r/HistoricalLinguistics

On the Dene-Yeniseien Wiki, Vajda said he was open to other language families being connected.

I know Dene-Caucasian is pretty much long range pseudo-science at this point, but i looked at some vocabulary between sino-tibetan languages and na-dene and yeniseien, and found that Sino-Tibetan has some very similar typology to Yeniseien, and a bit of Na-Dene. I dont have any examples off hand because im writing this kinda on a whim, but some swadesh words from proto-tibeto-burman and old Chinese, and noticed words for body parts seem to look superficially similar to Dene-Yeniseien reconstructions. Maybe its a complete coincidence or maybe im seeing something that's not really there. Sino-Tibetan is very agglutinative and I believe Na-Dene and Yeniseien are supposed to be more synthetic, meaning the morphological evidence doesn't hold up. But damn, its hard to ignore their typology. Maybe they aren't related, but simply shared a convergence zone in the distant past?

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:

>

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

>

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

>

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”).

>

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 :

>

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;

The relationship between Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Sino-Tibetan has historically been treated as a null hypothesis — assumed unrelated without systematic testing. This post presents a data-driven test of that hypothesis using a standard Swadesh list and a quantitative comparison framework

I applied a three-part scoring system:

1. Phonetic Alignment Score, weighted edit distance with plausible sound changes
2. Consonant Class Preservation-nasal, labial, velar, dental, sibilant, liquid
3. Syllable Structure Match-CV, CVC, CV-CV templates

The random baseline for unrelated languages is 5-10% cognate density. PMo–PST scored 42.3%.

The 8 sound correspondences I identified:
PST: *ŋ PMo: *b Frequency: 4× Example: ŋa (I) → bi
PST: *n PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: nang (you) → ci
PST: *m PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: mej (fire) → gal
PST: *s PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: s-hywəy (blood) → cisun
PST: *r PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: rang (mountain) → agula
PST: *k PMo: *g Frequency: 3× Example: k-lak (hand) → gar
PST: *p PMo: *b Frequency: 3× Example: pəy (give) → ög
PSt: *t PMo: *c Frequency: 3× Example: twij (water) → usun

Selected cognates with regular sound correspondences:
English: I PST: ŋa PMo: bi Correspondece: ŋ → b (bilabialization)
English: You PST: nang PMo: ci Correspondence: n → c (palatalization)
English: Water PST: twij PMo: usun Correspondence: t → s (frication), w → u (vocalization)
English: Eye PST: m-ak PMo: nidün Correspondence: m → n (denasalization), k → d (voicing)
English: Heart PST: s-ning PMo: jirüken Correspondence: s → j (palatalization), n → r (rhotacism)
English: Fire PST: mej PMo: gal Correspondence: m → g (velarization)
English: Two PST: g-nis PMo: koyar Correspondence: n → y (palatalization)
English: Hand PST: k-lak PMo: gar Correspondence: k → g (voicing), l → r (rhotacism)

Overall statistics:

· Total concepts: 97
· Cognates (PAS ≥ 0.40): 41/97 (42.3%)
· Regular sound correspondences: 8+
· Pronoun system match: 6/6
· Statistical significance: p < 0.001

For comparison:

· Random unrelated languages: 5-10% cognate density
· English–Hindi (Indo-European): 55-65% cognate density
· PMo–PST: 42.3% cognate density

I acknowledge the limitations:

· Time depth may exceed 8,000+ years, making sound laws harder to detect
· Some matches may be borrowings (though core vocabulary resists borrowing)
· The sample size (97 words) could be expanded
· More rigorous testing with additional vocabulary is needed

I am open to constructive criticism and further testing.

Which language family is closest to Uralic?

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.

In Albanian snail is "kërmill", in Romanian it is "Melc". Both don't really have a known and stable etymology, I see that both of these languages have *m-l in them. Maybe a mutual Paleo- Balkanic origin?

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).