u/stlatos

Greek, Armenian, and Albanian (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

July 6, 2026

That Greek, Phrygian, & Armenian are closely related in https://www.academia.edu/37962055 & Greek and Albanian are related in https://www.academia.edu/26388048 . The question of whether Greek is closer to Armenian or Albanian is somehow controversial. Neither pairing would be exceptionally close at first glance, & I don't think any perfect tree can be described (likely because several IE languages, like Thracian, were part of it but were lost, most with little attested evidence). Neither is as close as, say, Balto-Slavic, but only Armenian has the intermediate of Phrygian to explain the distance. Few dispute Greek & Phrygian being close (Plato mentioned that 'dog' & 'fire' were close, even to a non-linguist), and Phrygian had b, d, g > p, t, k like Armenian. Albanian *r̥ > ri \ ar matches Celtic, but rounded by W (ujk ‘wolf’) & *N > *a like Greek. Both Ar. & Al. are mostly satem-type, not all exceptions known to be regular.

This still leaves room for arguments about specifics, but my problem is that some who favor Greek and Albanian as closely related ignore others' evidence entirely. In https://www.academia.edu/4197641 Hrach Martirosyan presents a large number of words said to be cognate, most showing Greek is closer to Armenian. Though I disagree with some of his etymologies & details, even taking only those words with certain relation supports his idea enough (when others, like Kortlandt, had already given quite a bit already).

However, Giulio Imberciadori ( https://www.academia.edu/125381480 ) said, "Alb. shows a greater proximity to Gk. than to Arm. (cf. Pisani 1959:135)." He has far fewer examples than Martirosyan, and citing works from 1959 is almost pointless, considering how much work has been done on both Al. & Ar. since then. I have a few problems with his ex. & ideas, regardless of how each one would effect his theory either way.

"E.g.: use of *me- as a verbal prefix in Alb. (merr ‘take’) and Phryg. (με-βερετ ‘bringt mit’).". There is no certainty that this ety. is right; why m- not **mb-? In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marr the ety. of G. meíromai 'receive as one's portion' or "*marna, a deverbative from Proto-Indo-European *méh₂-r̥ (“hand”)"; indeed, even if from *me-bhr-ne-, this would not match any other IE form.

"2.1.2. derr m. ‘pig’.. Exact and exclusive match with Gk. χοῖρος m. ‘piglet; pig’ < *g'hoi̯ro- ‘id.’" Yet it is not "exact" in this theory, since "Alb. -rr requires extra explanation—generalized from the def.acc.sg. (Neri in DPEWA s.v.)?" In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/derr "from *ǵʰer- (“to be excited, bristly”) (compare Latin horrere (“to bristle, tremble”))." Since horr- is from *g(^)hr-s- (cognates point to alt. of gh & g^h, no known cause) these might both be < *g^horsyo- (no other ex. of *rsy).

"2.2.1. bathë f. ‘broad bean’.. Pre-form *bhuh2-hxn̥ -k'eh2-... Gk. φακός m. ‘lentil’... The extension of the underlying adj. *bhéu̯h2-hxon- / *bhuh2-hxn-́ ‘swollen’ through the suffix *-k'ó- only occurs in Alb. and Gk. (Neri 2024:194-6)—shared morphological innovation." This is a certain match, but an origin in *bhéu̯h2-hxon- (or *bhéwH2-Hon-) seems extremely unlikely. I don't like most of Neri's ety., & I doubt many linguists would think that *bhuh2-hxn̥ -k'eh2- is the source. This also fails to explain apparent *k^ > k \ s in *bhak^- > G. phakós ‘lentil’, phásēlos ‘bean’, Al. bathë ‘broadbean’ ( https://www.academia.edu/169757082 ).

"2.2.3. thelb m. ‘core’.. *k'ól-u-h1-bho- is most closely comparable to Gk. κέλῡφος n. ‘pod, sheath’ < *k'él-u-h1-bho-s-... ‘covering / covered’". I'm not sure that *-uH1- would become -0- in Al. Greek had kolumph- & kolumb- 'dive' (as 'cover > submerge'). Al. also has variant thelp.

"2.2.4. thellë (i) ‘deep’.. Exact match with Gk. κοῖλος ‘hollow’ < *k'ou̯hx-i-lo-. Exclusive connection, since Arm. soyl ‘hollow’ (< *k'ou̯(hx)-lo-) stays morphologically apart.". This is a completely ridiculous claim that seems based on the idea that *w > g always & everywhere in Armenian. See variants like arew -u- 'sun(light)', areg 'eastern / of the sun'; *pewyo- > ogi \ hogi ‘soul/spirit’, *pew-aH2- > hewam ‘breathe heavily'.

"2.3.1.4. For another case of Balkan-IE back-formation, see Alb. një ‘one’ ~ Arm. mi (gen.sg. mi-oy) ‘id.’ < *smii̯o- ← fem. *sm-ih2- / *sm-ii̯éh2- (Klingenschmitt 2022:33-4; Matzinger 2012:151)." Others say një < *onyo < *H1oyno-s. I'm not sure, but is any other *my > *ny known? Why *sm- > *m-?

"2.4.1. leh ‘scream’.. Exact and exclusive match with Gk. λάσκω ‘scream, ring’ < *l̥h2-k-sk'e/o-... with generalized i-umlaut." Where would i-umlaut come from? He related "Ved. rā́yati ‘screams’", which implies *laH2(i)-. I think *laH2i-ske- > leh makes more sense.

"2.5.2. trim ‘boy, (young) man’.. Exact and exclusive match with Arm. tʻarm ‘young’ < *tr̥mo-." Likely true, but why *r̥ > ri before nasal? Most > ar. If cognate with Sanskrit táruṇa- 'young', Greek τέρην \ térēn 'soft, delicate, gentle', stem téren- \ τέρεν-, τεράμων \ terámōn 'becoming soft by boiling', Lithuanian tar̃nas 'servant' then the number of affixes makes it hard for more specific analysis.

"2.5.3. verë f. ‘wine’ 2.5.3.1. Exact and exclusive match with Gk. οἴνη f. ‘vine...". Armenian gini 'wine', gine+ seems to be < *woiniH2-. In a work dedicated to this very question, is *-aH2 vs. *-iH2 reason to ignore one side?

"2.6.3. Alb. dial. dredh m., Arb. dredhë f. ‘strawberry’—A semantic isogloss with Italic?.. an exact and exclusive match in Lat. frā́ga pl.n. ‘strawberry’ < *dhr̥hxg'-eh2- (Pisani 1959:129)." Correct Arb. > Alb. If Sanskrit drā́kṣā- 'grape, vine, raisin' is related, maybe < *draH2g^h- (Italic had some d-gh > dh-g: Oscan fangva- 'tongue).

"2.6.4.2. bung m.. (a type of oak).. Traditionally traced back to PIE *bheh2g/g'-° ‘beech’, which otherwise only in Gk. (φηγός) underwent a semantic shift to ‘oak’ (Danka/Witczak 1995:128)... Formal problems.. only under the assumption of two irregular / sporadic sound changes.. Danka/Witczak (1995:128); AE:112-3; AED:41-2 (to PIE *bhu̯eh2- ‘be(come), grow’)". It's 'sessile oak (Quercus petraea)'. If rel. G. φυτόν 'plant; tree' (apparent *bhuH- > *bhHu-), Germanic *bauma-z 'tree', then *bhHu-nako- (or similar) might fit.

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 10 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

July 2-4, 2026

A. Armenian ustr ‘son’ & dustr ‘daughter’ are so close it only makes sense that it's contamination. Since dustr is apparently regular < *dhug(^)hH2te:r, only ustr needs to have *-(u)stir added. It's better if *suyu-s > *huyu-stir > ustr (some -y- > 0, *treyes '3' > erek' ). I see no way for outcomes of *y to all be regular, but if any claim that *eye > e is, then would *uyu > u be different? If *u > *ü in PAr. (to explain alt. of u \ i next to P), then any front V would have VyV > V (no ex. of *iyi).

B. In https://www.academia.edu/169481004 Václav Blažek said, "One possibility is represented by the Lithuanian word švašvà ‘daughter; sister’, if it is derivable from *švešva < *svešva < Proto-Baltic *s eśr ā and the primary meaning was the feminine to Lithuanian šẽšuras ‘father-in-law’ (cf. § 1.2., following Karaliūnas 1999: 86–88)."

Lithuanian švašvà ‘daughter; sister’ is so similar to sesvà 'sister' ( < *swesuõ \ sesuõ < *sweso:r ) it only makes sense that it's of the same origin. The s vs. š is likely from weak *swesr- (in words for 'dawn' it looks like several outcomes of *sr existed in Slavic *(s)tr, Baltic *šr \ *str https://www.academia.edu/38174201 (no real ev. of regularity, in my mind)). From older *swesuõ, *swešr- several analogical forms could be made (and familiar terms with reduplication, asm. of S-S & V-V, etc.).

C. "Mycenaean Onomastics" by José Luis García Ramón :

&gt;

Names comparable with forms (or their variants and/or derivatives) attested in alphabetic Greek (or in the Cypriot syllabary) are made up of (or based on) recognizable verbal, nominal, adjectival and adverbial elements which may or may not be understandable... names which, though not immediately transparent, are understandable on the basis of linguistic comparison with other IE languages, as e.g. the MN ka-sa-no /Kass-anor/ (cf. Kássandrov) ‘who excels among men’ (cf. Hom. kékasmai ‘excel’: Ved. śāśad- ‘id.’)

&gt;

This is the ety. I described & believed when writing https://www.academia.edu/128838321 :

&gt;

The specifics needed to include variants of names like G. Kassándrā / Kasándrā / Katándrā / Kesándrā, LB ke-sa-da-ra might require *ke-knd- to form *ke-knd-tyo- ‘thing/person to surpass / to be surpassed’, *Kekastsy-anōr ‘surpassing men / superior’, *Ke(k)assanōr > LB ka-sa-no. Since the outcome of old *-sty- is not known, but since *-dhy- > *-thy- > *-tsy- > -tt- / -s(s)-, I feel *-sty- > -t- / -s(s)- would fit.

&gt;

However, for *k^(e)n- & *k^nd-, while there is ev. in IIr. & Greek, but I'm no longer sure about the relevance of Kassándrā / Kasándrā / Katándrā / Kesándrā. There are good ideas in https://www.academia.edu/129180207 by Georges-Jean Pinault that *-sty- would work with *k^(e)nsti- 'praise' (or < *k^ems-) 'praise'. Before, based on LB Ne-ti-ja-no & Thes. Nέσσανδρος, I thought that LB Ka-sa-no could not be from *kasti-ano:r, because *ia > *ya hadn't happened yet. However, I later read works by Duccio Chiapello that made me think the sound changes between G. dialects were old, and the dia. already formed before LA was written, so I have no objection to *k^(e)nsti- -> *kesti-ano:r \ *kasti-ano:r (maybe with n-n dsm. if needed). However, kékasmai & śāśad-, if from *k^(e)nd- (no certain ety.), could work just as well with sound changes. I have no real objections to either semantics, unlike Pinault's "García Ramón (1992) resorts however to the Indo-Iranian phraseology for tracing back the set 2) to a PN Proto-Gk. *kensti-ānōr, with its feminine match *ḱensti-anria [sic k vs. ḱ], while assuming that the outcome of the latter has been superseded inside Greek by Κασσάνδρᾱ, which had a different original meaning (*‘who distinguishes oneself among men’, as arbitrary glossing). This remains kind of speculative."

D. Albanian modhë f. 'ryegrass, vetch(ling)', modhull(ë) f 'vetch(ling)'

Variants modulë, motulë, etc. point to *ma:zdulo-, as in other PIE *zd(h) > d(h) \ t(h) ( https://www.academia.edu/6877984 ). Likely *maH2zd- beside *mH2azd- 'fat; fatten, feed, fodder' > Al. madh m. 'porridge', OHG mast 'fodder, feeding, fattening', etc. ( https://www.academia.edu/128652338 ).

E. Old Prussian stas 'this, that' is said to be, in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stas "From Proto-Balto-Slavic *tas (“that”). The initial s remains unexplained." Since the PIE stem *to- should have nom. *to-s & yet all IE ev. points to *so, I think it could be that *tos > *tso > *so. PIE has far fewer ex. of *ts- & *dz- than expected (many of *zd(h) & *st), most say only :

*tsel- ‘to approach stealthily, sneak, creep up on somebody’ > S. tsar-, E. steal https://www.academia.edu/1033950

PIE *tseubh- > Gmc *steub- 'to fly or whirl about, fume; smoke; smolder', Lithuanian siaũbti 'to dash about'

The tendency of *ts- to become st- might allow OPr stas to come from *tso-s (with -s added by aanlogy). This might be optional, or most Baltic *ts- > s- but *t- could be preserved in the paradigm *tso, *tom, etc. Otherwise, just mixing of *so(-s) & *to- late in OPr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. agathós, Cyp. azatho- ‘good’

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

*dek^- > G. dékomai ‘accept / receive/hold’, Att. dékhomai; *des-dekh^- > deidékhatai ‘greet/ welcome’

G. Vincent van der Heijden, https://www.academia.edu/41458788 :

&gt;

(35) *krek- ‘frog spawn, roe’ (St: 30): Lit. krakulai, kurkulaĩ (< *kr̥ k-), Ru. krjak, both ‘frog spawn’, ON hrogn ‘roe’. This word is restricted to Balto-Slavic and Germanic. Its semantics as a natural term suggests an origin in a pre-Indo-European substrate.

&gt;

Dardic might also have a cognate. Khowar kučkukùḷi ‘tadpole’, if named after frog's loud noises, might show the same unknown alt. of rk \ kk \ čk \ čč as in :

S. kurkurá-s \ kukkurá-s ‘dog’

*kuccura-s \ -o: > Savi kučuroo, Palula kučúru, Torwali kuǰū́, Kalkoti kučur, Ka. kúčur, Bs. kutsur 'dog'

The Latin Suffix _-uriō 'want to _' (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

July 4, 2026

In https://www.academia.edu/74393258 Giulio Imberciadori :

&gt;

The verbs in -uriō were already labeled by the ancient grammarians as desiderative formations... A detailed analysis of all the occurrences of the verbs in -uriō – in particular of the most frequent among them, ēsuriō and parturiō – shows that their original meaning was not desiderative. The oldest attestations of ēsuriō clearly indicate that its meaning was not ‘I want to eat’, but rather ‘I am hungry’...

&gt;

There is no way to distinguish ‘I want to eat’ from ‘I am hungry’ except in the most specific of hypothetical uses (which his ex. do not include). Since some of these are ex. of the adj. esuriens, 'hungry' or 'wanting to eat’ simply can't be distinguished. All later verbs in -uriō clearly being (and stated as) 'want to _' make this the likely meaning.

Since ēsuriō is clearly <- ed- 'eat', there is no way to get to 'be hungry' then by way of 'want to eat' anyway. He tried to derive -uriō from adj. in -uro-, but others like gnāruris would be, in his scheme, from *-uri- (see below for a counter). In known S. jásuri- 'hungry' <- jas- \ das- 'be exhausted/hungry', the meaning of *H1ed-uro- or *-uri- should be 'eating'. A verb and its opposite both having the same meaning when the same affix is added makes no sense.

&gt;

In the case of parturiō, even the later attestations never show desiderative meaning. The oldest semantic value of this form seems to have been ‘to be in labor’

&gt;

If first 'want to bring forth > try to give birth', it would hardly be odd. He also mentioned later nixuriō ‘I want to give birth’. If the later meanings are true, the old false, why do both exist? In this case, nixuriō is <- nītor 'to bear or rest upon something, lean on; to strain in giving birth'. The semantic shift of 'lean on > lie on (a birthing bed, etc.) > try > want', etc., is much greater than that needed for 'want to bring forth > try to give birth > be in labor'.

&gt;

I argue that the traditional desiderative meaning of the verbs in -uriō first originated in the verb ēsuriō, where an understandable semantic development ‘I am hungry’ => ‘I want to eat’ took place. Only secondarily did this desiderative nuance spread from the high frequent verb ēsuriō to many other forms of this category.

&gt;

I see no way for this to happen. Again, 'eat > be hungry' in one step would require some other affix than *-uro-, which is a basic adj. ending. Why would one (out of presumably dozens) of verbs in -uriō shifting from 'be hungry' to 'want to eat' (which, again, would not be clear from context) cause all others to change? His claim "The basic meaning of the verbs in -uriō may essentially be described by the gloss ‘to be in the state described by X’, where X is the derivational base." That would, at best, show 'be in the state of eating' > 'be gluttonous' in his theory, which in no way leads to any reasonable 'be hungry'. If this were the only verb, and he had certain ev. both that -uriō came from *-uro-, etc., an odd shift might be accepted, but none of this is so.

I think part of the cause comes from :

&gt;

(c) More dubious cases are: (c1) *gnāru-ro-, possible base both of the adjective gnāruris ‘expert’ (Plautus, Poen., prol. 40) and of the verb gnārurat ‘let know’ (Glossarium Philoxenianum)

&gt;

Why would both gnārus & gnāruris ‘skillful, practised, expert’ exist? Since gnārus is < *g^nH3-ro- 'knowing', adding *-uri- or *-uro- to an adj. that already had *-ro- (of identical meaning, apparently) makes no sense. Instead, the PIE *_-wos- \ *_-us- 'having _ed' (which is common in -uōsus, with broader meaning) fits as *gnāro- 'knowing', *gnār-us- 'having learned'. Many C-stems later > i-stems.

Since adding *-aH2- formed gnārura- 'make known' with the meaning of changing states, adding the optative *-yeH1- \ *-iH1- could have made *gnāruri- 'hope/want to know'. Similar meanings could have arisen in a number of verbs, with no way to know which were older.

An alternative as compounds of the optative of *H2aw(H1)- 'to desire, favor, help' > avēre 'to be eager, have a wild desire, long for, desire' might work (if -uri- in verbs was not related to -uri- in gnāruris), but this idea does not fit into a pattern of related forms & uses. Older *-us- might also be confirmed by -us- in his list :

&gt;

4.3. Interestingly, this hypothesis may also explain why in other Latin forms with phonetic structures similar to that of the verbs in -uriō (i. e., -uCio/a-) one never encounters the expected vowel weakening:

4.3.1. Substantives, whose precise etymology is in many cases unknown:

...

*indusium > indusium “shirt”, another word of obscure origin...

&gt;

I'm sure indusium 'shirt' <- induō 'to put on (clothes)', so the only "obscure" part would be the suffix. If from *indu-us- 'having put on, dressed' then its origin and its -s- (not > **-r-) would be explains (an s-stem with *-s not becoming **-r is expected; later > i-stem (as above); later neuter *-i > -ium (more common)).

&gt;

*décuria > decuria ‘group of ten men’, although in this case too the influence of cūria may have played a role.

&gt;

The ending -uria didn't begin with '10'. L. quincuria & Oscan púmperiaís likely < *penkWe-ro-, etc. For an alternative, Sihler :

&gt;

L decuria, centuria *a body of ten (a hundred) men', U dequrier 'decuriis'. Cf. O pumperias [púmperiaís] 'quincuriae', Olr. cóicer.. 'group of five men', Lith. penkerì 'set of five", and some similar formations in Toch. There are a number of explanations for these forms, the most convincing starting with a derivative noun based on 'four', *kWetwerom or the like, from which the sequence *-erom... spread first to *penkWerom 'group of five'..

&gt;

Imberciadori's "*túgurium > tugurium ‘hut’ (s. Weiss 2018: 5)", if another "obscure" word, certainly is from *(s)teg- 'cover, roof'. TEGVRIVM and TIGVRIVM in inscriptions (Lewis & Short) show that teg- was older. This is not material for his main point, but since he favors regularity over rationality in other cases, I must add that none of these changes are regular. Only TEGVRIVM fits total regularity, e > i is fairly common (*(e)n- > in-, *dher- > firmus, etc.), but with no known cause. Asm. of i-u > u-u is understandable, but with no parallels.

This is important to note because ignoring evidence of any irregularity has become so common in linguistics. Any activity of the human mind, say, psychology, can be orderly but never fully regular. Having a clear understanding of a mental abnormality never lets the exact conditions & actions of someone with it be predictable (neither is its development predictable). Why is linguistics supposedly different? Linguists don't seem to be able to feel like real scientists unless they act like their ideas are as regular as physics, and their theories follow from the data in a way that can not be disputed, as in mathematical proof. Neither is true, and pretending to more certainty than could ever exist is not science, merely a way to dismiss all ideas one doesn't like. Destroying others' ideas based on a myth puts these people below the level of barbarians whose languages they could never predict.

Against the theory of Proto-Indo-European *méǵh₂- 'big, great' & *méǵh₂- 'little, small' (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

July 3, 2026

In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mažas Lithuanian mãžas 'little, small' is said to be:

&gt;

Etymology From Proto-Balto-Slavic *maźas, from Proto-Indo-European *méǵh₂s (“big, great”), with an inverted semantic shift from "big" > "small"

&gt;

citing "Wojciech Smoczyński (2018), “mažas”, in Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary". For Latvian mazs 'small, little, short, low', in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mazs :

&gt;

From Proto-Baltic *maźas, from Proto-Indo-European *meǵʰ-, *moǵʰ- (“big, small, i.e., size extremes)”). Cognates include Lithuanian mãžas, Sudovian maz, Old Prussian massais ([mazais], “smaller”), Gothic (magus, “boy (i.e., little)”), Old English micel (“large, big, great”) (English much), Albanian madh (“big”), Old Armenian (mec, “great, large”), Sanskrit (mahá, “great, mighty, strong, abundant”), Old Irish maige (“great, large”), Ancient Greek μέγας (mégas, “big, large”), Latin magnus (“big”).

&gt;

from "Karulis, Konstantīns (1992), “mazs”, in Latviešu Etimoloģijas Vārdnīca".

Neither idea makes any sense. A word for "size extremes" seems very unlikely. Some of the most basic roots in most languages are 'big' & 'small'. Whatever the origin of human language, having words of opposite meaning be identical would not lead to survival benefits. Also, a root *meǵʰ- as the source of mégas is also backwards (*méǵh₂- sometimes had CH > Ch(H), no known regularity). This is seen in *meǵh₂-món- > S. mah(i)mán- \ majmán- 'greatness'. The loss of *-H- (some say in *CHmn, so only in the weak cases) happened before CH > ChH, creating a stage *mahimán-, *majmn-, which was "fixed" by analogy in several ways (or any similar path).

Why would *méǵh₂- \ *méǵhh₂- seem to have 2 opposite meanings? In https://www.academia.edu/165248349 I said that Indo-European had many roots with *mw- & *my- that became *m- in later languages. They can be detected when the 0-grade had -u- instead of -0- (*mw(e)zg- > *mezg- \ *muzg- 'marrow', etc.). Many of the words starting with *mw- are for 'big', etc., and *my- for 'small'. This would fit if *mwéǵh₂- 'big' & *myéǵh₂- 'small' once existed, later often merging as *méǵh₂-. Greek sometimes turned *w > h, so *mwéǵh₂-lo- > mhegalo- would fit (this variant has never had any regular explanation before).

My *my- 'small' with 0-grade *mi- in *mi-nu- 'decrease, lessen', etc. Its origin from *my- is seen in *mye-nu-yos- 'smaller, lesser' with y-y dissimilation, maybe in *myenuyos- > *myeniyos- > *myenos- > *minos- > Latin minus, minor 'less; lesser; inferior; smaller'. If *minyos- > Slavic *mьňьjь 'smaller, lesser' is not later analogy, then maybe the stages were *myenuyos- > *myiniyos- (with y-y dissimilation only in IE branches).

My *mwéǵh₂- would also have its *w preserved due to metathesis in *mwéǵh₂- > *méwǵh₂- > Iranian *mawz-. This in, from https://www.academia.edu/168805343 :

&gt;

A root *mog^h- would be needed for Ar. mozanam ‘become large/mighty / increase’ (a verb <- from adj. like mec -> mecarem *‘think great/high(ly)’ > ‘honor’) if inherited. However, many Ar. words are loans from Iranian... IE words for 'big' with *m- really came from *mw-. If *mweg^H2- 'big' existed, then met. in Iranian *mwaz- \ *mawz- > *maz- \ *mo:z- would allow mozanam to have an IE origin.

&gt;

Mycenaean onomastics, PIE, LA, LB (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

July 3, 2026

In "Mycenaean onomastics" José Luis García Ramón :

&gt;

It is not always clear whether a form conceals a man’s name or a title: this is the case with mo-ro-qa /mo(i)rokkʷa-/ ‘possessor of a lot’ (moîra ‘lot’, pásasthai ‘obtain’)

&gt;

A word *moiro-kkʷa- would be very odd. I haven't seen this before, but I think he claimed that it was a compound with *kkʷa- to explain kkʷ > kt vs. kkʷ > kʷ > p in *kkʷaH2- > Greek pásasthai \ ktḗsasthai ‘to obtain, get’, páomai \ ktáomai 1s., Ktḗsarkhos \ Pā́sarkhos. There is no other IE evidence for this. Still, since each root matches in all else, how could they be related?

Knowing that G. pépāmai ‘possess’ is usually derived from *k^waH2- ‘swell’ as in ‘become big/strong’ > ‘have power/possession’, with the assumption that *k^w- > *kWkW- > *pp- or similar (since *ppāstos ‘possessed/acquired’ seems to exist in the name Thió-ppāstos “Possessed by a god”) makes it odd that there are many pairs with p- vs. kt- of the same meaning (G. pépāmai \ kéktēmai ‘possess’, égktēsis \ émpāsis ‘estate/property’, Zeús Ktḗsios \ Pā́sios, the names Ktḗsarkhos \ Pā́sarkhos).

I assume that the old equation of kta- with *tki- > *kti- > S. kṣi- ‘possess / rule over’, Av. xši- ‘have might / rule’ is basically right (likey <- *tek- 'reach, gain, possess'), but that *kt- formed a verb *kt-aH2- > *kta(H)- in Greek (maybe with *-aH2- as the same affix in many verbs with -a-e\o-). Since some Greek dia. had kt- > pt-, and pt & p(p) alternate (not always apparently regular), a change *kt > *pt > p(p) would fit. It might instead be that *kti- formed a verb *kti-aH2- > *ktya(H)-, since the outcome of kty- is not known & might have any number of complications. In his discussion of related names :

&gt;

the Knossos name qa-sa-ko /Kʷas-arkhos/, which corresponds to alph. Gr. Pás-arkhos, cf. the aor. pásasthai (synonymous of ktḗsasthai ‘get’) and Ktḗs-arkhos...

&gt;

Duccio Chiapello has also written a paper on Linear A ( https://www.academia.edu/101712289 ) in which he relates G. Ktḗsarkhos \ Pā́sarkhos to LA qa-sa-ra-ku. Its differences from LB qa-sa-ko would be spelling out -rkh- instead of using standard VC1C2V > VC2V and -os > -us (many LA names in -u & -e have LB counterparts with -o).

In context, from Syme (J. Younger) :

&gt;

SY Za 10 (HM 5531) (ArchEph 2008, 199, 214), circular serpentine libation table (MM IIIB-LM IA context; H. 15.7, D. 15.7 cm). The inscription is incised on the top of the rim, facing to the exterior.

QA-SA-RA-KU

&gt;

As the only word on a libation table, it is likely the name of a god. Zeús Ktḗsios \ Pā́sios matches the root, with -arkhos 'lord, king'.

In In "Mycenaean names in -to", José Miguel Jiménez Delgado :

&gt;

There are numerous examples of anthroponyms in -to in the Mycenaean texts. A large proportion of these names can be interpreted as Indo-European, for example, a-ka-to (KN Dv 5256, Sc 256) Ἄγαθος or Ἀγάθων; a-pi-wa-to and a-ke-wa-to, compounds of /-wastos/;13 and ne-ri-to (PY Cn 131.4), probably a compound of ἔρις and the negative prefix *ne-. 14 Another clear case is that of ra-wi-to (TH Fq 194.3), which would correspond to Hom. Λήϊτος, the name of a Homeric hero (Il. 2.494, etc.), cf. λήϊτον ‘communal house,’ although its similarity to ra-wi-zo (KN Db 1245.B), a clearly pre-Greek name, might indicate that the former etymology is a misinterpretation. Similarly, qi-ja-to (KN Db 1140.B) could derive from the root of βία ‘bodily force, violence’ (< IE *gu̯i̯eh2- ‘to conquer, force’), but could also alternate with another pre-Greek anthroponym qi-ja-zo (KN Dv 1500.b, Xe 5899.1).

&gt;

Some say Λήϊτος is non-IE. If PIE *laH2wo-s > G. lāós '(the common) people (of a country); soldiers', a name *Lḗwitos would likely be < *laH2wito- 'of the people/soldiers, communal'. It seems like Dorus <- Dorians, a legendary man named from a group. Since IE -to- is so common, -ito- might be analogy from some other group (with -ito- added to stems ending in -w-, etc., which can't occur before t (at earlier IE stages, *CwC > *CuC, etc., but not all these features need have lasted).

The endings in -tos & -tsos (-to & -zo) hardly seem non-IE either. Many names end in -os or -ios ( < PIE *-(i)yo-s), so *-tyos > -zo is not odd. Not only are qi-ja-to & qi-ja-zo clearly of the same type, but cognates with clear -ius exist. From https://www.academia.edu/167984147 : The attested alt. in G. géphūra, Boe. blephūra is called a mistake in standard theory, but LB qi-ja-to \ qi-ja-zo, Cr. Bíaththos, Blattius favors *gWiyatyos. No "mistake" would appear twice in words that happen to have bl- for older *gW-.

If many LB names called IE by experts, with IE ety., match LA names, why is there so much opposition to any Greek existing in LA? Many known LA cities, like Phaistos, were seen as clearly IE before LB & LA were deciphered. Knowing that LB was Greek, what possible reason was there to immediately reject all accepted ideas that these words were Greek because they existed in LA? This is only based on the assumption that LA was non-Greek, just as LB was treated before. Any student of history would think that these 2 events would make scholars say that Greeks already had some presence on Crete before LA was written, yet the very opposite has continued to be claimed, with the same lack of any evidence & the same assumptions made about LB before it was proven to be Greek. Why are these theories, completely at odds with all known evidence, so widely believed?

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 122: 'earth' (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

July 2, 2026

A1. Alwin Kloekhorst in https://www.academia.edu/23412055

&gt;

The PIE word for ‘earth’, reflected in Hitt. tēkan, Skt. kṣám-, Gr. χθών, etc., is since Kretschmer 1932 reconstructed with two aspirated stops, *dheǵh-m-, *dhǵh-em-, *dhǵh-m-, which has been repeated ever since. There is one problem regarding this reconstruction, however, namely that the initial consonant of the Skt. oblique cases, gen.sg. jmáḥ, instr.sg. jmā́, loc.sg. jmán, is not an aspirated one. If these forms would go back to *dhǵhm-, we would rather expect an outcome **hm-, just as *dhǵhdios yielded hyáḥ ‘yesterday’.

&gt;

This is reasonable ev. for *dheg^oms, gen. *dhg^m-os > IIr. *g(^)ðmas > S. gmás \ jmás \ kṣmás, *dhg^- > *dhg^h- > *g^hdh- in most other IE. However, though I agree with him here, with no other ex. of supposed *dhg^hm- it would be possible for, say, *dhg^hm-os > IIr. *g^hðmas > *g^hzmas > *g^zmas (with Chs > Cs). *dhg^- > *dhg^h- would also have no parallels, & most C vs. Ch comes from C(h)H in IE (no regularity in most cases).

A2. He continued :

&gt;

This problem was noticed by e.g. Schindler (1967: 205), who however suggests that “[v]ielleicht man doch majmán-, wenn “Größe” o.ä., gegenüber mahā- “groß” vergleichen [darf]”. This comparison does not make much sense: the -h- in mahā- goes back to *-ǵh2-, so the cluster -jm- in majmán- must go back to *-ǵh2m- as well, 49 with which it cannot be used as a parallel for the alleged development of *ǵhm- > Skt. jm- in jmáḥ, jmā́ and jmán. Moreover, in forms like bráhman- ‘brahman’ < *bhréǵh-mn- and jihmá- ‘oblique’ < *dh3ǵh-mó- we do find a cluster -hm- < *-ǵhm-.

&gt;

Again, I agree with him here, but opponents could say that the timing of *g^H2 > *g^hH2 is not known, so it could be old, with *g^hH2m & *g^hzm both having deaspiration. Of course, the need for such special & specific arguments adding up in each case highly favors original *g^.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéǵʰōm also has Ar. cʻamakʻ 'dry; dry land' possibly < *dhg^m- also ("According to a recent theory by Martirosyan"), which would fit if *g^ > *c^ with asm. of *c-kh > ch-kh (see *-kh- below). However, a loan seems more likely, "Compare also Aramaic (ṣmq, “to be dried up”).[4] See also Middle Armenian (smkʻel, “to shrivel”)."

A3. This still leaves several problems. Neither theory explains optional depalatalization in IIr. *g(^)ðmas > S. gmás \ jmás. Many similar cases in https://www.academia.edu/127351053 with no certain & all-encompassing solution. I feel that many that seem totally random are predictable, even if optional. For ex., *dhug(^)hH2ter- 'daughter' seems to be caused by *H2, similar to *meg^(H2)-mon-.

Kloekhorst said that s-mobile in *dh- vs. *sdh- > st- might explain it. "In a recent article, Willi (2007) connects the word for ‘earth’ with the verbal root *(s)teǵ- ‘to cover’ (Gr. στέγω, Lat. tegō, ON þekja ‘to cover’). Semantically, this connection is attractive, but Willi’s scenario to formally account for the origin of *dheǵ-m- is unconvincing." I see no ev. that *(s)teg- with plain *g & *t needs to be changed, & the "connection is attractive" only to some. Wouldn't this root & word, often > 'roof', be the opposite of most 'ground, bottom, floor, etc.?

A4. Continuing, Kloekhorst claimed :

&gt;

This new reconstruction with a voiced unaspirated velar, *dhǵh-m-, *dhǵh-m-, is supported by Hittite evidence. Recently, I have argued (Kloekhorst 2012) that in Old Hittite there was a phonemic opposition between long /ḗ/ and short /é/ in accented open syllables. The long /ḗ/ is in these syllables consistently spelled with a plene vowel, Ce-e-CV, whereas short /é/ is spelled with a plene vowel in only 50 percent of the cases, Ce-(e-)CV. Etymologically, long /ḗ/ goes back to *ḗ, *éh1, *éi and *ói, whereas short /é/ reflects *é. There are three exceptions to this rule, however. In these words, an etymological short *é yields an unexpected OH long /ḗ/: *pédo- > pé-e-da- /pḗda-/ ‘place’; *négʷment- > ne-e-ku-ma-an-t° /nḗgʷmant-/ ‘naked’; and *dhéǵhōm (as it is thus far reconstructed) > te-e-kán /tḗgan/ ‘earth’. If we reconstruct tēkan as *dhéǵōm, however, we see that all three words now have something in common: they all contain a PIE short *é followed by a voiced stop: *pédo-, *négʷment-, *dhéǵōm. I therefore believe that the presence of the voiced stop is the crucial factor that caused the unexpected lengthening of the preceding short *é to OH long /ḗ/.

&gt;

If -e- is *e & -e-e- is *e:, why would *e be written -e-e- 50 percent of the time? It could be that *eHD, etc., always > *e:C, and stressed *eC optionally > *e:C. Whatever the cause, that both cases could be written the same way requires some partial merger that his specific idea can't explain.

Also, Greek certainly did not have *ed > *e:d (or all *eD > *e:D), yet this same root *ped- -> G. πηδόν 'blade of an oar'. This shows either that e:-grade existed or that *pe(H1)d- did. In cases of apparently parallel *H2 > 0 before *D, like *bheH2g- > *bhag- 'share, distribute; god', Slavic did not show *ag > *a:g (Winter's Law). This provides ev. against the cause of it being PIE d really being 't and H being ' (or similar). In the same way, 'water' did not show Winter's Law either, and *weH1do- 'wet' (or *we:do-) also existed. For similar *VHD > VD in IIr., see Lubotsky in https://www.academia.edu/428966/ . For *H in 'naked', see https://www.academia.edu/128848179 :

&gt;

The usual idea is that PIE *negWno- ‘naked’ existed, with some IE *n-n > *n-m or *n-n > *m-n.  However, other oddities here require a more complex original.  Looking at the groups :

*negWmo- ‘naked’ > H. nekumanza /negWmants/

*megWno- > Av. maγna-, *megWro- > Ar. merk, *mogWno- > *mugno- > G. gumnós

*negWno- > S. nagná-, Ktg. naṅgɔ, A. náanu, Sh. Gilg. nánŭ, Dras nṓno, Ka. nʌn; S. nagnikā- \ lagnikā- ‘young girl’

*nogWno- > *nogWo- [n-dsm.] > Li. núogas, Lt. nuôgs, OCS nagъ

*nogWHno- > Pk. ṇagiṇa- \ ṇigiṇa-, Gmc *nak(w)ana- > OIc nakinn, OFr naken, OHG nacken(d), MLG náken(t)

*nogWHno- > *nogWHto- [n-dsm.] > L. nūdus, Go. naqaþs -d-, ON nøkkviðr \ nǫktr, OSw nakuþer, OE nacod, OHG nackut \ nachut \ nahhut, NHG nackt

*nogW(H)to- > Ct. *noxto- > OI nocht, W. noeth

...

With *H in mind, though Pokorny said Os. bägnäg ‘naked’ < *mägnäg with N-dsm., these words are actually from *b(r)- with unknown cause :

Ir. *b(r)agnaka- > MP brahnag, P. barahna, Os. bägnäg ‘naked’, Sg. ßγn’k, Kho. būnaa-
Ir. *b(r)agna-pa:d- ‘barefoot’ > Xw. bgnpʾd, Os.d. bæǧænbad

&gt;

with *mH- > *mR- > *bR- > b(r)-.

A5. These problems add up to, say, *dheH1g^oms > *dhe(H1)g(^)(h)o:m (*eH > *e: in Hittite, *Hg(h) (as in many *C(h)H), *Hg vs. *Hg^ (like 'daughter', etc.). With this, the *dheH1- would match *dheH1- 'put, place', also appearing in words for places, like *dheH1-wo- 'place > town'. What would *-g^om- be?

A6. In fact, a rec. "*dʰǵʰḿ̥h₂s (“earth”)" is given in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/𐬰𐬀𐬨 but it links to a page with a more standard rec., no mention of *H2. Presumably, this is intended to explain Ir. *dzaH-s. Others say the nom. is *dza:-s based on acc. *dza:m (with *-om-m > *-o:m), but also see *dhg^mH2lo- > G. khthamalós, *dhg^mH2-ei > G. khamaí, etc. (more below).

The need for *H is probably also seen in Ir. *dzamH-akā 'earth' > Pashto zmaka \ dzməka, Proto-Ossetian *zamakHā > *zamax(x)ā > Digor Ossetian zænxæ. For other ex. of changes to *CH & met. of *H-C > *CH, *C-H > *CH, see ex. in https://www.academia.edu/127283240, following Martin J. Kümmel's idea on *H being retained in Ir. much later than most thought.

This would mean 'earth' contained both *(H1) & *(H2). Loss of *H is common in compounds, so *dhe(H1)g^om(H2)-s < *dheH1-g^omH2-s < *dheH1-mg^H2o-s 'big place' would fit.

A7. If so, something like :

-

*dh(e)(H1)g^om(H2)s ‘earth’ > *g^hdhōm > Av. zam-, *gzām > S. kṣam-, *dhghōm > Ph. gūm \ γουμ

-

gen. *dh(H1)g^m-os > IIr. *g(^)ðmas > S. gmás \ jmás \ kṣmás

-

loc. *dh(H1)g^(o)m(H2)-en > Av. zəmar-gūz- 'hidden in the earth?'

-

*dhg^mH2e-i > *dhg^hmH2ai > G. khamaí ‘on the ground’ (with old o-stem retained, even with met. > m-stem in the nom. ?)

-

*dhg^omiyo- 'of/in the earth; earthly, mortal' > Celtic *gdonyo-s 'man, person', G. khthónios ‘under the earth’, Ph. *upo-tgonyo- > pokgonio- ‘(the) buried? / the dead?’

-

*dhg^mH2lo- > *dhg^hǝmǝlo- > G. khthamalós ‘on the ground / low’, Ph. *γ^ǝmǝlo- > zomolo-  \ zemelo- ‘man (mortal) / *lowly > slave’

-

Ir. *dzamH-akā 'earth' > Pashto zmaka \ dzməka, Proto-Ossetian *zamakHā > *zamax(x)ā > Digor Ossetian zænxæ

-

G. *gd-awya ? > (g)aîa / gê / gâ, Dor. dâ, Cyp. za-

B1. The comparison of ( https://www.academia.edu/35386605 ) PIE *dh(e)g^hom- 'earth' with Kartvelian *diɣwam- > Gr. diɣvami 'fertile soil, black earth', Svan diɣwam 'damp low place with fertile soil'; ? > Gr. diɣomi 'a district of Tbilisi' (its meaning as '(fertile?) place' might be shown by it being the oldest inhabited part, if Tbilisi once refered to the hotsprings; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tbilisi : "Archaeologists discovered evidence of continuous habitation of the Tbilisi suburb of Dighomi since the early Bronze Age, and stone artifacts dating to the Paleolithic age") also led to "why ɣw not **ɣ?".

B2. How is this related to Kartvelian *diqa 'clay, earth' > OGr tiqa-? One idea is that PIE *dheig(^)h- 'smear, clay, dough' & *dhg(^)hom- ‘earth’ are related and both show *gh vs. *g^h. This ev. comes from S. gm- \ jm-, Phrygian g- \ z-, etc. A similar idea in https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&basename=%2fdata%2fkart%2fkartet :
&gt;

Proto-Kartvelian: *diq-

clay, earth

Georgian: tixa- (Old Georg. tiqa-)

Megrel: dixa, dexa

Laz: (n)dixa

Notes and references: ЭСКЯ 94 (*tiqa-), EWK 111-112. Иллич-Свитыч (ОСНЯ 1, 220) сравнивает с ПИЕ *dhǵh-em- "земля", восстанавливая ностр. *diqV. Климов (1994, 100-101) сравнивает основу с ПИЕ *dheiǵho-, однако последнее не значит "глина", но лишь "глиняное изделие" ("вылепленное", от *dheiǵh- 'лепить'), что, наряду с фонетическими соображениями (-q- на месте ПИЕ *ǵh) ставит заимствование из ПИЕ под сильное сомнение.

&gt;

B3. I say that PIE *dheH1g^omH2- could explain all data for 'earth'. If H1 = x^ or R^, then *dheR^g^- could opt. > *dheR^g(^)h- by asm. & dsm. (as above), then this split also allows *dheR^g- > *dhiRG- > *diq-, *dheghR^m- > *diɣwam- (or any similar path). With this, another ex. of *H1 > w ( https://www.academia.edu/166167744 ) could explain *dheghH1om- > *dhegR^om- > Kartvelian *diɣom-, *diɣwam- > Gr. diɣvami 'fertile soil, black earth'. The *w vs. *0 would indicate that this change was optional (as apparently also in Armenian *k^t > wt \ st, etc.); maybe *Ho > *o, *wo > wa (no ex. of Proto-Kartvelian *wo in the database).

C. This might also include cognates given in the database, like Dravidian *dūgaṛ \ *tūkuḷ \ etc. 'earth, clay, soil, dust'. This could hardly be related in the distant past if 'earth' was a recent cp. in PIE. If related, maybe *dhH1gōmH2 > *dhəRgōwR > *dhōgRəwR >*d(h)ōg(h)Rəwṛ (with CH > C(h)R; various dsm. & asm. of R-R \ R-l, C(h)-C(h), etc. (before *d > t, *dh > d, etc.?)).

D. Tungusic *tāksa 'clay' & Turkic *Tog 'dust' are rec. from Altaic *t`ā̀go. These meanings are united by Burushaski *toq 'mud' & other "Sino-Caucasian" words for 'clay, mud, soil' that look, at 1st glance, as closer relatives of Altaic than in Starostin's theory. He also rec. Old Chinese *dhǝk > Ch. zhí '(clayey) soil; (pottery) clay; earth'. In "Comments: Also read *thǝk-s, MC ćhɨ̀ id.", the alt. of dh- vs. th- might match the variation above (gH \ ghH, dh-gh > d-gh but dh-g remained, etc.). In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/埴 another rec. "(Zhengzhang): /*tʰjɯɡs/, /*djɯɡ/" shows the same alt.

If rel. Dravidian *dūgaḷ, a met. of V's in *dhōg^hR^əwR also, with R-R > R-0 (if needed), Ch-Ch > C-Ch, *dhōg^hR^əwR > *dōghR^əw (gR^ > gz^ > ks in Tg.). Since so many of these clusters & env. are found only here, I can't be precise. If indeed ST *dhH1ǝwgh > *dyɯɡ, *dhH1ǝwgh-sV > *thyɯɡs, etc., then *ǝw > *ɯ would match other cases of *ɯ coming from an older round & reduced V, caused by *w or adjacent *P (forthcoming).

E. Starostin also rel. Afro-Asiatic *daḳʷ(u)- \ *dekʷ(u)- \ etc. 'clay, mud, soil, dust'. The varying C's & V's match the variation above, & the similar form & meaning covering so many forms in all (apparently optional) is good ev. of a common origin. The *-e- vs. *-a- might be from ablaut as in IE, *dhe(H)g- vs. *dhHg-, etc. As above for *Hg > *g(h)H, etc.

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 9 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

July 1, 2026

A. Some Latin words show *r-r > r-s, *s-r > s-s, etc., but apparently with no other specifics.  Variants also exist in other Italic languages, so I doubt there is full regularity ( https://www.academia.edu/121166610 ). Also, in :

*misro- > TA msär ‘difficult’, *mizer > *mirer > L. miser ‘unfortunate / miserable / pitiable’, moerēre \ maerēre ‘be sad/mournful’, ? >> Albanian i mjerë 'miserable, unhappy'

It seems likely that *mirer > miser but *mirer > *mier > mjerë with r-r dsm. This would provide more ev. of variants.

B. It is likely that *perH3- 'produce, give (birth)' formed *pr(e)H3-tu- > *pr(o)H3-tu- 'birth'. In the sense of 'offspring', also met. > *p(o)rthH3u- :

*p(o)rtH3u- > S. pṛthuka- ‘child / young of animal’, Ar. ort’ ‘calf/fawn’ (u-stem), ort’ ‘grapevine’, Kh. phordù ‘young plant’, G. p(t)órthos ‘shoot’

For *p- > pt- in Greek, I said that *porthH3u-s > *pórthwos > *pwórthos > *pyórthos > G. p(t)órthos ( https://www.academia.edu/127336365 ). However, the ex. I said had the same w-metathesis might not work for all cases of apparent *p > p / pt. Over time, I've found more reason to think that PIE *py- existed, mostly becoming *p- in other IE. This is part of many similar clusters, like *my-, *mw- ( https://www.academia.edu/165248349 ). Part of the ev. is that *w & *y left 0-grade *u & *i before disappearing (some later > 0 by analogy), as in ( https://www.academia.edu/144214884 ) :

*pyels-, *pils-

*polso- > OCS plaxъ ‘quivering, nervous, anxious’, ( -> plašiti ‘be fearful’ )

*pilsko- 'coward > mouse’ > Sl. *pĭlxkŭ > R. poloxók, Po. pilch ‘dormouse’

&

*pyelH1-

*pelH1- > ON felmta ‘be frightened / tremble’

*p(y)elH1- > G. pállō ‘shake/brandish’, ptólemos / pólemos ‘war’

C. The group of words :

LB mi-ja-ro 'dyed?', G. miarós ‘stained / defiled (with blood) / polluted / foul’, miaínō 'stain / dye / paint / etc.', míakhos \ míasma 'pollution, defilement'

are, if IE, usually derived < PIE *(s)meyH2- 'to smear, rub'. The fact that this can be 'smear > spot / stain / dye / color' reminded me of another group. IE words for 'fish' are often < 'spotted, striped' (*perk^-), & some of this group of cognates are for prominently spotted fish (most notably maínē 'blotched picarel', which is unlikely to be named for anything else) :

Sanskrit mīná-s 'fish', Dravidian *mīn-

Greek μαίνη \ maínē 'blotched picarel'

(*mHno-s ? > ) *mino-s > Slavic *mъnь 'burbot'

(*mHno-s ? > ) Germanic *muniwo: 'small fish, minnow'

If related, they'd need *(s)meyH2-no- to become *maiH2-, *miH2-, *mH2-. (or *mH2ai-, etc.). Of course, this is exactly what is seen in another root, clearly IE :

*daH2i- ‘divide/distribute’ ->

*daH2i-lo-s > *dH2ai-lo-s ? > Go. dails ‘part’ (if dH > dhH )

*daH2y-o-s > S. dāyá-s ‘share’

*daH2i-mon- > G. daímōn ‘supernatural being’, *dayH2-mon-? > *daH2-mon- > S. dā́man- ‘share’

*dayH2-mo-? > *daH2-mo- > G. dêmos, Dor. dâmos ‘district / land / common people’, *diH2- maH2 > OE tíma, E. time

*dyH2-?? > *dH2- -> G. dasmos ‘division of spoils’

*diH2-ti- > OE tíd, E. tide, *dyH2ti-?? > *dH2ti- > S. díti- ‘cutting / dividing / distributing’, G. *dátis, *datey- >> datéomai ‘share / tear’

Though no regular sound change is known to produce them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I see no reason to separate the words for '(spotted) fish' for reasons that don't require each word for 'part, share, divide' to be divided.

D. The Celtic name of Rutupiae, Ritupis, Ratupis, Rutupis contains -p-. Celtic supposedly turned PIE *p > *f > h \ 0, and all p in Brythonic should come from *kW. However, there is no IE word with *kW that fits. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richborough_Castle :

&gt;

Rutupiae or Portus Ritupis... The meaning of the name Rutupiae is uncertain, although the first element may derive from the British Celtic *rutu- meaning "rust; mud" (cf. Welsh rhwd).[6] An alternative attested name for the fort, Ritupiae, may represent a clearer British form, containing the word *ritus "ford" (Welsh rhyd), referring to a crossing point between the then island and the mainland. The meaning of the -piae element remains unknown.

&gt;

Since PIE *prtu-s 'crossing, ford, port' existed, its *r > ri \ ru \ ra is significant. Celtiberian *maH2tr-bhos > matrubos ‘to the mothers (a group of goddesses)’ shows syllabic *r > ru, when Celtic usually has *r > ri. Both are next to *P, so rounding influence is likely. Not all kknown *r > ar seems regular either, so this seems, together, to fit best if there was a stage of syllabic r > ǝrǝ (Celtiberian -birikez from PIE *brg^h-, Avestan bǝrǝz- ‘height/mountain’; *kom-sklto- > kon-skilitom), more in https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/comments/147c0lr/pie_syllabic_r_and_l_reconstructed_as_%C7%9Dr%C7%9D/ . This allows ǝrǝ > iri, ǝrǝ > rǝ > ri, ǝrǝ > ǝr > ar, etc.

Since Rutupiae could be *Rutu-piae, *Rutu-(u)piae, *Rutu-(H)piae, either *u(H2)p- or *H2p- would fit (both are words for 'water', some used in IE places next to the water; *H often lost in compounds). Some Celtic dia. with *p > p would support Lepontic as either a kind of Celtic or very similar to it ( https://www.academia.edu/116491699 ).

E. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamucium :

&gt;

Mamucium is generally thought to represent a Latinisation of an original Brittonic name, either from mamm- ("breast", in reference to a "breast-like hill")[3][4] or from mamma ("mother", in reference to a local river goddess). Both meanings are preserved in modern Celtic languages, mam meaning "mother" in Welsh.[5][6] The neuter suffix -ium is used in Latin placenames, particularly those representing Common Brittonic -ion (a genitive suffix denoting "place or city of ~"). The Welsh name for Manchester is Manceinion. It appears that William Baxter invented this name in his ‘Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum’ (1719) as a back-formation based on ‘Mancunium’. ‘Historia Brittonum’ (828-29) lists ‘Cair Maunguid’ (fort of the peat trees) and it has been suggested that this might be the authentic Welsh name for ‘Manchester’. In Modern Welsh, it would have been ‘*Caerfawnwydd’. It should be stressed that the ancient name is unknown. However, if one is correct to equate the 9th-century name with ‘Manchester’, the Proto-Celtic name would have been ‘*Māniwidion’. Roman authorities give both Mancunium and Mamucium, but it is not clear that either form is correct. Possibly neither is and they might be scribal errors for ‘*Maniuidium’.

The Romans built the fort on a naturally defensible sandstone bluff that overlooked a nearby crossing over the River Medlock.[7]

The first phase of the fort was built from turf and timber.[15] Mamucium's dimensions indicate it was to be garrisoned by a cohort, about 500 infantry. These troops were not Roman citizens but foreign auxiliaries who had joined the Roman army.[17] By the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, a civilian settlement (called a vicus) had grown up around the fort.[18]

&gt;

Since Celtic *māni-s 'moss, peat' is from *maH2- 'be wet', it might have once referred to the river, etc., instead. I think a compound with *wīkos < vīcus fits best. Maunguid is more likely to be analogy with other place names with -widd (no reason for *-widu > *-(w)ik(V), etc.). If so, *māni-wīk-yo-m > *mānuwīkyom > *mānumikyom > *māmunkiyom > Mamucium, *māmkunyom > Mancunium. This would show common IE *iw > *uw, Celtic w \ m & m \ n near labials ( https://www.academia.edu/168383054 & https://www.academia.edu/169388268 & https://www.academia.edu/127709618 ).

F. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drown :

&gt;

Etymology From Middle English drownen, drounen, drunen (“to drown”), of obscure and uncertain origin. The OED suggests an unattested Old English form *drūnian.[1] Harper 2001 points to Old English druncnian, ġedruncnian (> Middle English drunknen, dronknen (“to drown”)), "probably influenced" by Old Norse drukkna (cf. Icelandic drukkna, Danish drukne (“to drown”)).[2] Funk & Wagnall's has 'of uncertain origin'. It has been theorised (see e.g. ODS)[3] that it may represent a direct loan of Old Norse drukkna, but this is described by the OED as being "on phonetic and other grounds [...] highly improbable",[1] unless one considers the possibility of an unattested variant in Old Norse *drunkna.

&gt;

A language with a change of nk > kk but nkn > _n (with V_n > V:n) is not that odd. In the same way, Norse words with 2 variants in https://www.academia.edu/144152558 might come from optional or dia. features rather than a separate distinct group with its own language, varying only slightly.

G. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/naevus https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gnaeus :

&gt;

Etymology Probably the same word as naevus (“birthmark, mole”), as first proposed by Festus and commonly accepted by modern scholars. Chase cites the archaic spelling Gnaivos in support of this explanation.

&gt;

and in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/naevus "From *gnaevus, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵn̥h₁iwós (“native”), from *ǵenh₁- (“to beget”)." This seems extremely unlikely. Since there is L. gnārus 'having knowledge of a thing; acquainted with a thing; skillful, practiced' < *g^nH3-ro- 'knowing', I think an origin *gnaevus 'mark, spot, mole' < *gna:-i:wo-s 'token, sign, mark' fits better.

H. The relation of G. χαλάω \ khaláō 'to slacken; loosen', Sanskrit khallate 'shake, be loose', khálati 'shake', khála-s 'threshing floor', khalva\khalla-s 'stone for grinding drugs on', *khalla-kara- ?? > *kharalla- > Gj. kharal m. (Turner, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χαλάω , data only) seems to require H-met. of, say, *kalH2- > *khH2al-. Similar changes likely in :

*klH2wo- > Latin calvus, S. kulvá- 'bald', *kH2al- -> khalatí-

*kelH3- 'rise' > IIr. *kHal > S. *khalati 'rise'

I. In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/porzъ Germanic: *farzaz 'bull, ox' is very close to -Slavic *pȏrzъ 'young domestic animal'. Deriving both from *porH3so-s 'begetting' has problems; though analogy might work, a loan from Gmc >> Slavic might be best.

J. Slavic *kъnorzъ 'barrow (castrated male pig)' is said in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/kъnorzъ "Etymology Probably from earlier *kъrnorzъ, from *kъrnъ (“truncated, castrated”) +‎ *orzъ (“testicle”). South Slavic form may be influenced by some folk etymology." However, the South Slavic form(s) are Slovene nerẹ́sec \ merjásec, Serbo-Croatian nȅrast, Bulgarian nérez. There are many ex. of Slavic *m > m \ n, none of *n > m \ n (that I know of). Since the ety. is internal to Slavic & descriptive, it might fit better if *mer-orzo-s 'with cut off testicles' also existed (related to *mer- 'divide, distribute').

A1. For the G. transaction terms, I've mentioned ka-i-ro =? G. kairos 'profit', and more (Linear A Math 1-8). Many end in -Co, matching G. -os, etc. The presence of Co in names (of places or people, not always clear) but common Cu concentrated in other words might show that Greeks recently conquered a people living on Crete with few or no o's, at least with some *o > u (if IE). The Greeks spoke a language with many o's, so they'd be common in their words, but in lists of the places that retained their old names, they'd be rare. In this way, Linear A ku-ro 'total', po-to-ku-ro 'grand total' seem significant.

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

Since the examples of G. dialects with o > u (like óz[d]os \ úsdos 'branch', etc.) show that o > u happened in the root but not in the ending -os, it is likely that ku-ro = *kuros < kóros 'fullness; too much'. The IE root contains other words for 'grow, increase, multiply', so its application to numbers would fit, & even an internal shift of 'full > total' is not odd, and few languages had an old word specifically for 'total', since lists of goods added up are a fairly recent invention. Indeed, the LB word for 'total' is also not known from later Greek. This word is derived :

PIE *k^er(H)- 'to grow; make grow, feed, nourish'

PIE *k^reH1-sk^e- > Latin crēscere 'to rise, grow, grow up; prosper, thrive; increase, multiply, augment'

PIE *k^orH1esk^- cau.? > G. κορέννυμι \ korénnūmi 'to satisfy, satiate'

In https://www.academia.edu/129049598 Duccio Chiapello has said that his past theory that the LA sign TE, all alone as a heading, stood for *te-ro (G. telos, in its meaning as 'obligation / duty to the state' (ie. taxes)) is confirmed by his discovery of 2 ligatures of TE & RO (merged in different orientations) in the same place TE was found. I'm very glad to see him find more evidence. Keep in mind that PIE *telH2os 'burden / obligation' & *kWelH1os 'turn / end / result' merge in some G. dia., and 'tax' is likely to be the meaning of TE+RO here. I made sure to mention this to avoid objections that *kW should remain, as in LB. With *telH2os already known, there is no reason to look for *kW-.

B6. Many words in LA -u or -e correspond to LB -o (some the personal names of men), a few only attested with fem. versions in LB -a (or G. masc. -as ? (with no final -C written, both might fit)), some with both LA -a & -u. If LA was an IE language, this would show that *-os > *-us \ *-es, or similar. Ex. (Davis & Valério, https://www.academia.edu/44643375/ :

LA di-de-ru, LB di-de-ro

LA te-ja-re, LB te-ja-ro

LA pa-ja-re, LB pa-ja-ro

LA a-ra-na-re, LB a-ra-na-ro

LA na-da-re, LB no-da-ro

LA ki-da-ro, LB ki-da-ro, ki-do-ro

LA ku-ku-da-ra, LB ku-ka-da-ro

LA ku-pha-nu, LB ka-pha-no

LA ku-pha-na-tu, LB ka-pha-na-to (also ku-pa-nu-we-to ?)

LA ku-ru-ku, LB ku-ru-ka (masc. -as or fem. -a?)

LA ma-si-du, LB ma-si-dwo

LA mi-ja-ru, LB mi-ja-ro

LA qa-qa-ru, LB qa-qa-ro

LA qe-rja-wa, LB qa-rja-wo (& qe-rja-u ?)

LA ka-sa-ru, LB wa-du-ka-sa-ro (compound, +ka-sa-ro)

The completely arbitrary appearance of whether -e or -u is found might show that IE *o > *ö > *ö \ *ü > e \ u. This reminded me of a similar change in Lycian o-stems > i\e, etc. From https://www.academia.edu/128589619 :

&gt;
In Luwic, most PIE o-stems became mixed i/o-stems ( > Lw. i/a-stems, Lc. i/e, etc.). All past attempts have assumed analogy brought -i- in from a different group. Norbruis argues for it to have taken place after most C-stems added -i- to some cases by partial merger with i-stems (similar to Latin), providing a source of analogy. Still, the analogy is not great, & the o-stems are the last group in which analogy is expected...

Usually, when stressed V’s are unaffected by a change, it is a sound change, not analogy.  PIE o-stems becoming changed by analogy only in the nom. & acc. (maybe some datives) seems very odd when no other IE branch had anything similar.  In fact, most IE show many other stems changed > o-stems in large numbers.

There is a sound change that could explain most data.  Since PIE *o > Lc. e, intermediate *o > *ö is likely.  For those who believe Anat. & Toch. split early, you might compare *o > TB e to evaluate its age.  Based on *-eyo- > *-öi-  in :

*(s)tubh- > G. stuphelízō ‘strike hard, thrust / maltreat’, Ph. tubeti ‘chops down’

*toubheyeti > Lw. dūbiti 3s., *toubheyonti > dūbainti 3p. ‘strike’, Lc. tubidi 3s., tubeiti 3p.

I suspect that raising of *o is the cause.  When other outcomes of *VyV show only *-y- > 0, this could be *-eyo- > *-eö- > *-eü- > *-öü- > -oi-.  Other paths are possible, but if it would appear that some unstressed *-os > *-is, the evidence of *o > i next to V needs to be examined.  A different change in *VV than *VC is always possible, but if some *ö > *ü > i, why would *-ös > *-is not be best examined as a sound change also?

With this, all data is best explained by unstressed *ö in the last syl. > *ü in Luwic, later > i in known languages.  There might be more conditions, without enough examples of all environments.  The stage with *ü in nouns is seen in Greek loans with -u- (lábrus, pálmus) and maybe in *H1ek^wo-s ‘horse’ > L. equus, *ec^uwös > *ecuwüs^ > *ecus > HLw. ázu-.  Norbruis’ possible u-stem for ‘horse’ being only seen here makes little sense, since the outcome of unstressed *-os is in question in the first place.

&gt;

B8. In the link ( https://www.academia.edu/69149241 ), CH 005 'eye' > LAB *79. Melena considers Linear B *79 as WO2, representing wwo(:) and (*wyo(:) > ) w^w^o(:). Though I agree with most of his points, this can not be true since not all his words contain *ww from any source: *Diwós-sunos ‘son of Zeus’ > *Diwós-nusos > *Diwóh-nusos > Diṓnusos, with metathesis, also *Diwó(s)-nusos > Diónusos with *s-s > *0-s (or similar). Instead, they ALL have -wō-. From his evidence, there is no reason to take these ex. of *79 as anything except WŌ.

However, I do not believe this was the only use of *79. This is not the only example that might support most of Melena's ideas, since in Thebes *56 shows matches with KO. Different readings of signs in Egypt is not odd, so why in LB? Different places, schools, etc., might use values based on history we can not know. Even subtle differences in form, maybe not apparent from those with few ex., might exist. Since both values have plenty of ev., why separate into camps that only look at one set of examples & say the others are somehow meaningless?

There are more words with *79, and they give further information about *79 and its origin. LB e-wi-su-zo-ko \ e-wi-su-79-ko seem to show *79 was ZU, for *ewisudzukos. If < *ewisu-zugos, it is :

LB e-wi-su-do-ko / LB e-wi-su-zo-ko < *ewisu-dzugō ‘yoked together’, G. éïsos ‘equal / even / same’ (like homó- ‘same / joint’, homózugos ‘yoked together’)

This would mean the chariot was ‘for 2 horses yoked together’ and the ivory pieces were ‘joined together’ (ie. a pair from one elephant, mounted together, not separate). The derivation from *ewisu- & *dzugo- was already suspected by others (Chantraine 1957; Judson 2016, with doubts), & they supposed u / o variation. Though some dialects, including LB, had o > u (below), this might not needed here. It is possible that G. dia.*u-u-o > u-o-o was opt. (compare other words in which *-H- became 2 different V's, one matching another V in the word). Also, if both spellings indicates a “dummy vowel”, it is possible that *u-u-o > u-o was opt. (some variants with u vs. 0 are known: oísupos / oispṓtē ‘lanolin’; *thalukW- > Greek thalúptō \ thálpō 'warm up / heat’, thalukrós ‘hot / glowing’).

Why would 3 readings exist for one sign? As I said, it could be that these are each slightly modified (with limited ex., knowing which parts to look for to compare would be hard). In any case, if each value was one syllable of the word for 'eye', then *zu-ko-wō = *tsukwō might exist. If IE, a word ending in -ō is likely dual (thus, 'eyes', as many IE words for paired body parts were dual). If from PIE *H3oHkW-s 'eye', then with opt. changes of H3-W > t\s-W (based on Adam Hyllested & Paul S. Cohen https://www.academia.edu/47791737 ), *H3okW- ‘eye’ > H. šākuwa-, Lw. tāwa-, so we'd get *H3oHkW-s > *tsukWs in LA (*o > u \ e, above). This would support H3 = xW, with dsm. of xW-W > x^-W > q^-W > ts^-W (or similar). Also :

*H3(o)rswo- > S. r̥ṣvá- ‘elevated / high / great/noble’, Av. ərəšva- ‘lofty’, G. *orhwos > óros, Ion. oûros, Meg. órros ‘mountain’
Anatolian *H3(o)rswanH1o- > H. tarwana- / šarwana-; ?Lydian >> G. túrannos ‘absolute ruler / tyrant / dictator’

*H(1/2)wers- ‘rain’ > G. (e/a)érsē ‘dew’, oûron ‘urine’
*H(1/2)wers-wr > H. šehur ‘urine’, Lw. *ðewr > dūr; H. >> MAr. šeṙ, šṙem ‘urinate’

They are disputed since not regular (though it seems impossible to avoid, and H. t- / s- can come from no known PIE source. If not H3 > t /s, then what *C could be accepted? This even has a 2nd irregular change:  hw- > h- by dissimilation near W / P.  These occur in exactly the same environment I theorized for H3 > H2.  That 2 changes to *H3 must have existed is clear.  If H2 = x or χ and H3 = xW or χW, it could be explained by optional dissimilation of *xW > *x near W / P :

*H3- = *xWowi- > L. ovis ‘sheep’, Luw. hawi-
*H3- = *xWopni- > L. omnis ‘every/whole’, *xWopino- > H. happina- ‘rich’

B9. Other signs show the same type of change (with CH originals in https://www.academia.edu/69149241 ) :

-

LB *32

QO

from CH 012, cow’s head with LA fem. version as in goat, etc.? (maybe + CH 026 (female marker), https://www.academia.edu/127156814 )

QOU(S) < *gWowus, S. gáus, G. boús ‘cow’ (any IE would fit)

-

Anatolian, Greek, Linear A (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

June 24, 2026

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

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

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

For others, since most LA is lists of people, places, or unknown goods (often with the name hidden by a symbol), finding Greek would be seem to be hard. Yet even opponents of it find Greek on their own. Younger in http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/ :

&gt;

13d. Suffix -TE/TI Valério 2007 demonstrated that the suffix -TE means "from/of." There is a variant, -TI.

&gt;

I don't agree with all his ideas, but this would make LA -TE 'from / of' = Greek -θε \ -θεν 'from / of'. It is hard to understand why LA has not been proven as Greek, when so many others keep making it look that way. Since this also appears as G. -tha \ -θα in Aeolic & Doric, it could be that ka-u-de-ta VINa could be interpreted as 'wine from Kauda' (with G. *a: > a: \ e: ). For context, see https://www.academia.edu/112486222 .

Linear B da-ma-te 'Demeter' has often been compared to Linear A da-ma-te. Two ladles had LA da-ma-te or a-ta-i-jo-wa-ja; two golden axes had LA i-da-ma-te. These axes were clearly not for use, and were offerings. Younger said of (i-)da-ma-te, "likely the name of a deity, but NOT Demeter, whose name is Indo-European in origin, not a borrowing from Minoan". This is not a very reasonable claim when nothing about LA's grammar or origin is firmly established. Is LA da-ma-te REALLY likely to be a goddess who had nothing to do with Damater a few centuries later?

Younger also describes LA signs, many used for commodities, that can match LB or IE words (some the same as above, IE origin noted when needed) :

*558 MA+RU ‘wool’, G. mallós ‘tuft of hair / flock of wool’

*507 ME + [wine] ‘honey wine?’, LA me-ri, LB me-ri, G. méli ‘honey’ < PIE *melit

*547 TU+RO; LB tu-rjo ‘cheese’ (Younger), also LB tu-ri-, G. tūrós ‘cheese’, Av. tūiri- ‘milk that has become like cheese’ < PIE *tuH- ‘swell / be strong/firm’

*54 WA / [cloth]

*80 MA

treated below.

His ME + [wine] ‘honey wine?’ as an abbreviation of *meli-(woina?), etc., seems to imply that LA was IE, likely Greek. He does not mention this or any similar implications of his equations (like po-to-ku-ro ‘grand total’ as “power total?”, PIE *poti- ‘lord / powerful’).

B. Even with this, and much more I've previously said ( https://www.academia.edu/144077531 ), some of Chiapello's findings seem true evidence of IE in LA, yet not always pointing to Greek. This includes signs with clear origin matchin IE words, yet not Greek ones. LA *28 (sound value I ) < CH 008 (hand with 5 fingers) matches Lycian izre\i- ‘hand’. PIE *g^hesr- ‘hand’ > G. kheír, Luw. išari-, Lyc. izri- is the only word for 'hand' in the region starting with i-. The change of *sr > *tsr > zr is part of several s > ts, etc. (below).

Chiapello analyzes LA a-ta-i-jo-wa-ja / *jowja as coming from *djewja, the feminine of G. *Djeus / Zeús from PIE *Dye:us ( https://www.academia.edu/49484658 ). These are more changes than a Greek dialect would likely have, & it could be, again, close to Lycian if < *attai- *yowya 'mother goddess' (for IE with fem. -ai- (like TB), see https://www.academia.edu/129368235

Lydian μῶλαξ 'wine', if from *medhu 'honey, mead' would show some kind of *e-u > *o-u & (known) alt. of T \ l. In https://www.academia.edu/122038494 Chiapello said that Linear A MI+JA+RU is 'honey'. This might fit best if *medhu > *möɾu > *mioru > MI+JA+RU. His idea that some form of Greek had *e > *ie > *ia in *melit might work if there was other ev. of this sound change, but I haven't found any. An Anatolian origin seems better.

From https://www.academia.edu/128589619 , Lydian >> G. lábrus ‘double-edged ax’ is reported in ancient sources. It is certainly the source of Lábraundos; if also of Labúrinthos (as 'ax-place > palace/maze' (the palace of Knossos had many ax symbols, large & winding within) then some kind of Anatolian presence on Crete (or extreme influence) would be needed. Changes like d \ l are also seen in some Anatolian. These have been mentioned before, but relying too heavily on one example can lead you not to notice other matches (as in the Greek in LA, above).

In related Luwian, *kWrswr > Lw. kuršawar ‘island’ ( <- *kWer-s- 'cut, divide, separate') might provide the name of ancient Crete (many islands are simply named 'island'). The Philistines were said to have come from the land of Caphtor in the Bible, which has usually been seen as the same as Ak. Kaptaru & Egyptian Keftiw 'Crete' (*R > w known in Eg.). Krētē must come from *Krwātā, *Kruwātā, or *Kruātā based on its legendary founder Krus (like Dôros founding the Dorians in myth, etc.). This could show *Kruswar-ta: > G. *Kruwa:ta:, *Kruswarta: > *Krufarta: > *Krafta:r.

For more *sC > *tsC, I wrote in www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r49qk7/luwian_linear_a_ligatures/

&gt;

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

&gt;

However, joining sa and za in this way might be best explained if *sta- > *tsta- > *ttsa- > *tssa-. It seems like an odd change, but the Anatolian language Kalasmian with *sk^ > *tsk^ > zk ( https://www.academia.edu/169173444 ) shows that Hittite words with apparent *sk- > sk- \ zk- are real, even if irregular. This is against Alwin Kloekhorst's claims that irregular changes don't exist, thus all ex. are wrong segmentation from neuter *tad-sk, etc.). It can apply to his analysis of H. kazzarnul- nu. 'a certain cloth': "Rieken.. translates the word as “Tuch zum Abtrocknen?”, although she also states that “[e]ine inhaltliche Spezifizierung der Tuchbezeichnung anhand der Belege ist kaum möglich”. According to her, the word must be a derivative in -ul- (< PIE *-) from a verb *kazzarnu- (for the formation she compares the hapaxes dalugnul- and parganul- (see s.v. daluki- / dalugai- and parkie/a-zi respectively)). She states that the root kazzar- could be connected with *k'se(:)ro- (Gr. xero'n  ‘fast, dry land’, Lat. sere:scunt ‘they dry’, OHG serawe:n ‘to become dry’). As a parallel for the development *#s- > #kts- she gives zakkar- /tskar/ < *sk'o:r.

Other signs show the same type of change (with CH originals in https://www.academia.edu/69149241 ) :

-

In this link, CH 005 'eye' > LAB *79. If from PIE *H3oHkW-s 'eye', then with opt. changes of H3-W > t\s-W (based on Adam Hyllested & Paul S. Cohen https://www.academia.edu/47791737 ) > *tsukWs. This would support H3 = xW, with dsm. of xW-W > x^-W > q^-W > ts^-W (or similar).

-

LA / LB *78

QE

face, from CH 075

Lycian *o > e, *H3 > round stop; *H3okW-yo-? > *kWe(?) 'face', CH 075 > LA *78 QE

-
LA / LB *21

QI

*21 also ideo., OVIS = sheep in LA from CH 013 (p96; https://www.academia.edu/69149241 , (??) head & neck only, vs. whole sheep > LB *61)

*H3owis > *kWuwis > *kWis ?

-

LA *04

TE

grain (type?); CH 025 > LA *04 (TE)

*dhoHn-aH2- > Sanskrit dhānās f.p, Khotanese dāna- f., Persian dāna ‘grain’, Lithuanian dúona ‘bread’, TB tāno f. ‘seed, grain’, tāna a.

*theHna ?

-

LA / LB *08

A (axe)

from CH 042, axe

G. axī́nē ‘ax-head’, etc. (any IE would fit)

-

LA / LB *37

TI

from CH 049, arrow with 3 dots, tripod?, or just tri- '3' (any IE would fit)

A tripod was a common item in LB.

-

LA / LB *54

WA

also for 'cloth'

IE *westi- / *wasti- > L. vestis, W. gwisg ‘garment/clothing’, Go. wasti, Arm. z-gest, aṙa-gast ‘curtain’, aṙi-gac ‘apron’; *wesnūmi > z-genum ‘put on clothes’, *wastnūmi > z-gacnum

They suggest the the CH sign for cloth is the source of WI and WA.  It also is highly unlikely that IE words for 'cloth / clothing' from *wasti- \ *westi- are unrelated (Gothic wasti, Latin vestis, Ar. -gast). 

-

LA / LB *23

MU

from CH 012, cow’s head (side), pg 96

*23 also ideo., BOS = cattle in LA

G. móskhos ‘calf / young bull’, Ar. mozi ‘calf’ (*o > u as in *H3ozdo- ‘branch’ > G. óz[d]os / Aeo. úsdos, etc.; few Co used in LA)

-

LB *32

QO

from CH 012, cow’s head with LA fem. version as in goat, etc.?

QOU(S) < *gWowus, S. gáus, G. boús ‘cow’ (any IE would fit)

-

LA / LB *05

TO

from CH 011, cow’s head (front), pg 96

*towres < *tH2awros 'bull' (same Vw > ow as in *yowya 'goddess' & *mouwe- < *meyuwo-)

-

LA *00

MO (see https://www.academia.edu/112932884 )

square

since most IE have 'four(-cornered)' > 'square', I compare

*mouwe-, Lw. ma:uwa- ‘four' < *meyuwo- '(one) less (than 5)' (same Vw > ow as in *yowya 'goddess' & *towres < *tH2awros 'bull')

-

LA / LB *85

AU

from CH 017 (pig’s head)

*85 also ideo., SUS = swine in LA

*awarsēs < *Hw(e)rsēs \ etc.

*Hw(e)rse(n)- > L. verrēs ‘boar’, G. *wersēn > El. érsēn, *warsēs > Lac. ársēs, Ion. ársēn ‘male’

Likely <- *H1\2wers- 'rain, sprinkle, inseminate'

-

LB *81

KU

from CH flying bird symbol (no # )

This matches G. gups \ γύψ 'vulture', but maybe really < *kurun- < *Horon- 'bird' (with o > u as in others)?

-

LA / LB *13

ME

from CH 020, bird, page 97

G. mérmnos '~hawk', morphnós '~eagle / vulture?' (some say rel. Mermnad dynasty in Lydia)

Since the bearded vulture is found on Crete, is very large (and prominent in many cultures), and has a ruffled crest (and merging with its “beard”), the CH images of various types for CH 020 (some detailed, others stylized) probably show it. The line above the head in one is the triangular “plume” in another, both probably versions of the crest. Of all birds on Crete, it would be odd if this one did not appear.

-

LA / LB *80

MA

from CH cat’s head (unnumbered)

Younger’s claim ( http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/misctexts.html ) that the Cretan Hieroglyphic cat’s head symbol stood for MA (compared to Linear A and B signs for the syllable MA) is supposedly imitation of “meow”, but many IE words for ‘cat’ and other noisy animals come from *maH2- ‘bleat / bellow / meow’ :

S. mārjārá- ‘cat’, mārjāraka- ‘cat / peacock’, mayū́ra- ‘peacock’, māyu- ‘bleating/etc’, mayú- ‘monkey?/antelope’, mimeti ‘roar / bellow / bleat’, G. mēkás ‘goat’, mēkáomai ‘bleat [of sheep]’, memēkṓs, fem. memakuîa ‘bleating’, Arm. mak’i -ea- ‘ewe’, Van mayel ‘bleat [of sheep]’

In Armenian, often matching G. in meaning, Hrach Martirosyan wrote, “in the meaning ‘to mew (of the cat)’ – in Zeyt‘un, Karin (with -ä-), Van (mayuyel), Akn (mɛ*yan ‘a cat that mews a lot’), Šamaxi mäyvɔ*c‘ ‘miaow’” and this would support a Greek *mā- ‘meow’, *māyu- ‘cat / cat that meows a lot / animal that goes ‘ma’ a lot’, or a similar form.

-

LA / LB *22

PHI / BI

from CH 016 (goat’s head, facing left)

also ideo., CAP = goats? in LA

Maybe < PIE *bhuHg^o-s > Av. būza- 'he-goat', if from a change like*by:dzos > *bizes ??

-

Celtic and Greek alternation of m \ b, loanwords (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

June 28, 2026

A. Greek alternation of m \ b

Many Greek words have m \ b, but m \ w is much more common in IE (from various causes). If this*m > *w represents the earlier stage, some of this alternation might show that *m \ *v was the earliest shift, but with no details clear. In support of the reality of these changes, these words seem to show alternation of b \ m in clear IE roots, and others of unknown origin :

*tergW- > S. tarj- ‘threaten’, G. tarmússō ‘frighten’, tárbos ‘fright/alarm/terror’

G. κικυμίς \ κίκυμος \ κίκυβος 'little owl (Athene noctua)', L. cucubīre \ cūcubāre to screech, hoot '(of the screech-owl)'

*kH2am-? > L. camur(us) ‘bent’, G. khamós ‘crooked’, khabós ‘bent’

G. kubernáō ‘steer (a ship)’, Aeo., Cyp. kumern-

G. kolúmbaina \ kolúbdaina ‘a kind of crab’ (maybe a swimmer crab)

? > G. bátos \ mantía ‘blackberry’

*wra(H2)d- > G. rhádamnos ‘branch’, rhámnos ‘box-thorn’, rhábdos ‘rod (for punishment) / staff (of office) / wand’

*H2swid-mā 'bright (red)'? > G. síbdē \ sílbā, ?Cr. rhímbā, Aeo. xímbā ‘pomegranate’

G. términthos \ terébinthos ‘terebinth’

G. phérbō ‘feed / pasture / graze’, ?Cr. phormúnios ‘a kind of fig’, phormíon \ phórbion ‘Salvia viridis’ (formerly Salvia horminum)

Again, no clear regularity, but there are too many ex. for these not to have some common cause. There are also several with m \ p instead. Since these are concentrated in Crete, it might also have *b > p (G. ablábeia, Cretan ablopia ‘freedom from harm/punishment’) :

*s(a)m-akis > Greek hápax ‘once’, Cretan hamákis (formed like '2 times', etc.)

Cr. kamá ‘field’, Dor. G. kâpos, Al. kopsht ‘garden / orchard’

G. hapalós ‘soft / tender / gentle / raw (of fruit)’, amalós ‘soft / weak’, Cretan hamádeon ‘a kind of fig’

L. saepēs ‘hedge/fence’, G. haimasiā́ ‘wall of dry stones’ [often related as *p-m, but was is -masiā́ ?; unclear, but with other m \ p, why not?]

B. Semitic Loanwords

Many Greek words have m \ b, & some Semitic loanwords show b > m, bb > mb, etc. :

Aramaic sabbəḵā >> G. sambū́kē \ σαμβύκη 'a triangular musical instrument with four strings' >> L. sambūca

Hebrew ḥăḇaqqūq 'a prophet' >> *abbakūk > *-p ? > G. Ἀμβακοὺμ \ Ambakoùm

Hebrew ʔavaq 'dust' >> G. ábax \ abákion, Lac. amákion ‘slab/board / reckoning-board / abacus / board sprinkled with sand/ dust for drawing geometrical diagrams’

Akkadian qabuttu 'a bowl', Hebrew qubba'ath 'goblet' >> G. κύμβη, Cyp. κύββη 'hollow of a vessel: drinking-cup, bowl', also 'boat', Phoenician acc. to Pliny

There is no known regular change that would account for this. It is not clear if Cyp. κύββη shows retained *bb > bb or a later internal mb > bb in Greek dialects. Also, some of these are of disputed origin (though not in clear cases like Ambakoùm, etc.), and in https://www.academia.edu/125812098 Rafal Rosol derived sambū́kē from Akkadian sammu 'harp / lyre', itself likely a loan << Sumerian zamin 'lyre'. If sabbəḵā is related, maybe Greek is from an older form, or just a series of changes in several languages: *mm-n > *bb-n (optional?), then bb > mb (like the others) when loaned into Greek.

The changes in ḥăḇaqqūq >> *abbakūp > Ambakoùm require either k-k dsm. or opt. *uk(W) (and later kW > p), with details in https://www.academia.edu/167984147

C. Celtic

Zachary Rothstein-Dowden in https://www.academia.edu/169121802 considers several ideas for why PIE *nebh(H1)os- 'cloud, sky' > S. nábhas-, etc., but > Celtic *nemos- > OI nem nu., nime g., OW nem ‘heaven’. These include ana. with L. nemus ‘sacred grove’, etc., or :

&gt;

Nasal spreading, OIr. noíb ‘holy’ → MIr. noeb/noem > Irish naomh, Occasional confusion between /v/ and /˜ v/ in loan words:

OIr. promad ‘prove’ for Lat. probare/proba [= PRom. provã]

OIr. carmocol ‘carbuncle’ for Lat. carbunculus [= PRom. carvũculũ]

&gt;

I wonder what *carvũculũ & *provã are supposed to be. These surely aren't Proto-Romance, or any branch. I doubt that original nasality is needed to cause b > m (as also absent in most Greek ex. of known origin). To these ex., I'd also add Latin presbyter >> Old Welsh primter >> Og. qrimitir (showing that -b- > -m- lasted a long time, even if irreg. I think some have explained part of this by saying p-b > p-m was common. Here, maybe instead ana. with L. prīmus or with prīmās 'chief bishop, primate'.

In https://www.academia.edu/169281642 Václav Blažek mentioned Old Irish cuib \ cuim ‘hound, wolf’ (others have 'whelp'). This would show the same *b > b \ m as in loans, but this is likely native, cognate with G. κικυμίς \ κίκυμος \ κίκυβος 'little owl (Athene noctua)'. If from PIE *k^u(H\C)- 'make noise, screech, howl, etc.', then it would match other words with this meaning used to name birds & canines ( https://www.academia.edu/164645760 ). Since PIE *b is fairly rare, most in this group must be inherited, but some ono. might also exist :

*k^ubi-s > OI cuib \ cuim ‘hound, wolf’, G. κικυμίς \ κίκυμος \ κίκυβος 'little owl (Athene noctua)', L. cucubīre \ cūcubāre to screech, hoot '(of the screech-owl)'

S. kúkkubha-s 'wild rooster, cock, pheasant', Eg. κουκούφας 'hoopoe' (attested in G. sources; loan?, ono.?)

That the same odd & irr. alternation of b \ m is found in the same stem in both branches might be significant. It seems slightly more common near u in Greek, but hardly excessive. However, if PIE had *mw, *bw, etc. ( https://www.academia.edu/165248349 ) it might be behind all these (including G. *gW > *bW > *bw \ *mw ??). There's no way of knowing *b vs. *bw for most words, but proba- \ proma- would fit: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/probus Etymology From Proto-Italic *proβwos, from Proto-Indo-European *pro-bʰH-wó-s (“being in front”), from *pro- (“forward”) + *bʰuH- (“to be”). See also prōsum. Cognate with Sanskrit (prabhú, “excellent, foremost, potent”).

D. I also wrote about m / bh in https://www.academia.edu/127220417 . I plan to add more (& maybe remove some, or add details) later, & some are in other drafts.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 121: 'yew, bow' (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

June 28, 2026

A. There are several problems with the standard reconstruction of PIE words for 'yew, bow'. Three groups seem close, but with no known way to come from one original :

*tokso- > G. τόξον \ tóxon 'bow', NP taxš 'crossbow', S. takṣaka- 'a kind of tree'

*tHkso- > L. taxus 'yew; javelin made of yew'

*t(e)i(C)so-? > Slavic *tìsŭ 'yew'

Since Slavic *tìsŭ didn't turn *s to *x, plain *teiso- wouldn't work, but there are many possible originals that would. Since any of these would be incompatible with any of the others, a common origin seems impossible. However, Slavic had *H > *i, so *tHkso- might be close, if the standard rec. is close, but with slightly different details. If *tHkso- was really *tHgso- it would be the only ex. of *Hgs in Slavic, & its outcome might fit. Since voiced stops usually lengthen V's, standard *H > *i might become *H: > *i: before *g. If *gs > *ɣs and *H was something like *R, an asm. of *tRɣso- > *tR:so- might also work. This would allow the 3 groups to be from *tH(o)gso-, with the only thing dividing them ablaut of o- vs. 0-grade (as in many other words).

That a match with PIE *tH1eg-ne- > *tH1eng- > Av. thanj- 'pull / draw' exists makes it likely that the derivation was *tH1(o)g-so- 'what is drawn > bow'. The standard rec. of *teng- does not fit th- in Av., so an *H1 is needed.

Also, Dardic has some odd words (Shina trʌ(ŋ)kúm 'bow', Kh. c̣honẓòr \ c̣hónj̣or 'stone bow', *arm-c̣hóng(r) 'arm bend' > amc̣hóng ‘elbow') that contain -N-. It seems likely that *tH1eg- & n-infixed *tH1eng- contaminated each other, turning *tH1og-so- > *tH1ong-so- there. An analogic *-n- from present of the verb *tH1eng- vs. *tH1eg- would match the spread of -n- vs. -0- in other IE, like Latin. As above, if *H = *R, then *tH- > *tR- > *tr- might explain the tr-. For -m in trʌ(ŋ)kúm, maybe contaminated by the cognate of G. τόξευμα \ tóxeuma 'arrow'. Together, maybe :

PIE *tH1eg-ne- > *tH1eng- > Av. thanj- 'pull / draw'

PIE *tH1(o)g-so- 'what is drawn > bow' >

*togso- > G. τόξον \ tóxon 'bow', NP taxš 'crossbow', S. takṣaka- 'a kind of tree'

*tHgso- > L. taxus 'yew; javelin made of yew'

*tRgso- > *tR:so- > Slavic *tìsŭ 'yew'

*tHongso- > Dardic *thRaŋkṣa- > Shina trʌ(ŋ)kúm 'bow' (*-auma, like tóxeuma), *thRaŋṭṣa- > *thṣaŋṭRa- > Kh. c̣honẓòr \ c̣hónj̣or 'stone bow', *arm-c̣hóng(r) 'arm bend' > amc̣hóng ‘elbow' (r-r dsm. before *-rmC- > -mC-)

B. There are several problems with the standard reconstruction of Proto-Uralic *joŋ(k)se \ *jëŋ(k)se 'bow'. Why *(k)s? Why *ts in F. joutsi? These could be regular, so starting from *joŋ(k)se (as if a rec. is a fact instead of an attempt to explain facts) is pointless. There is no reason why any rec. that doesn't explain data should be seen as real or worthy of retention. I say that -ts- came from *-ts-, the simplest solution (no PU *-ts- in standard rec.). If *joŋtse was old, in some branches *ŋts > *ŋs. If *joŋktse was old (to explain why *-ŋt- existed; since no *ŋ- it makes sense if *Kn & *nK created *-ŋ-) , in some branches *ŋkts > *ŋks.

The V-alt. of *joŋ(k)se \ *jëŋ(k)se is common (*kurke \ *kërke 'crane'; *mośke- \ *muśke- 'to wash'; *ta \ *tu ‘that’; *tä \ *te ‘this’; *ke \ *kä ‘who, which’; etc.). There is also odd alt. of *C- in *jëŋse > Smd. *jïntə \ *wïntə \ *(x)ïntə ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Samoyedic/j%C3%AFnt%C9%99 ) :

&gt;

Etymology

From Proto-Uralic *joŋse.[1] Initial *j- is lost in all languages other than Nganasan, seemingly irregularly. Mator further points to a prothetic *w- of unknown origin. [Mator mindi < *wïntə]

&gt;

At face value, *? > *w \ *j could be solved by *wjoŋse (with some unrounding > *wjëŋse). However, why would Smd. *jwëŋse > *jëŋse \ *wëŋse \ *ëŋse? Since other PIE to PU words show *gW- > *gw- > *w- (Hovers, https://www.academia.edu/104566591 ), and PU *x is sometimes rec. as *ɣ-, all could be reconciled if from *gWiyo- > *ɣwyo- > *wo- \ *jë- \ *ɣë- \ etc. The 3 outcomes coming from a cluster of 3 C's might seem clumsy, but PIE *gWiyo- 'bowstring, sinew, tendon' exists (G. βιός, S. jyā́-, etc.). The exact cluster needed having the needed meaning is too much to ignore. Many other words fit best if PU & PIE were closely related, with more in https://www.academia.edu/165205121 .

Together, a compound *gWiyo-tH1ongso- 'bowstring & bow' would make each IE consonant have a Uralic equivalent. Likely :

*gWiyotH1ongsos

*ɣwijotxonksoj

*ɣwijonkxotsoj

*ɣwjonktsoj

*ɣwjonktse

Yukaghir also has a word that could be related. If *ɣwijonkxotsoj > *wjoŋkotsej > *joŋkotlej > *jogortej 'arrow', *jogortə- '(shoot with a) bow > shoot arrows > (hit with an) arrow', it would fit other PU *s > Yr. *l (and *tl > *tr). This rec. is needed to fit Nikolaeva's plain *joγo-, which doesn't explain why all ex. have *-ortV- ( > -(r)ot- \ -or \ etc.) :

&gt;

698. *joγo-

K joγortə- to wound; KK joγoto-, joγote-; KJ joroto-, joγote-, joγoto-

K joγor wound; KK jogor, joγor; KJ jogor, jouγo; MU jögór

К joγoti: arrow with a head; KK joγotii, joγoti; KJ joγoti, joroti; SU joxoty,

RS jogoti; MC sogote; MU jehotí; MK jogótty

К joγöti:d-abut quiver [lit. arrow container]; KJ joγotid-abut; KD

yohoti:d-abut

К joγotə- to hit with an arrow

&gt;

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

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

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

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

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

One Midas or Many?

Stephen Durnford wrote :

&gt;

During the 14th. century bce the Hittites had to fend off a rebellion by Mita of Paḫḫuwa, taken by some to be the first mention of Midas, though not in the area associated later with Phrygia. The reappearance of what look likes the same name six centuries later, in Greek as king of the Moschoi and as the king of Muški in Assyrian and 'Hieroglyphic' Luwian records, has led to its being proposed as the traditional ruler's title, taken by Greeks as the personal name of one man.

&gt;

There are also several myths about King Midas. They would be incompatible with only one person (though many myths are, of course, incompatible with other variants anyway). Mídās as 'king' fits with G. médōn ‘ruler’, mḗdomai ‘intend / plan’, *meda:-s > Ph. Mídās ‘legendary Phrygian king’. I also think *dems-poti- ‘master’ > G. despótēs, Bithynian Ziboítēs \ Tiboítēs \ Zeipoítēs ‘a king’, which establishes a trend. If G. Agamémnōn < *mg^H2-men-mon- 'great judge/ruler', then all would fit together.

In *meda:-s > Mídās, alt. of e \ i like miros \ meros 'son?' ( https://www.academia.edu/116763231 ). Though PIE *d > t, some *-d- > -d- (maybe late -t- > -d-) pet- \ ped- 'foot', *ved- 'water'.

Laryngeal *H in Dravidian & IE

In https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/comments/1msttpu/was_the_laryngeal_h_actually_a_s/ "Was the Laryngeal *H actually a [s]? Apart from the common preservation as [h] or [ʔ] in SCD and ND, there are cases where its a [s]...". I think these Dravidian words resemble IE ones, which can give insight into their original forms. For the group

&gt;

*miHn, Kui mṇih- (mṇist-), miṇs- to lighten; (Isr.) mṇīh- (mṇīst-) id., glitter; mṇispu lightening; (S.) mirsi mannai to scintillate; mrih'nai to sparkle (retroflex forms common like Kannada miṇa miṇaku, miṇuku)

&gt;

I think *miṣ- with n-infix > *minṣ would fit with PIE *mis- 'shine, be bright' (TA mäs- 'shine, be resplendent', Skt. miṣati 'open one's eyes', Hittite misriwant- 'shining', etc.), *mik- 'shimmer, twinkle, glitter, flash, shine, be bright' (Latin micāre 'to vibrate, quiver, tremble; twinkle, glitter, flash, gleam, beam, shine;be bright', Slavic *mĭčĭtŭ 'a vision, apparition').

-

For the group

&gt;

*puH commonly has [j] without vowel lengthening in SCD: Konḍa puyu (pl. pūŋu) Pe. puy (pl. -ku) flower; pūki vīza bee. Manḍ. puy flower; pūki vīje bee. Kui pūju (pl. pūnga) flower; pūpa (pūt-) to blossom, bloom; pūki, pūki viha bee; pūki nīju, pūki nīru honey. Kuwi (F.) pūyū (pl. pūnga), (S.) pūnga, (Su. P. Isr.) pūyu (pl. pũŋga)

&gt;

The p-p & p-y in Kurukh pū̃p \ pūmp, Malto pūpu, Toda pūf, Kuwi pūyū 'flower', pūpa 'to blossom, bloom', the match with Skt. púṣpa-m ‘flower/blossom’, *puH2- 'swell' -> *puH2p(H2)wó- > Al. pupë ‘bud’ can't simply be ignored. Even *pyapyā- > TB pyāpyo ‘flower’, Latin papāver ‘poppy’ might show that both *y & *H existed here. This is also notable because *Hp \ *sp seem to alternate ( https://www.academia.edu/116456552 ), like

&gt;

*k^aspo-? > Skt. śáṣpa-m ‘young sprouting grass?’

*k^a(H2)po-? > Skt. śā́pa-s ‘driftwood / floating / what floats on the water’, Ps. sabū ‘kind of grass’, Li. šãpas ‘straw / blade of grass / stalk / (pl) what remains in a field after a flood’, H. kappar(a) ‘vegetables / greens’

&gt;

-

For the group

&gt;

*caH- Brahui kahing (past kask-, neg. kas-) to die, die down (of fire); kasifing, kasfing to kill, this word also has many cases of -ay- instead of -ā- like: Pa. cay- (cañ-) to die; cāñ corpse. Ga. (Oll.) say- (sad-, san-), (S) cay- Kuwi (F.) haiali Kur. khē'enā (keccas) Malt. keye (kec-) to die; keype dead; keyu mortal

&gt;

they might match *sgWe(H1)s- 'quench (of fire), extinguish, kill; die'.

Celtic *iNDi > *aNDi (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

June 24, 2026

In Celtic, *a could become *i when followed by a nasal, then a voiced stop, and certain V's (exact conditions disputed). For my purposes, it is enough that the V's included *i, as in OI bind 'melodious' < Celtic *bandis, imm 'around' < *ambi, ingen 'fingernail' < *angWīnā, imbliu 'navel' < *ambliyū(n) (more details & theories in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Old_Irish ). WIth plenty of ex., apparent exceptions in *dangino- > OI daingen ‘firm / fast / solid’; *bandyo- > OI bann(a)e ‘drop’, I. bainne ‘milk’ require some explanation.

It happens that both of these words have no currently accepted etymology. I say "currently" because some relations were proposed even long ago, but Ranko Matasović said that bannae was "not related to Skt. bindú- 'drop'... the vocalism of Skt. makes the equation impossible" and is quoted in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/daingen that daingen "can't be related to Old Irish dingid (“to press”) because of the vowel." The semantics would be as in G. *nak-ye- > nássō ‘press / squeeze close / stamp down / stuff quite full', naxos ‘solid (not hollow)’.

If these can't be from *aND or *iND, what can they be from? I think the reasons for his doubts show exactly the opposite. If both exceptions need *-i- but have *-a-, is it really likely that the proposed source with *i would match all other sounds precisely? That both fit an IE root, but supposedly can't be cognates because of having -a- not **-i-, suggests that some sound law caused *i > a. It is possible that Celtic had both *iNDi > *aNDi and *aNDi > *iNDi (or also *aNDy, though *bandyo- could simply have been pronounced *bandiyo- at the time, with no way to tell). The V's didn't "leapfrog" each other, since it is already thought that *aND > *æND before these changes (among other *aNC > *æNC). This allows each proposed change to fit in a reasonable order, *aND > *æND, *iNDi > *aNDi, *æNDi > *iNDi, some other *æNDV > *iNDV. Such cases of dissimilation & assimilation following close on their heels aren't unknown. Significantly, these allow the "impossible" equations to be both true and needed, since no other *VNDi would become *aNDi :

S. bindú- m. 'drop, spot', *bind(i)yo- > *bandyo- > OI bann(a)e ‘drop, *spot > pustule’, I. bainne ‘milk’

*dig^h-ne- 'poke' > OI dingid 'to press', *dingino- > *dangino- > OI daingen ‘firm / fast / solid’

MacBain also had "[Gae.] boinne, a drop... buinne, a cataract, tide, Ir. buinne, a spout, tap, E. Ir. buinne, wave, rush of water: G. buinneach, flux, diarrhœa, so Ir.; see boinne. Also puinne (Suth.) (W.Ross)." These also allow a better understanding of some cognates. S. bindú- m. 'drop, spot' & S. índu- 'drop' would not be related, not loans from non-IE. Some say índu- is from *úndu- ( <- und- 'flow' < *ud-n- \ *wod-r- \ etc. 'water'), which seems confirmed by Indic *bundu- 'drop (of water, raindrop, spot (on the forehead) ' > Pj. bund f., Lahnda bundā m. 'drop', etc. (Turner). That is, original bindú- & *úndu- had the same meaning, then optional contamination to *bundu- & índu-.

Illyrian Bindo ( = Neptuno, dative) would be from *bindo-s 'water (god)', with more in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bindus_(Illyrian_god) . Those who oppose a root *bind- or *bid- (with n-infix) require this to be from *wend- < *wed-n- 'water' (with *w > *v but adapted as b). Lusitanian Bandue, dative, would also be related, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandua . Since Lusitanian certainly did not have *w > b or *e > *a, any relation with Celtic would support Bindo as a cognate. Since Lusitanian was spoken near Celts, has some similarities to Celtic & Latin ( https://www.academia.edu/116167554 ), it is a reasonable idea.

It would be foolish to ignore a possible loan or cognate in Dravidian *boṭ- 'drop, spot, sectarian mark worn on the forehead' ( https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=%2fdata%2fdrav%2fdravet ), the same range as Indic *bundu-. That rec. also doesn't seem complete. Based on Kuwi būttū \ buṭu, Malayalam poṭṭu, poṟṟu, the note "vocalism [of *boṭ- > Proto-Kui-Kuwi *buṭ- is not quite clear. Considering that the whole form is *buṭ-u, we may suggest assimilation, probably assisted by the initial labial", I think a rec. of *buCtṛuC might fit best, maybe a compound of *bundu- or plain *bundurs with met. (if IE u-stems were like Armenian *-ur(s) > -r, *-un-es > -un-k', etc.). This allows *buCtṛuC > *būtṛū > būttū \ buṭu. It could be that some *unC > *ū̃C, with most branches having *ū̃ > *ȭ. Instead, if still from *bundurs but with, say, *u-u > *o-u first, *ȭ > *ū̃ only in Kuwi?

Etymology of Spanish galápago, etc.

Many linguists always see irregularities as proof of non-IE loans. Why would all irregularity exist outside of IE? If it existed, it could exist everywhere. If these are supposedly variants from dialect, why would each dialect of an unknown language provide a separate loan to very close IE languages? Can any unknown language have as many unknown dialects as needed to explain each irregularity? An occasional loan might exist, but the number of words claimed to be non-IE has risen to a ridiculous number, and some say any -a-, -b-, etc., is proof of a loan, when these sounds existed in many IE words (simply more rare than in others). This idea is also often used to "end the discussion" on a word, since looking for IE origin in a word "proven" to be non-IE would be pointless. Consider :

Spanish galápago, Portuguese cágado 'freshwater turtle, terrapin', Galician cágado 'tadpole', Catalan g- \ calàpet \ -at \ -ot \ -ut 'toad'

No attempt at IE ety. has been made. The irregularities might simply be *g-k > g-g \ k-k & metathesis, which are certainly known within IE. If from older *galapVktos then it might have a known source. In PIE toads were commonly named for supposedly sucking milk from cows (some large snakes also were said to do the same, like boas in Italy) :

*gWoH3u(r)-dheH1- 'cow-suck(er)', *-dH1-on- > L. būfō ‘toad’, S. godhā́- ‘big lizard?’, Ar. *kov(r)-di > kovadiac` ‘lizard’, MAr. kov(a)cuc / kovrcuc, WAr. Hamšen gɔvjud ‘green lizard’, Sasun govjuj ‘green lizard that provides snakes with poison’

This would allow *galapVktos to be < *galaktV-p-o- 'milk drinking' < PIE *g^H2lagt-pH3-o- (maybe with *pH > p or > *f > *h > 0, depending on the details of metathesis). There were several IE languages spoken in Iberia before the coming of Latin, so it is hard to know for sure, but Lusitanian might fit best (since Celtic had *p > 0 before any changes in Romance).

A. Latin sagitta 'arrow' could be < PIE *stigH1taH2- (fem. of *(s)tig-H1-to-, S. tigitá- 'sharp', rel. stejá- 'arrow') as *stigatā > *sagittā > sagitta. The met. would be to put t & t together.

-

B. L. dē-frutum ‘boiled down must’, G. βρύτεα \ brútea ‘refuse of olives or grapes’ >> *britsya > L. brīsa ‘remains of pressed grapes’ >> Al. bërsí ‘pomace, lees, dregs

-

If a Messapian loan, it would require *u > *i. If close to Albanian, *u-y > *ü-y would be expected, so if it had *ü > *i it would fit. However, other loans for similar things like G. tûkon / sûkon, *tsü:kos > *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’ do not. If rel. PIE *tuHk- (in words for fruits, likely < 'swollen, ripe') then only Greek is known to turn *tu- > *tsü-, etc. More on the reason in C.

-

C. Latin coc(u)les ‘one-eyed’, coclitis g.

-

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

-

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

-

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

-

D. A group of S. words seem to come from *mand(h)V- 'enclosure'; Turner :

&gt;

9852 mandirá n. 'any waiting place, dwelling, camp, town, temple' MBh. [√mand²]

Pa. mandira- n. 'house, palace'; Pk. maṁdira- n. 'house, fort'; S. mandaru m. 'palace, idol-temple' (← Sk.?); S.kcch. mandhar m. 'temple'; Ku.gng. manīr 'temple'; Si. mädira, mädura 'house, temple', mädiriya 'house'.

-

9853 mandurā́¹ f. 'stable' Kālid., mandura-ja- 'born in a stable (?)' Pat. [Cf. mandupāla- 'groom' lex. — √mand²] Pk. maṁdurā- f. 'horse stable'; Sh. mădŭˊr f. 'manger'; Or. mādura 'stable'.

-

9854 mandurā² f. 'mattress, bed', manduraka- n. 'a kind of mat or coverlet' BHSk.

N. māndro, mānro 'cane mat' (ND 504 a 15 wrongly < *māna-⁴); A. māduri 'the grass Scirpus tegetus'; B. mādur, māduri 'fine sort of mat to lie on'; Or. mādura 'mat', mundurā 'rough mat', (Ganjam) mundrā; M. mā̃drī f. 'matting'.

&gt;

-

The alt. in mädira \ mädura shows that -i- & -u- could come from *-H- (most > -i-, with -u- very rare), and mandhar confirms this (with opt. *dH > *dhH before *H > *i). If IE, it would require :

-

*mH2andro- > G. mándrā '(cattle)fold/pound/stable/cloister'

*mandH2ro- > S. mandirá-m 'dwelling, house', mandurā́- 'stable'

-

with H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). A root like *mH2(a)nd- is not likely (but *-d- is a common affix, no certain meaning, so it could be < *mH2an-d-), & some say :

&gt;

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/μάνδρα Some have proposed a Proto-Indo-European *mand- (“enclosure”), cognate with Sanskrit (mandurā, “stable; bed”) and possibly related to μανδάκης (mandákēs, “band to tie trusses”), μάνδαλος (mándalos, “bolt”), and Proto-West Germanic *mandu (“basket”), with a possible Pre-Greek acquisition of one or more Pre-Indo-European wanderworts.

&gt;

-

Note that if *mandu is included it would also need to have *dH > *dhH. I think the common IE shift of 'enclose > protect' fits best if Germanic *mundō 'hand; protection, security' came from *mndH2-aH2-. If also met. < *mH2nd-aH2-, then 'enclose > grasp, hold' might allow a relation to *mH2an- (Latin manus 'hand', *mani- > Old Irish muin 'protection'). If so, Greek μάρη \ márē 'hand' would, instead of pointing to *maH2-r \ -n-, could be dsm. of *m-n > m-r (also see G.).

-

E. Greek ἀσπάζομαι \ aspázomai 'to welcome kindly, bid welcome, greet; take leave of; kiss, embrace, caress; be glad that; (of things) to follow eagerly; cleave to'

-

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀσπάζομαι Etymology Uncertain. Could be related to σπᾰ́ω (spắō, “to draw; to pull”).

-

If so, the ending -az- is very common in verbs, and might not be related to *-H2- in the root. With H-met., likely *spaH2-, *spH2-az- > *H2sp-az- > aspaz-.

-

F. *? > Ar. awšindr ‘wormwood’, G. ápsinthos, L. aloxinum

-

If awšindr is a loan << Iranian (which is likely because it looks like it could be true based on shape, included sounds, etc.) then proving this, or at least finding what word(s) it came from should be easy. If the original meaning was ‘bitter drink, fluid, alcohol’ or similar, just such a compound could be *alu-oksu- (PIE *H2alu- > Lithuanian alùs 'beer', Greek ἀλύδοιμος \ alúdoimos 'bitter, pungent', ὀξύς \ oxús 'sharp; (of taste) sharp, pungent, acid'). This would be 'bitter' + '(bitter) alcohol', & L. aloxinum showing the older form is typical of many loans. Ar. had *Ks > *Kš.

-

Only Greek has oxús 'sharp, acid' with -s-. If original there, why does its cognate look so different? Cretan had some l > *w > u before C, so it could be that *alu-oksu-intho- > *alwokswintho- > *awokswinthlo- ( >> awšindr with Cretan l \ r ?) > *awokswinthwo- (other G. dia. with -thl- vs. -sw-). At this stage, *w-w-w is likely to dissimilate. The change of *ksw > ps would match others ( https://www.academia.edu/167984147 ). Another Latin loan with a form odd for Greek, but showing dia. variation, might also be << Messapic.

-

G. Oreshko in https://www.academia.edu/116763231 identifies Phrygian meros \ miros 'son' with e \ i alt. (as in other words). A relation to PIE *mi- 'small' fits best. There are no other *mi-ro- but many *mi-n-, so it could be that *m-n > m-r with dsm.

-

H. For TB peṣṭi, Adams :

&gt;

peṣṭi* (n.) a kind of dwelling

[-, peṣṭintse, -//] [le]nantse peṣṭintse wat twerene aipu [t]ā[kaṃ] (329a3).

Etymology uncertain. Isebaert (1979[81]:367) suggests that we have here a borrowing from a putative BHS *(u)peṣṭi-, a derivative of (Skt.) upa-viś- ‘approach, enter, sit down.’

&gt;

-

Since w \ p vary (not reg., & certainly not only late), I think a loan from Indic *veṣṭi- makes more sense. Turner :

&gt;

12130 vēṣṭá m. 'band, noose' Kauś., 'enclosure' lex., °aka- m. 'fence', n. 'turban' lex. [√vēṣṭ]

M. veṭh, vẽṭh, veṭ, vẽṭ m.f. 'roll, turn of a rope'; Si. veṭya 'enclosure'; — Pa. sīsa-vēṭha- m. 'head-wrap', vēṭhaka- 'surrounding'; Pk. vēḍha- m. 'wrap'; S. veṛhu m. 'encircling'; L. veṛh, vehṛ m. 'fencing, enclosure in jungle with a hedge, (Ju.) blockade', veṛhā, vehṛā m. 'courtyard, (Ju.) enclosure containing many houses'; P. veṛhā, be° m. 'enclosure, courtyard'... A. ber 'wall of house, circumference of anything'; B. beṛ 'roll, turn, fence, enclosure', beṛā 'fence, hedge'; Or. beṛha 'girth, fence round young trees', beṛā 'wall of house'... WPah.kṭg. beṛɔ m. 'palace', J. beṛā m. 'id., esp. the female apartments', kul. beṛā 'building with a courtyard'...

&gt;

-

I. Greek φρήν \ phrḗn 'midriff; heart; wits, mind'

-

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/φρήν Etymology Perhaps from either Proto-Indo-European *gʷʰren- (“soul, mind; innards, diaphragm”), whence Old Norse grunr (“suspicion”)... See also Latin rēn (“kidney”)...

-

The outcomes of various types of *ghr- & *ghl- in Latin don't seem regular, so a dia. (?) with *gWhren-s > *hrēn > rēn seems possible. I think there is more ev. for this relation. L. nefrundinēs, Lanuvine nebrundinēs, Praenestine nefrōnēs 'kidneys' are from *negWhro(n)- but often retain *f (when *-fr- > -br- in others). If analogy, an older *frēn \ *hrēn with the identical meaning would help retain *fr. Its stem *fren- might also turn some *nefron- > nefren-.

-

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 7 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

June 22, 2026

A. The ety. of Sanskrit accha- 'clear', Awn. hacchā 'clear', Pj. hacchā 'good', Romani lačho 'good' is not known, but should be *Hal-sk^a- (with met. of *l > l- in lačho). This shows PIE *H- > S. 0-, but h- in some IIr. (as below); *ls > *ṣ in S. (with *ṣk^ > cch, like other *Sk^), but *l > l in some IIr. Fortunatov’s Law states that dentals became retroflex after *l, then *l disappeared in Sanskrit. This is supported by other IIr. cognates retaining l (or *l > r) & fits with Proto-Sanskrit *l likely being retroflex, as sometimes preserved in Khowar (S. kīlā́la-s \ kīlālá-m ‘sweet drink / biestings? / buttermilk?’, kilāṭa- ‘cheese’, Kh. kiḷàḷ ). More details in https://www.academia.edu/165227368 . The meanings of (Turner) :

&gt;

142 accha¹ 'clear, transparent' Suśr. [Poss. 'shadowless' cf. acchāyá- RV. Neither *r̥kṣa- (Mayrhofer EWA i 22) nor ā̆rca- (P. Tedesco JAOS 77, 197) are phonet. satisfactory.] Pa. Pk. accha- 'clear, transparent, pure, clean'; K. oċhᵘ 'thin, weak'; S. acho 'clear, white'; L. acchā 'clean, good'; P. acchā 'good' (→ H. N. acchā), Ku. ācho, B. ācchā, Or. āchā, H. poet. āchā (→ P. āchā), OMarw. āchyo, f. āchī; G. āchũ 'thin, elegant, dim'; M. āsaṭ, ā̃saṭ 'thin, watery, dilute'. — With emph. h-: L. awāṇ. hacchā 'clear', P. hacchā 'good'; WPah. bhal. bhad. haccho 'good', paṅ. cur. cam. hacchā 'white'. — As subst. S. acha f. 'anything spread out over a considerable space (flood, clouds, plain, &c.)'; G. āchⁱ f. 'elegance'. — Cf. Gy. eur. lačo 'good' with unexplained l- (scarcely with Sampson DGW iv 189 < lakṣ-). accha-² m. 'bear', see ŕ̥kṣa-. Addenda: accha-¹ [Mayrhofer EWA i 22 < *r̥kṣá- but rather < acchāya-] S.kcch. acho 'white', WPah.kṭg. háċċhɔ, kc. aċho 'good'; Garh. acchū 'good' ← P.

&gt;

fit best if 'thin, weak ( > delicate / good)' was oldest, allowing a connection with *Hal-nu- > S. aṇu- 'fine, minute', Pa., Pk. aṇu- 'small'. The ending of *Hal-sk^a- could be from a verb 'be fine', that later formed an adjective (after the disappearance of *l made them look like 2 separate roots, so aṇu- as <- *accha-ti was no longer clear).
-

The origin of *Hal- is not certain, but likely rel. S. álpa- 'small, minute, trifling, little', Ash. apəlḗk 'little, few', ápalä 'bad', Wg. apilúk 'little, few' (PIE *H2alp- 'thin, weak, small, few'). Even *H2alpo- > álpa-, *H2alp-nu- > aṇu-, *H2alp-sk^e- > *Hal-sk^a- > accha- might work.

-

In cognates G. alapadnós 'easily exhausted, feeble', *alapád-ye- 'make weak' > alapázō 'to destroy', laparós 'slack, loose', lapássō \ lapázō 'to empty; evacuate; plunder', -omai 'to be softened'm the a- vs. 0- is likely H-met. of *H2alp- > *H2lap- ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ).

-

B. From https://www.academia.edu/51296015 :

&gt;

If in Garhwali and Kumaoni the refexes of OIA apara are used in the associative plural function or that close to it only with kinship terms, then in Nepali the grammatical development of such a marker goes much further. Starting from the end of the 19th century, Indologists have been interested in the etymology of the plural affix -harū in Nepali... In my opinion the hypothesis of (thurnbull 1992: 27), according to which -harū is derived from the pronoun arū ‘other’ (< oIa apara) seems to be the most plausible...

the appearance of the prothetic h, according to (Bloch 1965: 70), is characteristic of some NIA words (among which there is a large number of function words, and, in particular, descendants of OIA apara). The diference of vowels ɔ ~ o can be explained by phonetic development during grammaticalization, as well as by the fact that in most grammatical descriptions in hindi the phonetic representation system is not developed, and both Devanagari signs au and o can be used for the phoneme ɔ in Kumaoni.

&gt;

-

I agree with the basics. Instead of "prothetic h", there is no reason not to think that PIE *H- > h- (as in A.). Martin J. Kümmel has done plenty of work showing that Iranian *H > h, x, etc. existed (with some other effects on adjacent C's), so why not Indic also? If fully regular, or basically, then :

-H- > 0

some words made into affixes, form V-HV

H- > 0-

-

This sequence would also allow some h- to be preserved due to sandhi, with the right analogy.

-

C. Sanskrit adás nu. 'that', asáu m., amúm acc., others from stem amú- \ *amúi- > amī́-, has a very complicated history. Some ideas from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/अदस् :

&gt;

The neuter nom./acc.sg. (adáḥ) is considered to be a hypercorrection for earlier (adó).[1][2] Dunkel derives this from Proto-Indo-European *(h₁)ed (nom./acc.sg.n. of *(h₁)e-) + *éw (full grade of *u (“there”)).[3] Compare perhaps Prasun aləg.

The masculine/feminine nom.sg. (asáu) is derived by Dunkel from Proto-Indo-European *(h₁)os (possibly continued in Old Avestan (ə̄) and Hittite (-aš), the latter also both masculine and feminine) + the same *éw as for (adó). The final (-au, instead of -o)) would have been influenced by the common nominatives (dyáus) and (gáus).[3] Alternatively, Lubotsky reconstructs Proto-Indo-Iranian *Ha-sa(H)-au, with *sa(H)-au (derived from *só) being continued in Younger Avestan (hāu).

The stem (amu) is interpreted by Dunkel and Mayrhofer as a backformation from the acc.sg.m. (amúm), derived from Proto-Indo-European *(h₁)em (masculine accusative singular of *(h₁)e-) + *u (“there”) + a hypercharacterizing *-m (accusative singular ending).[3][4] A form like nom.pl.m. (amī́) would have come from *amú-i.
&gt;

and Turner :

&gt;

972 asáu 'that' RV. with its obl. cases from the st. amu-, esp. gen. amúṣya formed the basis of MIA. and NIA. remote demonstratives.

Pa. asu: amussa, Pk. ahō: amussa Pischel GrPk § 432; Gy. eur. ov, ō 'he, that, the' Sampson DGW iv 247; Pr. sū 'he', obl. miš; Wg. amī 'these' (< nom. pl. m. amī́?); K. huh, dat. humis, dir. pl. hum; S. ho; L. o: us, ũ, P. o: aus, us; WPah. bhal. o: ɔs, us; N. u: us; MB. oū: ohā; H. wah: us; OMarw. vo: ũ; Si. ū: ohu. amuka-.

Addenda: asáu: S.kcch. ū 'he, that'.

&gt;

-

I think it is unlikely that a neuter in *-au would be made identical to masculines in *-as with all stages as currently accepted. However, in https://www.academia.edu/127709618 I said :

&gt;

If Khoshsirat was right about *oH > *oHW, what about *uH, *us, *os? Since other IE can turn *s > *f ( > *v > w ) near P, I say IIr. could change *us > *usW > us near P, explaining why *us sometimes remained as S. us, all from *Pus-... This explains the origin of *-os > *-osW > *-oxW / *-osW > *-av / *-az > -ō / -aḥ in S... S. *-os > *-av > -ō is not alone. In Av., nom. -ō or -ə̄ needs an explanation (for which none yet exists). By taking the S. -ō, Lv. -av as primary for IIr., further changes seen in Av. can provide it. It makes no real sense for S. -ō & Av. -ō to be unrelated (just like cau. -āpaya- & *-āwaya-), as would be required in traditional theory, and -ə̄ fits into internal Av. changes.

&gt;

-

This allows the stage *adau not to become *adas by analogy, but by the fact that the masculine ending was already *-au varying with *-as. A change of *H1od > *Had-a-u probably had *-o added by analogy with *so (after *H1o-s > *H1oso, below).

-

If asáu came from *H1o-s or *H1e-s with additions, the 1st step might be analogy with *so 'he, this, that, etc.'. Thus, *H1o-s > *H1oso. If analogy also affected the masculine form, it would become *H1osos. This would, in my theory, have become IIr. *asa(w). Adding *-u to *asaw would make *asawu > S. asáu (compare, maybe *gWoH3u-m > *gowum > *go:wm (later > *go:m caused by *m).

-

In https://www.academia.edu/51294097 "While the other Kullui demonstratives derive from the OIA pronouns eṣa (proximal) and sa (distal), the inanimate proximal demonstrative ũi goes back to the OIA distal pronoun asau, with the distal pronoun tũi formed directly from ũi by analogy." Though not stated, the stem (or gen. *amu(s)ya) > ũi seems likely, corresponding to Lahndā ũ.

-

D. From Turner :

&gt;

Pa. paṁsu- m. 'dust, dirt', °uka- 'dusty'; Pk. paṁsu-, pāsu- m. 'dust'; Gy. rum. poš 'dust', boh. pōši f. 'sand', hung. poši, gr. pošík f. 'earth'; Pr. puċé 'earth, clay', Wg. pasilä̃ 'dusty' ('perhaps misheard for paċ- ' Morgenstierne May 1955); Kt. pəŕes 'dust', Pr. pərċé 'earth' with unexpl. r; Paš.lauṛ. paú, uzb. pā̊u, ar. pō(u) 'earth, dust' (< *pā̃huka- NTS xii 186); Shum. pō 'clay'; Kal. phāu 'earth, soil'..

&gt;

-

For "unexpl. r", there is a good chance this came from *n-m > *r-m. I said in https://www.academia.edu/127260852 "*payH2mtsu- > *paH2mtsyu- > S. pāṁsú- \ pāṁśú- ‘dust / loose earth / sand’", but *-un- would be needed to fit with other IE cognates (incl. Iranian *pHamćnu- > Av. paͅsnu- ‘ashes/dust’). The Armenian u-stems with *-ur(s) > -r but *-un-es > -un-k', etc., also point to PIE u-stems with features seen in r\n-stems. The -r- would be further ev. of *payH2mtsur- > *paH2mtsyur- > S. pāṁsú- \ pāṁśú-, *paH2mtsyur- > *pHantśúr > *parntśú > Pr. pərċé, etc., or *pāntśún- with dsm. Also, *paHmćun- > *pHamćnu-. The possibility that Nuristani & Ir. had the same (or similar) proto-forms makes my idea more likely.

-

E. Beekes said that G. nákē ‘fleece’ can't be related to Germanic *naskiz \ *naskaz > Old English næsc 'soft leather; deer skin' >> Finnish nahka 'leather, skin'. It seems to me that there are several ways it could work: *nH2k-os-, *nH2k-s- > *naks- > *nask-; *nH2k-sko- > *na(k)sko- (k-k dsm.), etc. It could also be that the G. word is the odd one out, say :

-

*naH2g- ‘pound / tan (leather) / knead (bread)’ > G. nageús ‘pestle’

*naH2gno- = *naRgno- > OPr nognan ‘leather’, IIr. *nagna- ‘bread’

*naks- > OE næsc ‘soft leather / deer skin’, G. naxos ‘solid (not hollow)’

*nak(H)-? > G. nákē ‘fleece’, nássō ‘press / squeeze close / stamp down / stuff quite full'

-

If so, alt. of k \ g by H2 (like *kH2apro-s \ *gH2apro-s 'male goat') and either loss of *H in *HCC or alt. of H \ s ( https://www.academia.edu/128052798 ). The meanings 'pound / press / squeeze ( > fill ( > filled / full / solid ), pound > knead ( > bread ), etc.

-

F. Turner :

&gt;

8230 pīta² 'yellow' Gr̥S., °aka- MBh. [See pittá-] Pa. pīta-, °aka- 'yellow', Pk. pīa-; P. pī˜ m. 'yellow colour of saffron'; G. pīyɔ m. 'mucus or gum in the eyes'.

&

8181 pittá n. 'bile' AV. [~ pīta-²: cf. pittala- 1 and 2 ~ pītala-¹ the NIA. forms of which show some inconsistencies. Prob. with PMWS 92 ← Mu. rather than with T. Burrow BSOAS xi 345, xii 385 ← Drav. See EWA ii 292]

Pa. Pk. pitta- n. 'bile'; Sh. (Lor.) pit 'a small vessel with blood in it on the liver (?) of an ibex'; K. pĕth, dat. °tas m. 'bile', S. pitu m., P. pitt m.f., Ku. piti f.; A. pit 'bile, gall-bladder, courage'; Or. pita 'bile', H. pit m.; G. pit, pat n. 'bile', pat f. 'a kind of leprosy'; Si. pita 'bile, anger'; — unexpl. th in L. (Ju.) pith 'gallbladder' beside pitlāmā̃ m. 'liver and lights' (+?).

Addenda: pittá-: Md. fit 'bile'.

&gt;

-

These words seem related (compare Uralic *wiša(w) 'poison / green / yellow / hate / anger', *piša 'bile / gall / green / yellow', both often said to be IE loans). I think an IE origin from *piH1dto- 'fattened, liver' makes more sense than a Munda loan (other IE have 'fattened > or < liver'). If so, *Htt > *Htth as optional would explain -t vs. -th, etc.

-

The IE root *piH1d- has been rec. before, so this would provide more ev. (the cluster *H1dt simplifying in 2 different ways would not be odd, and some say that H1 & d alternated anyway, so *HHt & *ddt might also work). The other cognates are G. *pi:dso-, *pi:dswa 'meadow, pastures, humid prairie' (*piH1- is also 'fat, pasture ( > meadow, grass)', so an extended *piH1-d- seems likely) and the proposed *pi(H1)d- 'gush, drip < *sap < *fat' (similar meanings to *pi(H)k-, again) in G. pîdax f. 'spring; fountain', etc.

-

G. Turner :

&gt;

12732 ślakṣṇá 'slippery, smooth, soft, tender, gentle' AV., 'thin, small' lex., f. ślakṣṇikā́- AV.

Pa. saṇha- 'smooth, gentle'; Aś. sakhina- 'gentle'; Pk. saṇha-, laṇha-, sahiṇa- 'smooth, fine, small'; Gy. eur. sano 'fine, thin, small'; Paš. (Šēva) saná 'thin' (← Ind.); K. śrônᵘ, sr° 'soft, damp'; S. sanho 'fine, thin, minute'; P. nannhā, nannā 'small, young' (< laṇha-), Ku. nāno; N. sānu 'small', sākhine 'dwarfish', nāni 'little girl'; B. nannā 'tiny'; Or. sāna 'small, youngest'; Mth. nanuā 'young, child', nānhiṭā 'childhood'; H. nānh, nānhā 'small, light', nan(n)hā 'small'; OG. nānhūṁ 'small, light', G. nāhnũ, nānũ 'small'; M. sāhan, sānā, lahān, lahānā 'small', Ko. sānu; — Si. sihin 'fine, thin' SigGr ii 468? — P. chānhā 'mean', m. 'slave'? — Ku. syāno 'young, childish' (y unexpl.).

Addenda: ślakṣṇá- [Cf. Shgh. nān 'smooth, even' ← IA. EVSh 73]: Brj. nānhau 'small' (R. S. McGregor 6.4.67).

-

For "y unexpl.", there is also *-i- in *slaksiṇo- > sakhina-, Nuristani *slakhiṇa > *slikaṇa > Ni. sirikana ‘smooth / slippery’, *silaṇa > Kv. salkáň ( https://www.academia.edu/129303731 ). This might allow met. of *sahino > *syahno > syāno. The cause in https://www.academia.edu/128052798 :

&gt;

The very common ending *-iHno- in basic adj. seemed to have variants *-inHo- (and/or *-ino-) and *-no-. Stages with varying degrees of loss of *-V- and *-H- (instead of complex suffixes of *-no- adding *-i- and/or *-H-) have evidence below. If all these correspond to *-isno-, *-inso-, *-nso-, *-sno-, then a huge number of suffixes could be united.

&gt;

-

Semitic Sibilants, *S1S2 > *S1 \ *S2 ?

Roey Schneider in https://www.academia.edu/87823763 lists, in Section 8, Irregular Correspondences of Semitic Sibilants. In each case, one branch points to one *S, another branch to a different *S. It is notable that he has no proposed explanation for the group, though the simplest would be a cluster of two S's, or SC \ CS of some type that could produce 2 different S's. In two cases, some *S > š \ ś :

*ʔwrS 'to desire, ask' > *ʔwrš > Hb. ʔrešet 'desire', *ʔwrS > *ʔwrś > Arab. wrš 'to eagerly desire'

*ʕiSq 'desire, lust' > *ʕišq, *ʕiśq (same as above)

These are similar to PIE stems with *-sk^e- that might easily become *-sś- > *-ss- \ *-śś- (or similar) :

*wnH-sk^e > Sanskrit vā́ñchati 'desires'

*H2is-sk(^)e > Old Church Slavonic iskati ‘seek, look for’, iska ‘wish’, Sanskrit iccháti ‘seeks, wishes’, icchā́ ‘wish’, Young Avestan isaiti ‘desires’ (rel. *H2ais-, Sanskrit ḗṣati ‘seeks’, ēṣáḥ ‘wish, choice’, Armenian hayc‘em ‘ask, demand, look for’).

Again, Aikio considers Uralic *iskä- ‘believe’ a possible loan from some IE form of *H2is-sk(^)e. Seeing such a similar word in 3 supposedly unrelated families requires careful consideration. I'd say that only IE is known to have a verb affix *-sk^e-, and it is very common. It might also be that Semitic *nH > *nR > *rR (compare r \ n in possible ( https://www.academia.edu/167888674 ) HS *byurn- 'son', IE *bhH2orno-s).

Petri Kallio https://www.academia.edu/168832138

&gt;

The ruki rule (i.e. the retraction of *s to *ṣ aſter *r/*r̥ , *u, *K⁽ ʷ ⁾, *i) is dated to post-Proto-Balto-Slavic by Olander but either dialectal Indo-European or otherwise very early by all the others. This time, however, the disagreement is only apparent, because while the others mean the phonetic retraction *s > *ṣ, Olander explicitly talks about the phonemicization of *ṣ (> Lithuanian š, Lat- vian and Old Prussian s, Slavic *x). As sound substitutions are not phonemic but phonetic, the Proto-Balto-Slavic allophone *ṣ would have been borrowed as West Uralic *š, but unfortunately no examples can be shown, and even in the more recent Baltic loanword strata there are only a few instances.

2 While such instances are few, they are highly significant, showing that *š due to the ruki rule used to be more widespread in the Baltic source of borrowings into Finnic than it is in today’s Lithuanian, as evidenced by Finnish laiha ‘lean’ < Middle Proto-Finnic *lajša ← Baltic *laiša- ~ *laisa- > Lithuanian líesas ‘lean’ (Kallio 2008: 267). Incidentally, Finnish vaha ‘wax’ < Middle Proto-Finnic *wakša was borrowed from Germanic *wahsa- (Katz 1990: 64) rather than Baltic *vakša- (Posti 1953: 9), because the existence of the latter is not supported by the Balto-Slavic data (cf. Lithuanian vãškas, Latvian vasks, Old Church Slavonic voskъ, etc. ‘wax’ < Proto-Balto-Slavic *wośkos; Derksen 2015: 493). True, the Germanic loanwords in Finnic include no known examples of the substitution *hs → *kš (LägLoS 2012: 350), but this is not a problem since there are many word-medial examples of both *h → *k and *s → *š (Hofstra 1985: 88, 98), not to mention that the Germanic cluster *hs was not neces- sarily common enough to be borrowed into Finnic more than once.

&gt;

In Germanic *wahsa-N 'wax', Lithuanian vãškas, Latvian vasks, Slavic *vòskŭ > Old Church Slavonic voskŭ, ? >> Finnic *wakša > *vaha, I have no idea why Baltic would not be the clear source. These words are usually related to PIE *weg- > OI figim 'weave' (Pokorny) as *wogso-. I think it nearly as likely that *H1wobhso- ‘weaver / wasp’ -> *H1wobhsko-. Neither origin allows "Proto-Balto-Slavic *wośkos" < *wok^-kos, which could not be related to Germanic *wahsa-. The requirement of this already unlikely theory that *wakša, with all the appearance of being from Lithuanian vãškas (or older Baltic *vãkšas), is instead from Germanic with *s > *š for no good reason, seems all the evidence needed to throw it away. In any event, *ṣ > Baltic š or s seems irregular, so these both existing is no reason to rec. *śk. Also, several linguists have said that Uralic *š was really *ṣ (though both might have existed & merged at some point), so this would also make an older Baltic *vãkšas (or Proto-Baltic, Proto-BS, etc.) a better source.

I do not really see any reason why *wośkos or any similar word would be reconstructed. Metathesis of sk \ ks (and many other Cs) are common in IE, so what advantage is there to seek total regularlity here? This desire has fueled too many recent ideas that make no sense, and I urge linguists to keep reason ahead of theory in their endeavors.