r/HistoricalLinguistics

Eastern Tuscany, Casentino. Usually the etymology is from latin, local dialect or longobard. A lot of prelatin roots too in this zone too.

This place, ordinary nothing of note, called [taɾˈcoːna] or [taɾˈkjoːna] depends on the person, for me is the former. I found an extremely strong link to Etruscan Tarchon, Tarchna and Tarchuna. The [χ] becominɡ an occlusive in postvocalic position, and then [c] as a much later palatisation before i/e/j vowels, is not far fetched.

Probably is much simpler in reality and from latin or whatever, but it is interesting. All the ones not related to nature or people or terrain form, a few dozens, actually derive too from terrain forms just from latin and longobard.

This is the only toponym in which i found a clear prelatin origin out of 250+. About 20 are still obscure to me.

An help on this one is appreciated, i have found several possibilities but feel like none the true one. Aiotini [aˈjɔːtini]. Could be simply from lat. area or areola, but being woods and not cultivated areas dont fit, could be related to a Longobard personal name or i found similar names in the appennine with aj- and -ot- being prelatin roots linked to woods.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 109, 110 (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

May 17, 2026

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 109: 'sparrow, starling’

PIE *spH2ar(H2)(g)w(y)o- ?? >

IE *spH2arwo- > Gmc. *sparwa(n)- 'sparrow', TB ṣparā-yäkre ‘sparrow-hawk?’

IE *spraH2wó- > Ct. *sprawa: 'crow'

IE *sprayH2wo- > Dutch spreeuw 'starling'

IE *pH2arH2s(w)o- > Mac. paraós 'eagle', Umbrian parfa ‘sea-eagle?’, L. parra 'a bird of ill omen, ?'

IE *psH2ar- > G. ψά̄ρ, Ion. ψήρ 'starling', MHG sperilig

IE *spH2arH2gyo- ? > Hsx. (Mac.?) σπαράσιον \ sparásion a.

IE *sp(e)rg(H2)o- > OHG sperk, G. (σ)πέργουλος, σποργίλος \ sporgílos, Σποργίλος, OPr spurglis, spergla-wanag[is ?]

There is no known way to reconcile these. However, some say *dorusdo- ‘tree-sitting > perching’ > variants *trusdo- \ *drusdo- \ *stroz(u)do- ‘thrush’. If so, the resemblance of these to *sprH2go- 'branch, shoot' makes it likely that *sp(e)rH2g-H2wi(yo)- 'perching bird' existed. Clearly, the fact that this compound has H2-H2 matching the H2-H2 needed in, say, sparásio- & paraós, is significant. In fact, every part of this is found in all or some.

I say that H2gH2 simplified > H2H2 or (H2)g in most, with metathesis of various sorts. It is possible that, when *sperH2g-H2wis > *spH2ar(g)-H2wis, etc., the word 'bird' was still clear, but the 1st part was no longer identical to 'branch'), so it was seen as the name of the bird (as likely in other names, X or X-H2awi-), leading to *psH2ar-, etc. The rec. *pH2arH2s(w)o- is made since the outcomes of *r(V)s & *r(V)sw in Italic are unclear (no other ex., depending on the original here), but *-sw- would be expected with -w- in so many other cognates. In *spH2arH2gyo- > sparásio-, I assume that it is Mac. so it can undergo known *g > k, then *ky > s(s) as in other G. dia.

The oddities in *dorusdo- ‘tree-sitting' also include d- vs. (s)t-, so it is possible that the two words for 'perching' contaminated each other (sp : d > sp : sd). The IE rec. of 'tree' is not certain itself ( https://www.academia.edu/128632550 ), so its variants with d- vs. t- (if words pointing to *daru- & *taru- (S. taru-s ‘tree’) are indeed cognates) might be reflected in variants of 'thrush'.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 110 'left'

IE *skaH2iwó-s > Latin scaevus 'left, on/towards the left side; clumsy, awkward, perverse; unlucky', G. σκαιός \ skaiós 'left, on the left hand; western; unlucky; lefthanded, awkward, clumsy, stupid', σκαιῇ f.dat 'with the left hand'

IE *skH2witto-s, -ako-s > MI cittach \ cittach [o-stem] ‘left-handed, awkward’, MW chwith ‘left, left-handed, sinister, sad, wrong’

Since these words seem clearly related, *skw- > chw- makes more sense than *ks- (Ranko Matasović) :

>

MIr. has also the variant cettach, showing a-affection, expected if the i was short. The form cittach might point to *kīt-, but it is never written long. W chw- is from the initial cluster *sk- metathesised to *ks-. The Greek and Latin words for ‘left’ can be derived from *skh2ey-wo-, while in order to account for the Celtic forms we must assume the zero-grade (*(s)kh2it-) and ‘expressive’ gemination (*(s)kh2i-tto-), which renders this etymology rather speculative. A different etymology of MW chwith is proposed by Schrijver (2003), who derives the Welsh word from PIE *ksweybh- ‘make a swift movement’ (LIV 373), from which we have PCelt. *xswib-ī- ‘move, recede’. However, this is difficult to reconcile with MIr. cittach.

>

Since the euphemism 'favorable' > 'left' is so common in IE, I say that *sH2ak- 'to sanctify; make a treaty' formed *sH2ak-iwo- (by analogy with *dek^s-iwo- 'right'), then met. > *skaH2-iwo- or *skH2a-iwo-. It is unlikely that *skH2aiwo- would be formed in this way unless H2 = x or similar (for kx to have the same place of articulation).

In Celtic, *-tt- is not common. There is no affix that would work here, or any similar reason for gemination in common *-to-. In the same way, the affix *-wo- would not be expected to remain (though since this did NOT come from a root *skaH2- in my idea, this is not prohibitive, even if unlikely). The simplest explanation is that *towto- 'left' formed a cp. *skaH2iwo- + *towto- > *skH2iwtuto- which dissimilated > *skH2witto-. A stage like *skH2iwtwto- would occur mechanically, but seems very unlikely, though such a level in the minds of the speakers when simplifying the word is possible (in the deep structure). The reduction of e \ o in cp. is common; since some *H > 0 in cp., it could also be *skwitto-.

I believe linguists and Swedes are too influenced by the way g behaves in other settings (a consonant usually, pronounced/g/, /j/, or silent). The fact is, the g at the beginning of Göteborg is simply not the pronounced same way as the g at the end of the word! Transcribing both as /j/ is simply a mistake, when the g is clearly behaving as a semivowel, and in this case, its nature is more vowel than consonant. The sound that comes out is /i/

arg, farg are pronounced ar/i/ and far/i/. If it were ar/j/ and far/j/ we would not hear the vowel at the end! Just because it is quick, and there’s no accent on the vowel doesn’t erase the reality that it’s there.

Edit: To illustrate, think of the semi-vowel y in English.

in “yes” it is /j/, acting as a semi-vowel

in ”lovely” it is /i/, acting as a vowel.

Why is it that language families like indo european, uralic, turkic mongolic tungusic, and some other languages of the northern hemisphere all share "m-" for I, "t- / s-" for thou, and "k-" for interrogative?

I dont think I believe in the Eurasiatic or the Nostratic hypothesis. But I have a hard time believing these aspects were borrowed, as pronouns aren't likely to be transmitted between languages. And the idea of these similarities being produced by chance also seems unlikely, because these features aren't typologically common in other languages. What is the consensus on this?

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 108: 'nut’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

May 15, 2026

Germanic *hnuts f. 'nut', Latin nux f. 'nut, a fruit with a hard shell or rind', Celtic *knūs f. 'nut'

Latin naucum 'nutshell; a trifle', naugae \ nūgae f.p.tan 'jokes, jests; trifles'

In Latin, alt. of c \ g points to *n(a)ug-, with nom. *n(a)uk-s occasionally spreading *k. Likely < *nH2(a)ug- or *naH2ug-. Germanic *hnuts could be < *knug- with K-K > K-T dsm. Celtic *knūs could be < *knūks < *knuHg-s with K-K > K-0 dsm. Though *kn- > n- in Latin, K-K > 0-K dsm. is also possible. These establish IE *knuH2g-, *kneH2ug- > *knaH2ug-, etc. (or *k^, *g^, etc.).

Is the meaning 'fruit with a hard shell' older? Reasonably, this or a nut could be named from 'hard' or 'shell'. With few fitting roots, I say that *kH2am- 'bend, arch, cover' (also *kH2am- \ *kamH2ar(t)o- 'arched, domed, shell(ed) > tortoise, lobster') formed *kH2(a)mnu- 'covering, shell', then *kH2(a)mnu-g^H1-s > *kH2mnuHg^- 'shelled fruit, nut'. The 2nd from *g^e(i)H1- 'bloom, blossom, sprout, germinate', rel. *g^embh- 'bud, berry; germinate', etc.

Adjectives often have -e- vs. -0-, so this could explain nuc- vs. nauc-. The changes to initial *km- vs. *kmn-, etc., could be dsm. (just as *H-H > *H-0 \ *0-H here). It is also possible that *kH2(a)mno- -> *kH2(a)mn-g^H1-s > *kH2(a)un-g^H1-s by nasal dsm., with the other details the same.

If you think about it, every word would have come from a high frequency term at some point in its history. Therefore, it can be said that the more common words in a language get passed down to another one, and assuming the languages themselves don't innovate a lot of new vocabulary, does this mean the backbone of language consists of a few, very common root terms? Additionally, if the most common words in the languages are passed down from language to language, to what extent is strengthening of common terms occuring, and what forces balance this strengthening out? Does the balance come from the fact that a language is changing, like kwekwlos vs. wheel, or an iconicity cycle, whether a word needs more iconic innovation or iconic simplicity?

Words for 'one' in Old Chinese, Estonian, Minyag, and Burushaski

Wolfgang Behr in https://www.academia.edu/167090300 :

&gt;

Strictly speaking, counting starts with more than one object, usually two, once the principle of sequentiality operates. A corollary of this is that '1', although a base number, usually does not belong to the system of numerals in the languages of the world lexically. While it may become part of such a system based on another atom, engaging in various mathematical operations to construct higher numbers, it often stands apart. This distinction may be shared with other lower numbers, usually those < 5, in language and its written representations. Lower "atoms" also seem to have different mental representations. Typologically, a consequence of the special position of '1' in the numeral system is that it synchronically often has considerable morphosyntactic idiosyncracies; diachronically, it is often not possible to reconstruct protoforms for 'one' to the highest ancestral node of a language family. The question therefore arises: where does the concept 'one' in Old Chinese come from, i.e. is it primary, derived or borrowed?

&gt;

He goes in some interesting directions from here about many things, Chinese 1-4 being written with 1-4 lines, etc., but one odd claim caught my attention :
&gt;

Language-internally, co-lexifications of ‘1’ in the languages of the world are often transparently derived from underlying concepts... Typical source domains for the derivation include indefinite or interrogative pronouns (‘only’, ‘single’, ‘every’, ‘each’, ‘what’ etc.) and body-parts (‘finger’, ‘thumb’, ‘toe’ etc.)... Some quite unexpected semantic sources occur as well, e.g. ‘night’ and ‘door’.34 If confirmed by further etymological work, such recurrent semantic trajectories are remarkable, since they are attested in genetically and geographically widely separated language families in the case of ‘night’ / ‘1’. The puzzling pathway from ‘door’ to ‘1’ is at least limited to three Eurasian languages – Estonian (Uralic), Minyag (Tibeto-Burman) and Burushaski (an isolate), although I don’t know of any other genetic, historical or cultural factor which could explain this particular set of languages in terms of areality or diffusion.

&gt;

Estonian üks '1' and uks 'door' are not the same. Though front vs. back variants sometimes exist in Uralic, üks came from Proto-Uralic *ük(t)e (likely even more complex in the past, https://www.academia.edu/129820622 ), uks came from Proto-Finnic *uksi (no known Proto-Uralic source, maybe a loan from a Baltic language (if from 'hole' > 'opening in a house'), https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/uksi ). This exact same 'hole' > 'opening in a house' is supposedly behind Burushaski hiŋ 'door, gate', which is related by Starostin to N. Caucasian *ɦwǝ̄mgV 'hole, window', etc. ( https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsinocauc%2fsccet&text_number=937&root=config ), while '1' is *hen \ *hek (Yasin hen, han, hek, Hunza-Nagar: hin, han, hik). This is remarkably close to PIE *Hoino-, *Hoiko-, and since Burushaski has many loans from Indo-Iranian languages, an old *He:na-, *He:ka- might be the source (if not cognates). There is no reason for this to come from, say, *henk-, so it shares only h- with hiŋ. I don't know about Minyag, but even if '1' & 'door' were identical, it would be the ONLY language with this.

If this level of basic resemblance between a couple words also applies to ‘night’, I highly doubt that either group is related. Having many words for '1' makes sense if words for 'a', 'only', 'first', 'one of a pair / half' were sometimes used (before counting 1-5 became prominent). Even without knowing all languages' histories, I think naming '5' from 'hand', etc., seem much more likely than 'night' > 'one'.

Indo-European, Uralic and Semitic 'Seven, Sister, Daughter' (Draft)

Sean Whalen

stlatos@yahoo.com

May 10, 2026

A. A fair number of words that look nearly identical in Indo-European & Uralic have been called loans ('water, drink, lake, honey, bee, name') a smaller number in Indo-European & Semitic ('bull, 7'). Some of these comparisons are closest when looking at the proto-languages, so a lack of a perfect reconstruction for some groups might hinder finding mathes. Only a few have been claimed for all 3, and some seem very widespread ('7' with S- or TS- in many). I say in https://www.academia.edu/165205121 that many Uralic matches are due to common origin, & found in Yukaghir & other Asian languages.

B. Robert Cerantonio asks why Afroasiatic & Indo-European aren't accepted relatives, despite his efforts. He says it's partly because most linguists aren't familiar with both, and :

&gt;

The Afroasiatic Hypothesis also asks linguists to work at what is for many, an uncomfortable depth of time. Proto-Indo-European itself is reconstructed. Proto-Afroasiatic is reconstructed as well. The hypothesis then attempts to compare these reconstructed systems in order to infer an even earlier relationship. For many Indo-Europeanists, especially highly conservative ones, this feels like standing on increasingly unstable ground ( https://linguisticsandnonsense.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/why-the-afroasiatic-hypothesis-is-not-widely-accepted-yet/ )

&gt;

He compares this to Uralic & Indo-European becoming more accepted recently (though still not by a huge number), and the effect of genetic evidence. I think the most obvious answer is that Proto-Afroasiatic has no good reconstruction yet, & many branches are barely reconstructed yet. How can a reasonable comparison be made with such uncertainty? Even Proto-Uralic has many problems. Almost every entry in Ante Aikio's dictionary lists several branches that don't fit his reconstruction, & a similar level of irregularity is found in https://uralonet.nytud.hu/ .

C. The problem here is partly that Uralicists are unwilling to reconstruct what the data obviously points to, preferring traditional theories. Many words point to a relation with IE (*wete 'water'), all called loans. Thy are even unwilling to accept the consequences if these ARE loans. For example, most say that PIE *swesr- 'sister' is the source of *sVsar(e) ‘younger sister / etc.'. Why is *V in the reconstruction? Because some words point to *sa-, others *so-, *se-, *si-. Obviously, this word was not borrowed 4 or more times from 4 IE languages (and why would 'sister' be borrowed anyway?). If the need for a relation is clear, is it too much to ask to see that *swe- > *se- \ *so- implies that *w was borrowed into Uralic? The only reason not to think so, if the original had *sw-, is that *sw- is impossible in PU a priori. Of course, no such prohibition exists, except in the minds of those taught by those who did not reconstruct this in the past. All theories of the past have been incomplete; why try to preserve what must be imperfect? Indeed, the changes to both palatal & round V's implies *sw'a- to me, for which the only IE source would be Tocharian :

PIE *swesr- > PU *sw'asar(e) ‘younger sister / something of the same kind / 2 threads together/apart’ > *sa- \ *so- \ *sje- \ *sji- > Mr. šüžar, Ud. suzer, Mv. sazor ‘younger sister’, F. sisar, *sesar > Es. sõsar, Z. sozor, etc. ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qytrfu/protouralic_metathesis_2_loans/ )

Several others, like Tocharian B *yëkW- ‘drink / be wet / be liquid’ > yok- ‘drink’, Proto-Uralic *jëxwe- 'drink', *jëkwe ? 'river', *jokwe-ka ? 'small river' > *joweka (k-k dsm.) > *juka (or any similar sequence) have been called loans. I struggle to accept that, following some claims, Tocharian could have provided loans of this type around 3 or 4 thousand years ago, depending on the age of PU (I call them cognates in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r35dai/tocharian_b_yëkw_yok_yo_drink_protouralic_jëxwe/ ). Indeed, there have also been many proposals for Tocharian >> Turkic ( https://www.academia.edu/129430665 , among many more) or Chinese ( https://www.academia.edu/598334 ) or any mix ( https://www.academia.edu/428988 ). How prominent were the Tocharian? One word is *medhu 'honey'; did none of these groups have honey before IE contact? Did all these groups shed their words for 'water', 'sister', 'daughter' just to get IE ones?

D. In a similar case, some Uralic groups show something like *tüktär 'daughter', but not exactly, with its original form unclear. All these are called loans by linguists, but none remove traditional *-kt- in favor of *-KHt-, even when this is exactly what would be expected by their own theories. Other words seem to retain *H, like IE *yeuH3r-aH2- > PU *jäwxrä 'lake', Lithuanian jáura 'marshland', Latvian jūra 'sea', Armenian ǰur 'water' ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1r5y1r1/protouralic_jäwxrä_lake_lithuanian_jáura/ ), so why not *dhug(^)hH2ter- > *tükxVtär-, or any similar form? Leaving out *-H- when *-kt- can not explain the forms makes no sense, & it would be required even if an IE loan (if old enough, & no young forms match exactly).

There is no reason to think that PU *wete was a loan from PIE, not a cognate, thus *tüCtär must really be *tüktär & be a loan from a later IE, not a cognate. No matter which mix of ideas they assume, it is never a reasonable one, & never provides the solution they're seeking. If *kHt & *kt behaved differently, it would solve some of the problems linguists mention, without even giving this obvious solution. Anthony Jakob in https://www.academia.edu/112615430 :

&gt;

A substitution *t → Finnic *tt seems necessary to account for PF *tüttär ‘daughter’ ← Baltic *duktēr. As Proto-Finnic possessed a cluster *-kt- (> Võ. -tt- and -ht- elsewhere; Posti 1953: 38–43; Sammallahti 1977: 133; Kallio 2014: 156), it is unclear why we do not find reflexes of *-kt- in this word. Posti (1953: 45) has suggested that the substitution strategy was conditioned by the position of the stress in Baltic,96 but Kallio (2007: 237) sticks to the view that *tüttär shows an “exceptional” development from earlier *tüktäri. Since the evidence does not permit the reconstruction of *-kt- at any stage in Proto-Finnic, it seems necessary to assume that Baltic *dukter- was perceived as */tü(k)ttär/ by Finnic speakers, and realized as *tüttär when subjected to Early Proto-Finnic phonotactics.

&gt;

and Niklas Metsäranta in https://www.academia.edu/116524983 :

&gt;

The words Fi tytär ’daughter’, Est tütar, Veps tütär, Liv tidār ~ SaaS dektier, daktere ’married daughter’ ~ MdE t'ejt'eŕ ’daughter’, M śt'iŕ have often been treated as cognates (Kalima 1936 : 173—174; SKES 1463; SSA 3 : 349). Such a cognate relationship at least implies that the borrowing from Baltic, cf. Lith duktė̃ (gen. dukter̃s), took place when the ancestor of Finnic, Saami and Mordvin still formed a single proto-language.

...

Let us start the unpacking with Finnic. The phonological problem with deriving the Finnic words from an earlier EPF *kt cluster is that its expected outcome in (most of) Finnic would be *ht rather than the geminate *Ťt we actually find in LPF. This unexpectedness naturally did not escape the attention of earlier researchers, and different solutions have been sought to explain it. One solution has been in essence to ignore the unexpected outcome by referring to a few Finnic words that, based on their proposed cognates else- where in Uralic, also seem to reflect an irregular EPF *kt > LPF *Ťt change, e.g. Fi mätäs ’tussock’,3 pettää ’to churn butter’,4 and assuming that tytär belongs to this group of irregular words (Uotila 1985 : 314). It should be noted that a supposedly irregular change having parallels is an oxymoron or at least a confused methodology. It might very well be that the ”parallels” turn out to have a different explanation altogether.

-

Another solution, proposed by Lauri Posti (1953—1954 : 44—46), was that PF *-tt- was substituted for Baltic *-kt- in words where the main stress came after the cluster. Part of the explanation is that the regular Finnic change *kt > *tt after unstressed syllables had already taken place and as a result *kt no longer occurred after an unstressed syllable... No clear parallels for the substitution of Baltic *kt as PF *tt are presented by Posti or later research, however, and thus it remains speculation even when there is no evidence to directly contradict it.

...

The Finnic words regularly reflect a protoform with a geminate *tt (or *pt), i.e. Pre-Proto-Finnic *tüttärə (or *tüptärə) > MPF *tüttäri > LPF *tütŤär. The reason behind substituting IE *u with a front- vowel *ü is not altogether clear, but the fact that it has taken place seemingly uniformly in all three branches is not something that can be easily dismissed.

&gt;

If he compares F. pettää \ pyöhtää ’to churn butter’, a derivation from Finnic *petkel 'pestle' implies ('pestle' & 'churnstaff' are often related) *petke-tä-däk, with loss of *-V- leading to simplification of *(C)CC (like PU *woppe- 'to see, observe, inspect', *wot-ta- > Sm. N vuotˈte- 'observe, get to know', etc. https://www.academia.edu/166207772 ).

Even more significant, F. mätäs ’tussock’ seems related to standard PU *mäke ‘hill’, *mäktä ’tussock’, which also have problems :

&gt;

The cognate set, Fi mätäs ’tussock’, Karelian mätäs, Veps mättaz, mätäz, Votic mätäz ’hill, hillock; tussock, peat’, Est mätas ’tussock, peat’, Liv mätāl ’tussock’ < LFP *mäŤtäs ~ SaaN miekta ’tussock’ < PS *miektë ~ NenT ḿet, Selkup mäkte, mekte, mäktə, Kamassian mekte, bäkte < PSam *mektə is thought to reflect PU *mäktə ’Rasenhügel, Hügel’ (UEW 266). Although PSam *mektə is remarkably similar to both the Saami words and the reconstructed PU protoform, it appears, however, to be irregular as well because one would expect the *kt cluster to regularly simplify into PSam *t

&gt;

If related to IE *maH2k^t- or *mak^H2t- 'tall' ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1s93hu7/indoeuropean_yukaghir_uralic_part_10/ ), it would again show that these irregularities are caused by loss of mid *-V- or *-H-. The *H might also explain the V's :

&gt;

A ”labial dissimilation” of PS *o to PS *ë has occurred in a handful of words in Saami (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Aikio) 2015 : 11). In most cases the original vowel can be determined to have been PS *o through etymology, e.g. PU *lupsa ’dew’ > PS *lopsē > PS *lëpsē (with dissimilation occurring in all Saami languages, but cognates elsewhere clearly point to PU *u). The common denominator for the dissimilation is an adjacent labial consonant; the only excep- tion seems to have been PS *kocō- ’to hang’, which shows dissimilation in South, Ume and Lule Saami. The dissimilation was not regular, as no conditioning factor can be established and there are a significant number of words with PS *o that lack the dissimilation despite being adjacent to a labial consonant. Also, the distribution of variants with *ë is different for each lexical item, with the dissimilation sometimes affecting all Saami languages, like in PS *lopsē ’dew’, sometimes occurring in the Western half, cf. PS *kocō- ’to hang’ (S U Lu) and sometimes in the Eastern, cf. PS *monē ’egg’ (N (both), In Sk K T).

&gt;

In Finnic, some PU *x seem to > *w. If due to a shift *x > *f > *w, it could be that one of these stages provides the labial element needed.

E. It is well known that some numbers seem to be found where unexpected (or near matches, depending on which numbers). The relation of Indo-European *septḿ̥ '7', Etruscan semph-, Hurrian šittanna, Uralic *śäjććemä ?, Iberian sisbi, Basque zazpi, Kartvelian *šwid-, Afroasiatic *səṗɣwə(t-) ? 'seven' (Egyptian sfḫw, Berber *saβ, Semitic *šabʕ- (Akkadian sebûm f.)) has often been proposed, often as a loan (despite the difficulties this would cause, some especially unlikely depending on which was favored as the original).

In the case of Semitic *sabʕatum > Akkadian sebettum m. '7', the -t- has led some to say that this Semitic derivative must be the source of IE *septḿ̥, since no others are as close. This is somehow related to Hebrew šabbāṯ 'the Sabbath, 7th day of the week' >> Greek σάββατον \ sábbaton 'the Sabbath; a week, seven days', Akkadian šapattum \ šabattum '15 days' (s- vs. š- seems to be analogy with '6', with nearly as wide a range of (t)S- as '7'). Though Afroasiatic reconstruction is not great, a form like *səṗɣwə(t) (if the -t- vs. -0- is because *-t > -0, *-t- remained when suffixed) could explain the varying -C(C)- as from various simplifications of *ṗɣw > *ṗɣb > *ṗṗx \ *bbɣ, or similar. Metathesis in *sabbʕatum \ *sappʕatum > *sappatʕum, etc., might be the cause of the variants. In any event, is not a good match for IE *septḿ̥ as it is currently known.

I say that many of these do not seem to have *-pt-, some clearly can't be from *-pt-. Metathesis might be needed for the words with *-p-t- (šapattum), & a word like *septḿ̥ might be expected to "fix" its CCC-cluster. However, words like Uralic *śäjććemä (or really Uralic *śäjt't'emä if the rec. of Onno Hovers of PU *t' differing from *ś and *ć is accepted) and Afroasiatic *səṗɣwə(t-) seem too long and complex for a good match.

If *septḿ̥ appears to have formed *septm̥ó- '7th', an *m̥ before a *V doesn't make much sense. Some say *septm̥mó- or *septm̥wó- instead. If the *-w- in Afroasiatic *səṗɣwə(t-) is real and old (in Egyptian sfḫw), then a change like *septm̥wó- > *septǝmwó- > *śəftǝŋwá > *śəftŋwá > *śəfŋwát > *səṗɣwə́t might work. A similar shift might explain *septm̥wó- > *śəptǝmwó- > *śəptǝmjë > *śəptjǝmë > *śəp't'jemë > *śəjt't'emë > *śäjt't'emä in Uralic.

Are these loans? If Uralic & Semitic share a word with IE, which path would it take? If the other families are added, only IE was in the areas expected of the proto-languages, but loaning '7' so many times (in fact, there are exactly 7 families considered here) would be a lot for any group. I find it hard to accept any scenario within traditional theories.

In response to my previous question (https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/s/m3VxtFlXTx)
on this server, someone posted the following reply and later deleted it. (Interesting response, I must say - to the person who deleted it, please reach out to me, I’d like to talk. I didn’t catch your username since I didn’t expect you to delete the comment.)

They commented:

“Comparative studies of ape communication show that apes can actively use simple syntax and comprehend spoken words and simple spoken sentences. It thus is improbable that any “protolanguage” lacking words ever existed. Other living species can also comprehend spoken words. Some dogs can learn in one trial to reference the meaning of hundreds of spoken words with specific objects (Kaminski et al. 2004). However, no nonhuman species can talk. Apes instead use manual sign language and other manual system to signify words, lending plausibility to the idea that manual gestures played a significant role in the early stages of language evolution

If man’s propositional language did not begin with speech, but with a manual gesture or sign-language system, a plausible model can be built in which tool-making and tool-using play an important part in language emergence. Even in modern speaking cultures, we learn to use tools or weapons mainly by observation of their use by others, and by signs and gestures- rather than through speech. The motor and neural elements involved in manipulation of objects and in gestural communication are very similar. The fundamental visual basis of human cognition is stressed.

Wallace, Tylor, Wundt, Johannesson, and others have proposed that human language had its basis in hand and arm gestures. The Gardners’ work with the chimpanzee Washoe, Premack’s study of the chimpanzee Sarah, and continuing experiments along these lines indicate that neural restructuring would not have been necessary for the protohominid acquisition of a simple propositional gesture or sign language which did not involve cross-modal transfer at a high level from the visual to the auditory channel or vice versa. Evidence from primate studies, early tool-using, the continuing functions of gesture in human communication, lateral dominance in its relation to speech and tool manipulation, and other sources is presented to support a model of glottogenesis. It is argued that a preexisting gestural language system would have provided an easier pathway to vocal language than a direct outgrowth of the “emotional” use of vocalization characteristic of non-human primates.”