It is also possible that *H1 > *s in *newbhH1- \ *newbhs- > *snewbh-, etc., with many other IE words showing variants with *H vs. *s (https://www.academia.edu/128052798).

.

B1. If from *newbh-

*newbh-s > L. nūbs \ nūbēs ‘cloud’

*neH3bh-s > S. nā́bh-as f.p. ‘clouds’, HLw. tipas-

*newbh- > *nembh- > L. nimbus ‘cloud’, MP nam(b) ‘moist’ (or *nw > *nm 1st)

*nwebh- > *nmebh- > L. mefītis ‘poisonous gas from swamp/volcano’

*nwebh-H1lo- > G. nephélē ‘cloud’, *nibula- > Dutch nevel ‘mist’, OSx neßal ‘fog, darkness’

*nwebhos- > G. néphos ‘cloud’, S. nábhas- ‘cloud, fog, mist’, OCS nebo ‘sky’, H. nēpis ‘sky/heaven’

*nwebhos- > *dH3ebhos- > *debhH3os- > Li. debesìs, Lw. tappaš- ‘sky, heaven’ (if *bH > pp)

*nmebhos- > *n(m)emos > OI nem ‘sky, heaven’ (P-P asm. ?)

or?

*nwebhos- > *nebhwos- > *nebhmos > OI nem ‘sky, heaven’ (if Pm > m early ?)

.

B2. If from *newbhH1-, *H1newbh-, etc.

*H1newbh-s > L. nūbs \ nūbēs ‘cloud’

*nweH1bh-s > S. nā́bh-as f.p. ‘clouds’, *nH1- > *dH- > HLw. tipas-

*H1newbh- > *nembh- > L. nimbus ‘cloud’, MP nam(b) ‘moist’ (or *nw > *nm 1st)

*nwebhH1- > *nmebh- > L. mefītis ‘poisonous gas from swamp/volcano’

*nwebhH1-lo- > G. nephélē ‘cloud’, *nibula- > Dutch nevel ‘mist’, OSx neßal ‘fog, darkness’

*nwebhH1os- > G. néphos ‘cloud’, S. nábhas- ‘cloud, fog, mist’, OCS nebo ‘sky’, H. nēpis ‘sky/heaven’

*nwebhH1os- > *dH3ebhH1os- > Li. debesìs, Lw. tappaš- ‘sky, heaven’ (if *bH > pp)

*nmebhH1os- > *n(m)emos > OI nem ‘sky, heaven’ (P-P asm. ?)

or?

*nwebhH1os- > *nebhwos- > *nebhmos > OI nem ‘sky, heaven’ (if Pm > m early ?)

.

C. If IE *newbhH1- > *newbhs- > *nwebhs- > PU *nw'eps- \ *mw'eps-, then the same n- vs. m- in 'damp, cloud' would be seen in Uralic. I say *nw'eps- -> Finnic *nepsä 'moist, damp', *nepsä-tä- 'to get moist, damp; drip, leak, ooze, seep' > *nepstä- > *nestä-, F. neste 'liquid, fluid'. For *-C(C)-ta- simplifying, see (https://www.academia.edu/166207772) part cO (*wox'e-ta- > *wotta-, etc.).

.

The *nw- \ *mw- (or *nw- > *nm- > n- \ m- ?) is seen in PU *mw- \ *nwepsä-tä-mä > *neptämä > *nebdämä > *nedäwä > Hungarian nedv \ medv 'fluid, moisture, juice, sap', nedves 'wet (of an object)', nedű \ medű 'juice, sap, nectar; moisture, wetness; a sweet drink', az istenek nedűje 'the drink of the gods (nectar?)'. There's no certain data on most *pC > Hn. *?, but *pt > d would fit with 'berry' (https://www.academia.edu/167433127).

.

D. This *newbhH1- \ *noH3bhH1- could also have formed *H2aln(H3)b(h)(H1)- 'deep water, high cloud' (IERR 77).

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 148, 149: ‘curve, bend; ring, snake’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
September 2, 2026

-

IERR 148 ‘ring’

*H2aH2n(n)-? > Celtic *ānniyos > Old Irish áinne, Italic *ānos > Latin ānus ‘ring’

*H2aH2nulo-? > L. ānulus ‘finger ring’, Ar. anur ‘ring; collar; necklace’

-
In past analyses this group has been treated as if Celtic *nn was the problem in need of explanation. I think an original with 2 n's makes more sense. A root *H2an- 'bend, curve, etc.' (as in *H2ank-, *H2ang-) forming *H2an-H2no- 'ring, circle(t)' could dissimilate in most, but have met. in Celtic *H2aH2nno-. The same might allow *H2an(H2)(n)o- 'bent, crooked, old' > an(n)- 'old woman, etc.' in various IE.

-
The likelihood that Ar. anur came from a form with *l (like L. ānulus) depends on a series of words with the same. Armenian & Tocharian show a lot of unexplained changes, with many examples of PIE *r > l and *l > r.  Though PT *ml- > TB ml- is regular, there is also *mluw- > TB pälw-.  Maybe the same in Ar. *mlo:- > *blo:- > *pru:- > pr- (the regular outcome of *ml- is not known).  Some words contain both oddities.  See :

-

*H2merdo- ‘stinking? > shit’ > L. merda, *H2mordo-? > TB melte ‘dung’

*ml(o)H3dhen-s > PT *mlādhēn > TB mrāce ‘head/summit’, S. mūrdhán- ‘(fore)head/summit’, OE molda ‘top of the head’

*H2anH2n-ulo-? > L. ānulus ‘finger ring’, Ar. anur

*H2ard- > G. árda ‘dirt’, Ar. ałt ‘dirt / filth’

*kH2apro-s > OIc hafr ‘male goat’, L. caper, OI gabor, Ar. k’ał ‘male goat’

*(s)ner- > Gmc *narwa-z > E. narrow, Ar. neł ‘narrow / tight’

*madH2-ro- > G. madarós ‘wet’, Ar. matał ‘young / fresh’, S. madirá- ‘intoxicating’

*mlewk-sk^e- > TA mlusk- ‘escape’, [ksk > tsk] TB mlutk-
*mloH3-sk^e- > G. blōskō ‘move/come/go/pass’, Ar. *bro:sc-? > *purc(H)- > prcanim \ p`rcanim \ p`rt`anim ‘escape / evade’

*mluH- > S. brū- ‘say/tell/speak/proclaim’, *mlewǝHti > brávīti 3s., YAv. mraōiti 3s., mruyē md.3s, Cz. mluvit ‘speak’, *pluw- > TB pälw- ‘complain / bewail one’s fate’

-
Both could be *H > *R, with *mR- > *bR-, R-r > R-l dsm., R-l > R-r asm. (https://www.academia.edu/129161176).

-

IERR 149 ‘snake’

Looking at PIE *H1ogWhi-s & *H2(a)ngWhi-s (L. anguis, Arm. awj -i-) 'snake, eel', I can't really imagine that these are unrelated. A compound *H2an-(H1)gWhi-s 'coiling snake' (with the *H2an- 'bend, curve' in 148; loss of *H in many cp.) fits best. A likely origin for *H1ogWhi-s in '(milk-)drinker' to fit others (https://www.academia.edu/165942566). Also note that Ar. iž -i- ‘snake / viper’ seems to be a loan from Ir. *a(i)ži- (which could be from either).