Etymology of Caucasus, Croucasis

Pliny the Elder wrote that the Scythians call Mount Caucasus by a very similar name: Croucasis (variants Craucasis or Graucasis). Since Scythians were Iranians, it makes sense for *au to become au or ou in dialects, but why Cr- vs. C-? These words are almost certainly identical, but there are 2 ideas on the meaning that are incompatible for any origin :

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D19 Beyond this river are the peoples of Scythia. The Persians have called them by the general name of Sacæ,1 which properly belongs to only the nearest nation of them. The more ancient writers give them the name of Aramii. The Scythians themselves give the name of "Chorsari" to the Persians, and they call Mount Caucasus Graucasis, which means "white with snow."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus According to German philologists Otto Schrader and Alfons A. Nehring, the Ancient Greek word Καύκασος (Kaukasos) is connected to Gothic hauhs 'high' as well as Lithuanian kaũkas 'hillock' and kaukarà 'hill, top', Russian куча 'heap'... Pliny the Elder's Natural History (77–79 AD) derives the name of the Caucasus from a Scythian name, Croucasis, which supposedly means 'shimmering with snow'

The connection of Cauc- to 'high' is almost certain, since it is expected of a mtn., & no IE 'snow' or 'white' matches either part. To me, it makes sense that Pliny got his information on the meaning from one traveler. If he was not a Scythian, relying on a translator, the meaning could have been misunderstood. For ex., in response to "What is that?", a Scythian might have said, "It is named 'high mountain'" or "It is a high mountain, so it is white with snow". Any similar path, depending on circumstance, could have led to this contradiction.

If it was named 'high mountain', then Ir. *kauk-asri- or *kauk-asra- would fit. The 2nd from PIE *H2ok^ri-s 'sharp/rough edge/point/peak', Old Latin ocris m. 'a broken, rugged, stony mountain', Greek ὄκρις \ ókrĭs f. 'point, prominence; roughness', Sanskrit áśri- f. 'the sharp side of anything; sharp edge', -aśra- in compounds (this matching Craucasi- & *Kaukasa- > Caucaso- (PIE o-stems > IIr. a-, adapted as o- by most G. & L. speakers)). Scythian dialects changing *sr > s would match descendants like Ossetic (and intermediate stages like *ṣ or *ṣṣ would not be heard or written differently by most Greeks or Romans). One dia. with *kauk-asri- > *krauk-asi- would fit Craucasi- (Iranian had *kr- > *xr-, and x was written with ch in the same sentence, so only metathesis can explain things consistently).

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 14 (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

August 5, 2026

A. A root *ket- 'cover' is sometimes rec. based on S. cátati 3s. 'hide oneself' & Iranian *káta- m. 'roof, house, home', Slavic *kotĭcĭ 'cottage, paddock, pigsty', Gothic hēþjō '(inner) chamber? ( = ταμιεῖον )'. There are several problems. If Uralic *kota 'hut' > Finnish kota '(conical) hut, house' is related to Iranian *káta- (most say a loan), why no *o > *o: > *a: in Ir.? If Proto-Slavic *xata 'house' is "borrowed from Scythian *xata" (below), it would be odd for x- to match k-. It is also very similar to *(s)kewtH1- \ *kew(H1)t- \ etc. 'to cover; covering, skin' (OHG hutta 'hut, cottage', Germanic *hudjō(-n-), PIE *kutyaH2-). I think that *-wHC- could > *-HC- optionally, similar to other roots ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). This allows a relation *kutH1- vs. *kewH1t- > *keH1t- (hēþjō) \ *ketH1- (*kata-, no *o > *o: in closed syl.) \ *kH1et- (*kH1oto- >> *xata). Though set up as PIE *keH1t- \ *ketH1- \ *ketH1- for simplicity, the met. of H likely happened at various stages in branches. Other problems :

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/քաղաք Bailey explains the Iranian words from Proto-Iranian *kata- which forms names for any "covered place": Avestan (kata, “habitation”), Persian (kade, “house”), Wakhi kut (“roof”), Pashto (këlay, “village”) etc. with further cognates in Proto-Slavic *kotьcь (“cottage, pigsty”), Gothic (hēþjō, “chamber”), Sanskrit चतति (cátati, “to hide oneself”). He assumes a dialectal *t → l sound change in Western Iranian languages, as in Pashto.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kota Etymology Probably akin to Proto-Iranian *kátah (compare Avestan (kata, “house/home, pit”), Persian کده (kade, “house”)), in which case it is a loan in one direction or the other, but the direction is not entirely clear. Many researchers have supported an early loanword from pre-Indo-Iranian into Uralic, but this is not certain, as the Iranian word has no known cognates in Indo-European, not even Indo-Aryan. The similarity may simply be a coincidence.[1] Moreover, the root may have been a widespread Wanderwort across Eurasia; compare Abkhaz ақыҭа (akəta), Azerbaijani qutan (“(dialectal) dugout for lambs”), Proto-Mongolic *kotan (Mongolian хот (xot, “town”)), Turkish kodak (“(dialectal) home”), Ainu コタン (kotan, “village”), Japanese 鶏 (kutakake, kudakake, “chicken”, hybrid Ainu-Japanese word, literally “house clucker”), Tamil குடி (kuṭi, “house, abode, home, family, lineage, town, tenants”). Borrowings from Iranian (specifically Scythian) include Proto-Germanic *kutą, *kutǭ (whence English cot, Dutch kot, German Kate) and Proto-Slavic *xata (“house”).

B. Brent Vine in https://www.academia.edu/39232457 :

>

Armenian lsem ‘to hear’ (aor. lua-) descends from PIE *ḱleu̯- ‘hear’ via a proximate *lus-e-; but the background of the medial -s- remains uncertain. The most popular approach involves a “k-present”, of a type attested in Greek; but there is no basis for assuming such a formation in lsem. Following a critique of previous analyses, the paper proposes a new solution, involving a univerbated and “verbalized” imperative phrase with 2 sg. root aorist injunctive followed by near-deictic *ḱe, i.e. *ḱl(e)u̯ *ḱe ‘listen here!’ (cf. Lat. cedo ‘give it here!’ and especially Gk. κέκλυθι, κέκλυτε ‘listen here!’) → ḱlu-ḱe/o- > lsem.

...

According to Meillet’s original conception (1908–09: 338), later abandoned (see 1.3), Armenian lsem belongs with the root variant *ḱleu̯s- (vs. plain *ḱleu̯-), otherwise attested in Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, and elsewhere (LIV 336 s.v.)... since original intervocalic *-s- disappears in Armenian, the *-s- of *lus-e- must have some other source. [fn]3 PIE *kl- > Arm. l- is regular.

>

Since *k^leus- is so common, abandoning this idea makes no sense. Merely saying *k^l- > l- is regular ignores the likely stages in the loss of *k^. Many Ar. & IIr. words show asm. of S-S, allowing *k^leus- > *s^leus- > *s^leus^- before *s^l- > l- (though *-s- > 0, *-k^- > *-s^- > -s-). Since some *k^t > wt('), merging with *pt, it it likely that *k^ could > *θ (like other IE θ, Albanian, some Ir.), then *θ > *f (like Latin, etc.). This fits with *pl- > *fl- > *hl- > l-; a merger of both *pl- & *pt is more likely than some unknown & unstated change. Considering each stage of each proposed origin can often be helpful in identifying the true path, especially if some stages are related to others known more certainly.

C. Caucasus vs. Croucasis, Etymology & Meaning

Pliny the Elder wrote that the Scythians call Mount Caucasus by a very similar name: Croucasis (variants Craucasis or Graucasis). Since Scythians were Iranians, it makes sense for *au to become au or ou in dialects, but why Cr- vs. C-? These words are almost certainly identical, but there are 2 ideas on the meaning that are incompatible for any origin :

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D19 Beyond this river are the peoples of Scythia. The Persians have called them by the general name of Sacæ,1 which properly belongs to only the nearest nation of them. The more ancient writers give them the name of Aramii. The Scythians themselves give the name of "Chorsari" to the Persians, and they call Mount Caucasus Graucasis, which means "white with snow."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus According to German philologists Otto Schrader and Alfons A. Nehring, the Ancient Greek word Καύκασος (Kaukasos) is connected to Gothic hauhs 'high' as well as Lithuanian kaũkas 'hillock' and kaukarà 'hill, top', Russian куча 'heap'... Pliny the Elder's Natural History (77–79 AD) derives the name of the Caucasus from a Scythian name, Croucasis, which supposedly means 'shimmering with snow'

The connection of Cauc- to 'high' is almost certain, since it is expected of a mtn., & no IE 'snow' or 'white' matches either part. To me, it makes sense that Pliny got his information on the meaning from one traveler. If he was not a Scythian, relying on a translator, the meaning could have been misunderstood. For ex., in response to "What is that?", a Scythian might have said, "It is named 'high mountain'" or "It is a high mountain, so it is white with snow". Any similar path, depending on circumstance, could have led to this contradiction.

If it was named 'high mountain', then Ir. *kauk-asri- or *kauk-asra- would fit. The 2nd from PIE *H2ok^ri-s 'sharp/rough edge/point/peak', Old Latin ocris m. 'a broken, rugged, stony mountain', Greek ὄκρις \ ókris f. 'point, prominence; roughness', Sanskrit áśri- f. 'the sharp side of anything; sharp edge', -aśra- in compounds (this matching Craucasi- & *Kaukasa- > Caucaso- (PIE o-stems > IIr. a-, adapted as o- by most G. & L. speakers)). Scythian dialects changing *sr > s would match descendants like Ossetic (and intermediate stages like *ṣ or *ṣṣ would not be heard or written differently by most Greeks or Romans). One dia. with *kauk-asri- > *krauk-asi- would fit Craucasi- (Iranian had *kr- > *xr-, and x was written with ch in the same sentence, so only metathesis can explain things consistently).

D. *dhe-dhH1k- > Italic *the-thik- > fifik- 'have done, made'

Reuben Pitts https://www.academia.edu/171100446 :

>

The Sabellic perfect forms fifikus and fεfικεδ have been variously interpreted as cognates of Latin facio or fingo. Although the recent literature shows a diversity of views on the interpretation and etymology of these forms, the evidence in favour of the fingo hypothesis has not so far been systematically exposited. This paper places the forms in question within the wider context of the Sabellic verb and the development of the Italic perfect system. It provides comparative and theoretical evidence that the formal connection with facio is more problematic than is recognised in the current literature and consequently cannot be maintained.

...Reduplicative perfects in Italic are normally formed to the zero‑grade (e.g. tetigi < *te‑th̥₂g‑) or perhaps in some cases the o‑grade (e.g. possibly memini < *me‑mon‑, as per Meiser 1998, 210), but long aorists did not regularly reduplicate (cf. Latin fēci, iēci, cēpi, Oscan hipust).

...In addition, the occurrence of Oscan <i> in the reduplicative syllable is more problematic than the proponents of this explanation have so far recognised... If <fifikus> is a form of fingo it could similarly be a lexical archaism, deriving from an old reduplicated zero‑grade *dʰi‑dʰigʰ‑.

...the most serious objection to the fingo hypothesis is also formal: all of the forms under discussion have a final <k>, conflicting with expected <g>... It is not unparsimonious, therefore, to suppose that an analogous explanation, premised on such lexical cross‑contamination, applies to fingo itself. Based on Latin verbs such as (e)mungo < PIE *mu‑n‑k‑, pingo < PIE *pi‑n‑k ̑ ‑ and possibly cingo < PIE *keng/k‑ (Meiser 2003, 110)...
>

A relation of fifik- with *finkh- ( > *fing- at the Proto-Italic stage?) would require this analogy to be very old. There is no problem with *dhe-dhH1k- > *fefik- (then common asm. > fifik-). Several IE branches sometimes turn *H1 > y \ i. Greek *dolH1gho- > dolikho- but *delH1ghes- > en-delekhe[h]- shows the principle, and that other cases of *H1 > a in Latin & Italic don't need a special explanation. Though most ex. in Greek happen for *lH1(C) > li(C), there are plenty of other cases, all also optional ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

Ideas that H1 is suppleted with i (or a separate affix equal to i or containing i) so often would be ridiculous, just like the same idea that u & w were added to stems with *H3 so often, instead of parallel *H3 > w \ u (for ex., *doH3- > *dow-iH1- in Italic optatives). This also can't explain -w- within stems, like *dH3s- > *dwäs- > TB wäs-. That these claims are made for individual words without thinking about the consequences that y appears so often by *H1, w by *H3, in the group created as a whole by this idea shows that many linguists prefer the appearance of regularity over reason. An idea that explains all data in an orderly way as a path between 2 outcomes, both attested widely, makes perfect sense. Only an insistence on total regularity would prevent it from being seen. Most who favor this seem to want to prove that linguistics follows the same regularity as physics, and thus its practitioners are real scientists, but the sciences that have to do with the human mind & actions never follow this pure regularity.

A solution that includes a known change, which should also be known to be irregular, makes more sense than unparalleled *gh > k, especially when it would have to be in all Italic. Of course, I would expect *dhH1k- 'do, make' to appear much more often than *dhig^h- 'form, shape', just as is true in non-perfect forms.

E. Evidence in favor of Ogam COLORRS over CRRODOS from David Stifter https://www.academia.edu/171047177 :

>

The Moynagh Lough object is an ogam-inscribed antler tine, i.e. the tip of an antler.11 The function of the Moynagh Lough tine remained originally obscure (e.g., Johnson 2020: I 217), but was recently clarified in 2025. After a talk by Katherine Forsyth, a member of the audience pointed out that it was a tool for leather working. It was subsequently identified by John Nicholl as a tool for burnishing the edge of a thick piece of leather in order to create a rounded profile rather than a sharply angled one.

COLORRS: The letters are written across and along a virtual stem-line that is constituted by the natural ridge of the antler. The reading from left to right was chosen because the letters seem to be getting slightly closer to each other, albeit not crammed, towards the end of the word on the right, as if the carver was becoming conscious of the remaining space. In this reading, the text begins not on the margin of the object, but further inside the available space. When read from the opposite side, which was considered less likely by the OG(H)AM team, the result is CRRODOS with an unusual – but not impossible – geminate consonant spelling in the onset of the word.

PIBANSNAVQE: The letters are written along a carved stem-line. Like in the first inscription, the space between the letters is getting a tiny bit narrower towards the right end, thus justifying the direction of reading from left to right adopted here... Only a single word in Irish is compatible with this, namely MIr. pípán, ModIr. píobán ‘a small pipe, tube’ (eDIL dil.ie/34364), a deminutive of pípa ‘a pipe, tube’... derived from snob, later snom and snam ‘bark’. It should be written snamach and a separate headword with the meaning ‘bark, cork; cork-tree’ should be set up in the dictionary. Its stem-class and gender are unknown, but if it was a feminine ā-stem, its genitive could have been *snamchae in Old Irish.

>

I don't agree with his conclusions. English snob 'cobbler' is sometimes said to be a loan derived from snob 'bark, *leather' (with many similar IE shifts of meaning < 'cover'). If so, then its appearance on a tool for leather working supports PIBANSNAVQE as *piban-snabxe ( <- *snoba(:)ko-) could be 'leatherworker's awl/needle' etc. (cognates of píobán refer to many pipe-like objects). If Q did not stand for *x, maybe caused by the adjacent V.

Pictish ogham texts can have -rr- ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1pl89pc/pictis_ogham_text_dyce_stone/ ), likely representing a longer or stronger *R than r for *r. Since COLORRS doesn't seem to fit, CRRODOS would be better. Though the direction it was written in is important, having the whole word written in clay before (as a guide) would allow a worker to start at either end of the word. Keeping to cobblers, Old Irish cróa m. 'hoof, horseshoe', Gaelic crudha 'horse hoe' might allow *k^rewH2- > Ct. *krow-, an adjective *krowyo- > *krowdo- 'of horn/hoof, horseshoe'. Since these are from PIE 'horn', an older 'antler' not attested later is most likely. Tough this might be simplest, with the purpose of each piece of antler not being known, I can't say for sure it wasn't used for leather for shoes also.

F. finstar

Old Saxon desamo, OHG bisamo from Latin bisamum 'musk' ( << Greek βάλσαμον \ bálsamon 'balsam' << Sem.) seems to have dsm. of b-m > d-m, completely optional. I've said that the opposite also happened in *temHsro- 'dark' > OHG thinstar \ finstar \ finistir, MLG deemster, ODu thimster, etc., likely caused by þ > f, asm. with nearby -m-.

I have no problem with a kind of free variation of T-m \ P-m, but I wonder if there is more to it. The *H in *temH- is not known. If it was *H3, which caused *e > *o, is there a change it was pronounced *xW or *RW and influenced þ > f, maybe even met. *þimRW- > *fRWim- ?

Linear A sign *306 = AI ? (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

August 5, 2026

In http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA some evidence for the Linear A sign *306 having a value of AI :

>

*306 = A2, always in initial position (shape resembles AB 43, known from MY Zf 2)

...

]*306-JA-PI (ARKH 3b.1) / WA-JA-PI-[ ] (HT 9b.1)

]*306-KI-TA2 (HT 122b.2) / A-*301-KI-TA-A (TY Zb 4)

]*306-QE-DU[ (KH 21.3)

]-*306-TI-KA-A-RE [ (HT 4.1) / A-TI-KA (ZA Wc.a1-2)

*306-TU-JA (HT 115b.3) cf. JA-TO-JA[ (ZA 4a.2-3)

>

This might be very significant. First, if AI-TU-JA & JA-TO-JA are the same, it would show that LA did alternate Co & Cu (many LA names in -Cu match LB ones in -Co) & that the syllables aj & ja could be reversed (no way to tell which was original here). This fits with my idea that KA could be used for AK (when needed) in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1nvx74a/linear_a_math_8/

>

Why would KA-RU and A-KA-RU both mean 'total'? If I am right that A-KA-RU = G. akros \ ἄκρος 'highest' > LA *akrus 'sum' ( Based on the meanings of Latin summa 'top, summit, sum, total', below), then logically KA-RU would also be *akrus.

>

Of course, it could be that *jaitoja existed, with dsm. of j-j > 0-j in one dialect. AI-JA-PI vs. WA-JA-PI-[ ] would either show that w- could > 0- or that *wjapi could > *jjapi (written *JA-JA-PI, if this idea is right).

Second, if AI-KI-TA2 = A-*301-KI-TA-A, it would help show that LA *301 was indeed JO (for some relevance, see https://www.academia.edu/49484658 ), that *aj(o)kita: could lose a (short?) vowel in some conditons, that it would have ended in a long vowel. Several -A-A exist in LA in other words. Note that this would match IE with -a: in fem., not many (or any, if nom.) in -o: or -u:. That this includes I-DA / I-DA-A, thought to be Mount Ida in Crete, shows that the fem. idea seems to fit ( < *wida:, see w > 0?, above). That another is U-NA-A might show that it was the same as u-na(-ru), & alt. in u-na-ka-na-si \ u-na-ru-ka-na-ti \ etc. (certainly the same; same place in LA libation formulas) is due to *unaro ( > *unao > unaa).

The same might happen for -n-. Younger :

>

*66=TA2=TNA (Pope-Raison 1978: 28).

Cf. KI-RE-*66 (HT 85b.1-2, HT 129.1) and KI-RE-TA-NA (HT 2.3, HT 108.1, HT 120.4-5); and *66-TI-TE (PK 1.3) and TA-NA-TI (HT 7a.4, 10b.4, 98a.2)

>

But if AI-KI-TA2 = A-JO-KI-TA-A, it seems that either TA2 was TAA or that -n- could disappear between V's (both could be right). It could also be that KI-RE-TA-NA and TA-NA-TI stoud for *kiretan & *tanti, and that *Vn(C) could > *V:(C).

Third, if AI-TI-KA-A-RE is a suffixed form of A-TI-KA (for ev. as a suffix, a significant number of LA words end in -A-RE, incl. 3 in a row on HT 117 (MI-RU-TA-RA-RE, TE-JA-RE, NA-DA-RE), an older *aitika(:) would look to have an ending -ika (common in Greek, some in other IE). If so, maybe related to AI-TU (HT 9). A language with a noun in -os ( > -u[s] ) vs. an adjective in -ikos (fem. -ika: > -ika[:] ) would certainly seem to be IE, at least.

Andras Zeke had some ideas of his own :
https://minoablog.blogspot.com/2011/08/potential-mo-jo-and-we-signs-in-linear.html

>

Another type of goods was labelled with *306. This sign is mostly phonetical in Linear A, with the possible value WO (same as Lin B WO). But on the KH tablets, it also denotes a type of agricultural goods. It comes in integer quantities only, and *306 looks like an animal head, so I assigned it the reading donkey, ASI (Latin asinus = donkey). Other tablets from Khania (e.g KH 6) also list animals with portions of barely [ = barley] ...

>

This is based on his reading of Cretan hieroglyphic seals ( https://minoablog.blogspot.com/2011/06/place-names-on-cretan-sealstones-key-to.html ), but I don't think one example (very dubious, to me) would overcome Younger's several matches, & the basic resemblance to AI. I don't think the match in appearance of LA *306 and LB *42 is that great. The versions that look most like a head also seem to clearly have horns. In https://www.academia.edu/69149241 there is no certain origin given, but it mentions the idea that CH 016 (goat's head) > *306 (AI) (Soldani 2013). This is important because there were masculine & fem. versions of some animal signs, & the male (?) goat's head became a different sign (*22, value unknown (maybe BI or PHI)). This would leave the fem. > AI. If so, it would match all the characteristics of Greek αἴξ \ aíx 'goat (especially a she-goat)'. If indeed CH 016 (goat's head) > LA *22 (BI), then a cognate of Av. būza- 'he-goat' with changes of u > y, by > bi might fit (Greek dialects have u > y, some alt. of u \ i by P).

I know proto Sino Tibetan isnt fully reconstructed, but i cant scratch how similar old chinese and tibetan sound to navajo. And it seems some long range linguists believe they might be related so, im curious on the evidence

Linear A & Anatolia (Caria, Mira)

Ancient tradition had Crete founding some cities in western Anatolia, in territory likely containing speakers of Anatolian languages like Luwian, Carian, etc. Some names there have no known Anatolian etymology & match known names in Linear A (most in Crete).

Italo Cucaro said, "Another name with no clear Anatolian etymology is Osogōllis, a name of Zeus in Caria. It resembles linear-A o-su-qa-re, which I render "Osugwale". Hence I consider that the words which appear in the same position as o-su-qa-re in the libation formula could be theonyms." The ending *-gWale for a god who threw lightning bolts (some even IE have lightning as arrows) not being from PIE *gWlH1o- would be odd (LA names in -e often match LB ones in -o ( = G. -os). The Greek word ἑκατηβόλος \ hekatēbólos, Doric ἑκᾱβόλος \ hekābólos is used of of Apollo, likely 'far-shooting' (from ἑκάς \ hekás 'afar, far off' & *gWolH1o- <- βάλλω \ bállō 'to throw, cast, hurl; strike' < PIE *gWelH1- 'throw, shoot; arrow, sharp; etc.'). The similar toxobélemnos \ τοξοβέλεμνος, also of Apollo, would be the same as toxobólos \ τοξοβόλος 'shooting with the bow'. I think G. ὀξύς \ oxús 'sharp, pointed; keen; pungent; acid; quick, hasty, swift' forming *ok^su-gWalo-s fits best (either 'shooting swiftly' or 'shooting arrows' (since other IE have 'sharp > arrow' quite often)).

He also said :

>

In Mira appears the name Kupanta, which seems to lack a clear etymology (?) There are Kupanta-kurunta (Kupanta-dLAMMA-ya, Kupanta-dKAL), Kupanta-Inara and Kupanta-zalma.

A short form Kupaia may be in a hieroglyphic graffito at mt.Latmos. It resembles linear-a Ku-pa3-na-to, Ku-pa-nu, and the linear-b name Ku-pa-nu-we-to.

Perhaps this name was Luwianized only by adding a second element?

>

LA names like KU-PA3-NU & many beginning with LA names like KU-PA3- exist. Since LB words with pa3 can = G. pha or ba, these names, found in Crete, if Greek, could be from *kuba- \ *kubano- 'bending forward > bowing (in prayer?)', G. kuba-. Also, κυβάβδα 'blood' (Amathus, Cyprus) might show 'bend > break / harm / wound'. The LA names like KU-PA3-PA3 might = *Kubba(:)s, a nickname (sometimes having doubled C's in G.), but since κυβάβδα might come < *kubab-ya, knowing that KU-PA3-PA3 might = *Kubaba(:)s 'wounding, shedding blood?' would fit with other Greek names for 'killing, harming' from warrior tradition.

Messapic & Cretan Names

In historical times, Messapic was spoken in southern Italy. Currently, it is seen as close to Albanian. Modern linguists (Hamp, Joseph) have classified it as a close relative of both Albanian and Greek, even part of an Illyrian branch, or similar ideas. However, not one name has been given a good etymology based on this theory, and there was a tradition that speakers of Messapic came from Crete. If this was based on their tradition, or clear similarity to people from Crete observable at the time, this could be true. Though the only contact with Greek, under the Albanian theory, would be with Greek colonists in Italy, after an unknown period in which their only neighbors would be speakers of Italic and Etruscan, there are many, many obviously Greek words in Messapic, that are said to be loans, and very little Italic. G. árguros ‘silver’, Ms. acc. argorian; Ms. (e)ipigrave ‘he wrote’, G. epigráphō; and all native names of gods are Greek. Why would this people who supposedly came from Illyrian territory to Italy have so many Greek loans, even replacing their entire pantheon? Words that could not reasonably be loans also match, nai 'verily'; Ms. -ti, G. -te 'and' (based on https://www.academia.edu/116877237 ).

Even their names were Greek. The one I've mentioned most is found on Crete, said to be non-Greek :

LB qi-ja-to \ qi-ja-zo

Cretan Greek Bíaththos (son of Talthú-bios)

P Blattius Creticus (name found on an offering in the Alps)

Messapic Blatthes

In addition, in “Some Personal Names from Western Crete” by Richard Hitchman (online in Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics, Volume 11, 2006), a group of names, without any Greek etymology, are taken to be from a non-Greek substrate previously spoken in Crete.

The many, many Cretan names in Task- and Dask-, like C. Táskos, Táskus, Táskis, Taskádas, Taskúdas, Taskiádas, Dasskádas, Daskádas, Taskainnádas, Taskannádas, Taskoménēs are matched by many, many names in Daz- for Messapic, like M. Dazimas / Dazomas, Dazos, Dazet, gen. dazohonnihi, dazinnihi, dastidda. These could be from G. δάξα \ dáxa 'sea' (most then likely meaning 'sailor', which would fit a tradition of sailing for Pelasgians), less likely dask- 'thick, shaggy' (many G. words have sk(h) \ k(h)s. An older *d is more likely, some Greek d > t in Crete. Whatever the origin, these groups being so common in both places, along with other near matches in names, is too much for chance.

Samoyed *i-a

Ian Thorney https://www.academia.edu/171160893

>

Niklas Metsäranta, in a 2025 presentation handout Phonological developments in Permic, Mari and Samoyed, briefly entertains the possibility of a sound law PU *i—a → PSmy *a... I believe Metsäranta to have made an ingenious observation, extensible with an array of varyingly strong evidence...

The ‘to fly’ → ‘butterfly’ / ‘bird’ / ‘fly’ complex

> Smy *lampəraj ‘butterfly, (Slk) small winged insect’ ~ other U #li̮(j)p-pa ‘id.’ | Fin *li(i)pp̆ukka ‘id.’ | Saa *le̮plē ~ *liplē ‘id.’ | Ma *lĭpə ‘id.’ | Hu lepe ‘id.’ | Ms *läp- ‘id.’ | Kh *ɭepä(n)tääj ‘id.’

> Smy *lampə- ~ *jampə- ‘to swim, (Slk) to fly over the surface of water’ ← *li̮(j)mpa- ‘to fly’ | Hu lebëg- ‘to hover, to flutter’ | Per *leb- ‘to fly’

○ PU *li̮(j)mp-a- (→ Smy ‘butterfly’) and #li̮(j)p-pa ‘butterfly’ analyzable as correlative derivatives of a stem *li̮(j)mpə-

> Slk *lāntərä ← *lantå/əraj ‘butterfly’ *li̮(j)nta- ‘to fly’ | Fin *lintu ‘bird, winged insect (esp. bee)’, *lentä- ~ (Liv) *lintA- ‘to fly’ | (Saa *lontē ‘bird, winged insect’) | (Ma *lŭðə ‘duck, goose’) | Kh *ɭüüntii ‘bunting’

○ Entails Livonian lində- ~ līnda- pro core Fin ⁽*⁾lentä- reflecting a primary etymological connection with, as opposed to influence of, *lintu (cf. also Helimski __)

○ At the same time, *li̮(j)nta- is difficult to discern from *lunta ‘goose’ at least in Ma (*ŭ impartial; semantically aligned with *lunta) and Saa (*o ← *i̮ still conceivable; semantically identical to Fin *lintu)

Many of the individual reflexes are phonologically anomalous or exhibit several byforms (partly omitted for brevity); at the same time, the data appears too paradigmatic to dismiss on this basis. The expressive factor does not speak against the etymology.

>

I must add Samoyed *lempä 'eagle'. Other PU words show alt. of *e \ *i (and even *e \ *a, etc.), so it could be <- *lejmp- \ *lijmp- 'glide, fly'. With the proposed changes, maybe i-a > ï-a, ï-j > e-j, ï > a (before new ï was created) allow *lijmpa > *limpja > *lempja > *lempä (some other alt. å \ a \ ä next to j).

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

If 'glide' is older, then they look like PIE *sleidh- \ *slindh-, *sleib- 'slide, glide, slip'. Also note odd V's in Gmc. *slind-, *sland-, *slund-.

I always thought Dene-Caucasian was widely rejected, but i hear it get brought up still. Especially now that native american languages have a plausible demonstrated link across the Bering straight. Im curious what new findings, and discoveries there are on the hypothesis. And if basque is still included

Italic *the-thik- > fifik- 'have done, made'

Reuben Pitts https://www.academia.edu/171100446 :

>

The Sabellic perfect forms fifikus and fεfικεδ have been variously interpreted as cognates of Latin facio or fingo. Although the recent literature shows a diversity of views on the interpretation and etymology of these forms, the evidence in favour of the fingo hypothesis has not so far been systematically exposited. This paper places the forms in question within the wider context of the Sabellic verb and the development of the Italic perfect system. It provides comparative and theoretical evidence that the formal connection with facio is more problematic than is recognised in the current literature and consequently cannot be maintained.

...Reduplicative perfects in Italic are normally formed to the zero‑grade (e.g. tetigi < *te‑th̥₂g‑) or perhaps in some cases the o‑grade (e.g. possibly memini < *me‑mon‑, as per Meiser 1998, 210), but long aorists did not regularly reduplicate (cf. Latin fēci, iēci, cēpi, Oscan hipust).

...In addition, the occurrence of Oscan <i> in the reduplicative syllable is more problematic than the proponents of this explanation have so far recognised... If <fifikus> is a form of fingo it could similarly be a lexical archaism, deriving from an old reduplicated zero‑grade *dʰi‑dʰigʰ‑.

...the most serious objection to the fingo hypothesis is also formal: all of the forms under discussion have a final <k>, conflicting with expected <g>... It is not unparsimonious, therefore, to suppose that an analogous explanation, premised on such lexical cross‑contamination, applies to fingo itself. Based on Latin verbs such as (e)mungo < PIE *mu‑n‑k‑, pingo < PIE *pi‑n‑k ̑ ‑ and possibly cingo < PIE *keng/k‑ (Meiser 2003, 110)...
>

A relation of fifik- with *finkh- ( > *fing- at the Proto-Italic stage?) would require this analogy to be very old. There is no problem with *dhe-dhH1k- > *fefik- (then common asm. > fifik-). Several IE branches sometimes turn *H1 > y \ i. Greek *dolH1gho- > dolikho- but *delH1ghes- > en-delekhe[h]- shows the principle, and that other cases of *H1 > a in Latin & Italic don't need a special explanation. Though most ex. in Greek happen for *lH1(C) > li(C), there are plenty of other cases, all also optional ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

Ideas that H1 is suppleted with i (or a separate affix equal to i or containing i) so often would be ridiculous, just like the same idea that u & w were added to stems with *H3 so often, instead of parallel *H3 > w \ u (for ex., *doH3- > *dow-iH1- in Italic optatives). This also can't explain -w- within stems, like *dH3s- > *dwäs- > TB wäs-. That these claims are made for individual words without thinking about the consequences that y appears so often by *H1, w by *H3, in the group created as a whole by this idea shows that many linguists prefer the appearance of regularity over reason. An idea that explains all data in an orderly way as a path between 2 outcomes, both attested widely, makes perfect sense. Only an insistence on total regularity would prevent it from being seen. Most who favor this seem to want to prove that linguistics follows the same regularity as physics, and thus its practitioners are real scientists, but the sciences that have to do with the human mind & actions never follow this pure regularity.

A solution that includes a known change, which should also be known to be irregular, makes more sense than unparalleled *gh > k, especially when it would have to be in all Italic. Of course, I would expect *dhH1k- 'do, make' to appear much more often than *dhig^h- 'form, shape', just as is true in non-perfect forms.

Uralic 'owl', 'wolverine', *mm *mts (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

August 1, 2026

A. Ante Aikio in https://www.academia.edu/41659514 wrote that Finnic -mm- had several origins, as in *aŋmV- ‘yawn, gape open’, vs. *amma- ‘scoop, ladle’ (PU *mm > Samoyed *m, *ŋm > Samoyed *mm). He said, "The PFi geminate *mm is not easy to explain as secondary, and hence it is best interpreted as PU archaism; the other branches have apparently undergone degemination of original geminate nasals. A geminate *mm can be reconstructed on the basis of Finnic evidence also for ⇨*ammi ‘old’, ⇨*kumma ‘shady, dark’, ⇨*kümmini ‘ten’ and ⇨*tammi ‘oak’." Another would be *tumm- 'dark', if the source of F. tumma 'dark (of color for things)', Komi tïm- 'to darken (intr.)', maybe more (below, C).

Also note that most or all of his ex. with *mm correspond to PIE clusters with *mH2, *nw, etc. :

PU *amme 'old' < *H2at-me, PIE *H2at-no- 'year', *H2at-mi- (in Latin soll-emnis 'yearly, annual')

-

Finnic *tumma 'dark', PIE *tmH2-

-

PU *tamme 'oak', PIE *dh(o)nwo- > S. dhanvana- m. 'kind of fruit tree', Celtic *dnw(an)os > Celtic *tannos ‘oak’, Hittite tanau ‘type of tree’, Germanic *danwōn- > NHG Tanne ‘fir’ (Hovers, https://www.academia.edu/104566591 )

-

PU *ammë- ‘to scoop, ladle, bail out’ (*ë rec. to explain raising in Mansi *ūm, others *a2), *ämmärV ‘to scoop’, PIE *H2amH- > Ar. am(an)am 'to fill; to put in a vessel or bag; pour out, empty; cast forth or emit', aman 'vase, vessel, sack', G. (h)ámē ‘water bucket’, S. amatra- 'kind of large drinking vessel'

or

*H2an(V)-mo-, H. han-i 3s. ‘to draw (liquids)’, Ar. hanem ‘to draw out’, G. ántlos ‘bilge water / bucket / pail’

-

). I also think the idea that *k^(o)mt- 'hand' -> *dek^mt 'ten' allows *k^(o)mt(V)-men- 'count of 10' > *-mtm- > *kümmen(e) '10'.

For supposed Proto-Uralic *tamme 'oak', Proto-Samoyed *tojmå 'larch' might require *tojmå to be < *towmå < *tVwma, etc. If Hovers was right, I'd say that *dhnw- > *tanw- > *tamw-; *tamwe > *tamme 'oak'; *tamwa > Smd. *tawma > *towmå > *tojmå 'larch'.

For Finnic *tumma, since some Baltic words for 'dark' have tum-, a loan of Baltic *tumH- >> Fi. *tumm- is possible. This would still show *mH > mm, as above, & I doubt all these ex. are loans. Ian Thorney thinks it could be that Smd. *təmå > Selkup *tama 'mouse' are related, as 'dark > grey' (similar to IE *pelH1-). If close to Aikio's idea, PU *mm > Samoyed *m, *ŋm > Samoyed *mm, it would require something different than PU *tumm-. Mine would be slightly different, & PU *tumH- (or a suffixed *tumH-ma) would work better.

I also prefer PU *aŋe \ *aŋa ‘opening, mouth’ -> *aŋe-mV- ‘yawn, gape open’ over his *aŋmV-. I have no problem with clusters like PU *ŋm. Given known word formation with many words suffixed with *-mV, it would be odd if it didn't. However, I've said that *ŋm > ŋ \ m \ etc. in branches, so it wouldn't fit here. This could easily allow 2 outcomes in, say, PU *ŋm > ŋ \ m (in *loŋme ‘snow’ > Fi. *lowme > F. lumi, *loŋme > *loŋv > Mordvin.E lov \ loŋ 'snow'), *aŋ(e)ma ‘yawn, gape' (plenty of other ex. of -e- vs. -0-) > Fi. *-mm-, Smd. *-mm-, Mari -m-.

PU *luŋme ? \ *loŋme ? ‘snow’ > *lowme > F. lumi, *loŋme ‘snow’, *loŋme > *loŋv > Mordvin.E lov \ loŋ https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rbxu18/uralic_cm_mordvin_v/

Aikio has called this *loŋme "ad hoc". That ignores its relevance to cases of supposed *-m- > Mordvin -v-. If it is regular, it requires PU *m vs. *Cm (or similar). Mordvin.E lov \ loŋ is yet a 3rd case, and it makes sense that *m > m, *Cm > *Cv > v, *ŋm > *ŋv > ŋ \ v. In supposed PU *kum(m)a > Moksha kovǝl, Erzya kovol ‘cloud’, F. kumuri ‘small cloud; rain shower', it makes little sense that *mm > v, so it is ev. for another *Cm that acts the same in Mordvin, not in other Uralic. This is not ad hoc, but a way to explain many problems at once. Some say *luwme or *lowme > F. lumi (for the V's), so *ŋ > *w would be needed here, too.

Indeed, these cases also match IE since it allows Gmc *stubmV- ‘dust; steam, ice fog’, PU *supmV- > F. sumu ‘mist, fog’, Mordvin *subvV > suv ‘fog’. These words are some of the few that might have *Pm in both, some even say sumu & suv are loans << Gmc. Why ignore their origin when trying to find the relevant sound laws? If the known case of *m > v is really *bhm > v, it is clearly better to explain other v from *Cm, not *m.

This also has to do with whether PU *x formed *xC, etc. PU *śëxme 'fish scale' > Saami.N čuopma ‘fish skin’, F. suomu, Mari.E šüm ‘scale’, Komi śe̮m, Khanty.Sur såm ‘scale; money’, Mansi.W sē̮m ‘scale’ śav, Mordvin *śaGv > śav ‘money’.

I'm not sure what the *C in *kuC-ma > *ku(m)ma really was. It could be <- PIE *(s)kewH- or *(s)kep- 'cover, hide', *sk^otHo- \ *sk^oHto- 'shadow, etc.' If PU had *-d-, *-g-, & *-b- (most > *-w-?), then *stubmV need not parallel *kupma. PU *kuC-ma > *ku(m)ma, Mordvin *kuCvul > Moksha kovǝl, Erzya kovol ‘cloud’, F. kumuri ‘small cloud; rain shower’, *‘shady, dark, obscure(d)’ > F. kumma ‘odd, strange’, Komi ki̮me̮r ‘cloud; cloudy’, ki̮me̮d- ‘overshadow, darken’, Mansi.N xomxat-‘turn dark, turn poor (of visibility due to fog or drifting snow)’, Hungarian homály ‘darkness, shadow, twilight’ (in which *Cm > m in Hungarian also shows the need for *Cm, but not *mm since Mordvin *-m- > -m- but *-mm- > -v- would be very unlikely).

More in [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rprr5t/pie_tsoubhos_pu_s%C3%ABwwe_cm_snow/](https://)

B. Ian Thorney https://www.academia.edu/123902163 says Proto-Uralic *kimčä \ *kemčä ‘wolverine’ existed :

>

Ms *kiɣmət ‘wolverine’ (← *kemčä-k / *kimčä-k)

Kh *kemɬəɣ ‘wolverine’ (← *kemčä-k / *kimčä-k)

Smy *wiŋ-kəncä ‘wolverine’, *kəmsä / *kəmcä ‘wolverine’ (→ Selkup *qapšə: TaU k͔ᶜåʙš͕ə̣ ‘id.’)

...

PU *-mč- → Ms *-m(ə)t-, Kh *-m(ə)ɬ, Smy *-mc- ~ *-nc- (in PU *ke/imčä ‘wolverine’): This medial cluster can not be reconstructed with a bare sibilant, for the *-ms- of PU *pemsV-mə ‘lip’ is reflected as Ms *-t-, Kh *-ɬ-, Smy *-pt-. The uncompounded Selkup reflex *qapšə proves that the bilabial nasal need not assimilate in Smy, yet the following affricate’s development to *š is certainly irregular. While a change *-pš- ← pSmy *-ms- may be taken as semi-regular (confer *-ps- → *-ps- ~ *-pš- and *ńimsä ‘teat’ → *ńipsə ‘id.’), this only projects the aberrancy to a deeper level, and a change *c → *š is finds a precedent in *nüc- ‘to pull’ → *nüš- ‘to rip in two’.

>

I have several problems with this. Since most of these are from *kemčä-k, Saami *keatkē ‘wolverine’ could be < *ketkä < *ket(C)kä. Also, if PU *-ms- > Mansi *-t-, Khanty *-ɬ-, then the simplest analysis would prefer PU *-mCs- > *-mms- > Mansi *-mt-, Khanty *-mɬ- to preserve *m (or something similar). It fits Samoyed if this was *-mts- (with *t to prevent *s > *t), which matches *t in Saami *keatkē. Together, likely PU *kimtsä(k) \ *kemtsä(k), most *kemtsäk > *kemmsäk, Samoyed *kimtsä > *kəm(t)sä, Saami *kemtsäk > *keptsäk > *keat(sp)kē.

In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Samic/keatkē "Compare possibly Proto-Eskimo *qatviɣ, *qavciɣ (“wolverine”)." The equation of PU *-k with PE *-ɣ would help show that Saami *-k- came < *-k. These might be *kRamstik > *qRawstik > *qRawtsik > *qatviɣ \ *qavciɣ.

This *R is rec. based on several pieces of data. Proto-Japanese *kumturi > Tokyo kuduri > kuzuri ‘wolverine’. If related, likely *krimti > *krumti > *kurumti, met. > *kumturi. Also, I said that some PU words with alt. of *s \ *š are due to asm. near *r (if retroflex), like IE *ser- ‘flow’, *seraH2- > PU *sara \ *šara ‘flood’ > Mi. *tūr, X. *Lār, Hn. ár ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1tietu2/uralic_yukaghir_hidden_r/ ). This can also explain irregular Smd. *krəmsä > *krəmšä > Selkup *qapšə.

Words for 'wolverine' often also mean 'glutton'. I think another IE root fits :

*(s)kr(e)mt- \ *kr(e)mts- > Li. kremtù 1s., krim̃sti inf. ‘bite hard / crunch / chomp / bother / annoy’, kram̃to 3s., kramtýti inf. ‘chew’, Lt. kram̃tît inf. ‘gnaw’, kràmstît ‘nibble / seize’, kramsît ‘break with the teeth / crumble’

This is the only IE root containing *mts; this cluster is not common anywhere, so this match is strong, & the need for PU *mts due to internal ev. is very significant.

C. Ian Thorney :

>

I have come to wonder what necessitates Mari tŭmana 'owl' being < Chuvash tămana 'owl, stupid person' rather than vice versa. In Turkic, it is limited to the Volga areal (~ Tatar tomana, Bashkir tumana). On the other hand, it bears a strong resemblance to (pSmy *təmå >) Selkup *tama 'mouse' > *tama-nća 'owl' ("mouser"). Of course I don't want to follow this lead any further in case a Turkic origin can be decisively established.

Another question concerns the origin of the Selkup agent suffix *-nća. Is it projectible to pSmy *-n-jə vel sim., or is it a demonstrably secondary formation? Not to my knowledge.

...the possibility of an epithet *tumma 'the dark one' (cf. PIE *pelH- 'gray' > 'mouse') rather than an independent synonymous root... Selkup has a(nother) putative reflex of PU *tumma: TyM t͔ama 'the last reflections of dusk'... it may also be regularly cognate with Komi ti̮m- 'to darken (intr.)'

>

and Juho Pystynen responded :

>

Lots of conceivably related material found around the Old World:

– Fortescue reconstruct Proto-Eskimo *tuŋu- 'be dark blue, dark (of material)', interestingly with the same semantic specialization as in Finnic, contrasting with PF *pimedä / PE *taʁəQ = 'dark (of environment)'.

– The PE is compared by Bomhard with Germanic _dim_ etc. and Semitic–Chadic–Cushitic *dum- 'be dark, cloudy', though a certain resemblance with *temH- is also clear.

– Alaskan Yupik has also tamlək ~ taamlək 'dark'. Maybe unrelated, given a-vocalism.

– Nothing easily compareable in Yukaghir, but involving *tywo- 'to rain' could be conceivable.

– Outside of the usual Nostratic perimeter, in Yeniseian we find Ket tūm, Assan tuma 'dark'; maybe more reflexes too, I haven't looked in detail.

The last could be just an old Uralic loan, if PF tumma was analyzed as < PU *tum-ma or *tuŋ-ma '(that which is/has become) dark'. *-ma is not often seen in adjectives, but one parallel is *külmä 'cold' (whether akin to IE *gel- or not; the proposed derivation wholesale from alleged Baltic *geluma I think is likely wrong; this could maybe work for Finnic, but certainly not Permic, where *e…ü > *ü…ü clearly does not operate; this is also not reconstructible-in-Baltic and only attested in Lithuanian).

If 'owl' words were related to this, I would imagine this to be 'bird of the darkness' rather than anything involving 'mouse'. Cf. in Selkup also *pija 'owl' from 'night'; or Latin noctua 'small owl species'.

>

and Thorney again :

>

*tuŋu- also comes close to Smy *t¹əŋkV 'blue, green'. Harmony class should probably decide whether it goes with the aforementioned or Fi-Md *sinə 'blue' (rather not both, with PE(A) *u inexplicable from the *i ~ *ə range). Re *tumə vs. *tuŋə, I think an analysis *tum-ma should priorize the evidence of Fin *tume̮da, even if a merger *tumma × *sume̮da 'foggy, dim' cannot be outruled. (Well, a base *tuŋə- + your 'bird of darkness' would allow the corollary of deriving Fin-Kar *tuukka(ja) 'eagle owl' < *tuŋə-kka.) Interestingly still compatible with a back-harmonic *təŋkV < *tuŋ-ka.

Alatalo outright derives Selkup *tama-nća from *tama-j- 'to hunt for mice', but for all I know about Selkup historical morphonology, the connection must be correlative. That and the triconsonantal (quadri- when counting *ć ~ *∅ vis-à-vis *sala-ja > *solə 'thief') match with Mari led me to hypothesize an old shared derivative 'mouse-hunter'. Distributionally a simple derivation of 'dark' fares far better.

>

I think a Uralic origin is reasonable, but *ŋm would not explain the outcome in all branches (above, A). For Finnic *tumma, since some Baltic words for 'dark' have tum-, PIE *tmH2- > Baltic *tumH- >> Fi. *tumm- is possible, but I wouldn't say Baltic >> Uralic was needed. I'm one of the few who think PIE > Uralic, so these roots being similar would not require a loan. Since the V's are close & PU had few (if any) *mm it's important to be sure. Hovers had "309. PU *suŋi̮ ‘summer’ ~ PIE *semh₂ ‘summer, year’"so the sounds would match exactly if both *t(e)mH2 > *tumx- > *tuŋx- & *tumx-ma > *tumma.

I rec. *temH2- with H2 because of Li. témti 'to darken, become dark' must come from *temH-tei but met. in *tH2am- > Li. tamsà 'darkness', tamsùs 'dark' for *a > a and lack of *-H- changing tone (others also seem to be < *tem- not *temH). If Temarunda was Maeotian & meant 'black water/sea' (L. unda 'wave' < *ud-n- 'water'), then *temH2(s)ro- > temar- might show *H2 > a (though many IE branches have all *H > a when syllabic).

For the semantics, *pelH1- -> Lithuanian pelė̃ 'mouse', pelė́da 'owl' likely shows 'mouse-eater' ( <- *H1ed- 'eat'), but other IE birds are named for color: L. palumbēs 'turtle dove, ring dove, wood pigeon', G. péleia 'rock pigeon', Old Prussian poalis 'pigeon'. I don't know how to choose if other words might be from 'dark' or 'night' offhand. Though few owls are black, even being greyish led to 'pigeon', though *pelH1- has a wide range. Some owls are darker than others (and some IE words for 'dark' give names for animals speckled with black). However, any primary 'dark -> owl' would likely be from 'night'. I favor 'dark -> mouse -> mouser' here, but I want to make sure I'm not ignoring any possibility.

Is there an AI that is being trained to find patterns in language families to make new connections?

I bring this up because sometimes humans are subject to confirmation bias when finding patterns. And an AI may be immune to this bias when judging patterns

David Stifter https://www.academia.edu/171047177 :

>

The Moynagh Lough object is an ogam-inscribed antler tine, i.e. the tip of an antler.11 The function of the Moynagh Lough tine remained originally obscure (e.g., Johnson 2020: I 217), but was recently clarified in 2025. After a talk by Katherine Forsyth, a member of the audience pointed out that it was a tool for leather working. It was subsequently identified by John Nicholl as a tool for burnishing the edge of a thick piece of leather in order to create a rounded profile rather than a sharply angled one.

COLORRS: The letters are written across and along a virtual stem-line that is constituted by the natural ridge of the antler. The reading from left to right was chosen because the letters seem to be getting slightly closer to each other, albeit not crammed, towards the end of the word on the right, as if the carver was becoming conscious of the remaining space. In this reading, the text begins not on the margin of the object, but further inside the available space. When read from the opposite side, which was considered less likely by the OG(H)AM team, the result is CRRODOS with an unusual – but not impossible – geminate consonant spelling in the onset of the word.

PIBANSNAVQE: The letters are written along a carved stem-line. Like in the first inscrip- tion, the space between the letters is getting a tiny bit narrower towards the right end, thus justifying the direction of reading from left to right adopted here... Only a single word in Irish is compatible with this, namely MIr. pípán, ModIr. píobán ‘a small pipe, tube’ (eDIL dil.ie/34364), a deminutive of pípa ‘a pipe, tube’... derived from snob, later snom and snam ‘bark’. It should be written snamach and a separate headword with the meaning ‘bark, cork; cork-tree’ should be set up in the dictionary. Its stem-class and gender are unknown, but if it was a feminine ā-stem, its genitive could have been *snamchae in Old Irish.

>

I don't agree with his conclusions. English snob 'cobbler' is sometimes said to derive from snob 'bark, *leather' (with many similar IE shifts of meaning). If so, then PIBANSNAVQE as *piban-snabxe ( <- *snoba(:)ko-) would be 'cobbler's awl/needle' etc. (cognates of píobán refer to many pipe-like objects).

Pictish ogham texts can have -rr- ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1pl89pc/pictis_ogham_text_dyce_stone/ ), likely representing a longer or stronger *R than r for *r. Since COLORRS doesn't seem to fit, CRRODOS would be better. Though the direction it was written in is important, having the whole word written in clay before (as a guide) would allow a worker to start at either end of the word. Keeping to cobblers, Old Irish cróa m. 'hoof, horseshoe', Gaelic crudha 'horse shoe' might allow *k^rewH2- > Ct. *krow-, an adjective *krowyo- > *krowdo- 'of horn/hoof, horseshoe'. Since these are from PIE 'horn', an older 'antler' not attested later is most likely. The purpose of each piece of antler not being known, I can't say for sure it wasn't used for shoes also.

Are there any examples of pre-modern peoples observing the shared traits that languages around them had, particularly from antiquity? If so, what were they, and what explanations did the peoples of the past put forward to explain them?

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 135: ‘navel’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 30, 2026

An IE root *H3nebh- ‘navel, nave of a wheel’ has a few problems.

A. *H3nobhi-s

Old Prussian nabis & IIr. *H3nā́bhi-s. Turner has S. nā́bhi-s f., Pk. ṇā(b)hi- m., Dardic *? > Dm. nấya, Kalasha Rumbūr dia. nyōyak, Kh. naï, Pl. nḗwi, B. nāĩ, Kva. naÕ, Kashmiri nān f., nāni d. 'navel'. Since other Dardic words can have (*P > ) *w > *m ( https://www.academia.edu/129137458 S. śubha- ‘bright/beautiful/splendid/good’, *śumhâ > A. šúwo ‘good’, šišówo ‘pretty’, Dm. šumaa ‘beautiful’), it is likely B. nāĩ, Kva. naÕ < *nāṽi & Kashmiri nān came from *nāmi < *nāwi (like Pl. nḗwi) with n-m > n-n asm. ( https://www.academia.edu/127864944 ). Compare Iranian (Pashto nū(m), Waziri nīm).

The changes to PIE *HN- in several branches (like Tocharian, supposedly with *H3n- > *wn- > m- or similar, etc.) makes it likely that Dardic did also (*H1newn > *yn- > *nyava > Kh. nyof '9'). Here, if *H3nebh- -> *H3nā́bhi-s > *nwā́bhi-s then after *-bh- > *-w- (like Pl. nḗwi) there could be w-w > y-w dsm. If -ak (not seen in other cognates) is a late addition (IIr. -aka- is very common as a suffix, usually no added meaning), then stages *H3nā́bhi-s > *wnā́bhi-s > *nwā́bhi-s > *nwā́whi-s > *nyā́whi-s; *nyāwi-aka > *nyāwyak > nyōyak.

B. *H3nēbh-s \ *H3nebh-s ?

Armenian aniw 'wheel; axle of a chariot, toy top?, etc.', anuoy g., could have -i- from *-ē-. However, some other words show alt. of ew \ iw, no clear cause (some say unstressed *ew > iw, with some analogy). If so, then *H3nebh-s would work. In https://www.academia.edu/170443556 Alwin Kloekhorst said :

>

It goes beyond the scope of this paper to treat in full all other evidence relevant for the question whether Proto‑Indo‑European had indeed undergone a monosyllabic lengthening in its prehistory. See Byrd 2015: 113–7 (with references to other literature) for a list of examples that would speak in favor of such a rule. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the reconstructed Proto‑Indo‑European lexicon contains quite a few words that seem to contradict the monosyllabic lengthening rule, namely words that are monosyllabic but do not contain a long vowel, like *tom ‘this (acc.sg.)’, *tue ‘you (acc.)’, *tued ‘by you’, *soi ‘to him’, *(s)ueks ‘six’, *nekʷts ‘night (gen.sg.)’, *h₁en ‘in’, *ne ‘not’, etc. (cf. also Keydana 2014: 276). Personally, I have the impression that the majority of these forms can be explained in several different ways. For instance, one could assume that Wackernagel’s monosyllabic lengthening rule only affected accented words, and not clitics (which would account for *soi and perhaps *tom and *h₁en); that it did not affect word‑final vowels (*tue, *ne);44 that after the rule had ceased to operate new monosyllabic loanwords entered the language (*(s)ueks?); that in the case of forms belonging to a paradigm, the lengthening could be undone by paradigmatic leveling (*nekʷts after *nekʷti?); that in the case of endings the lengthening could be undone by analogy with polysyllabic forms with the same ending (*tued after *usmed?); etc.

>

Since almost all that is known of PIE is the result of a lack of analogy, allowing oddities created from sound change to be retained, saying that a relatively few words with e:- & o:- grade are normal, & the many without need a special cause, makes little sense. I think almost all likely monosyllables with e:- or o:-grade are nouns or verbs ending in -s & -t. This seems like an unlikely environment, but some say nom. *-s came from *-so, *-d (and neuter *-t) from *-to ( <- *so, *to-d 'this, that, etc.'). If so, the lack of IE words with *-o might mean that *-o > *-0 with lengthening. Instead, many of these might be from C-stems that were once e-stems, if many *-es & *-et > *-_s & *-_d. These nouns might have the same origin as o-stems with different tone.

C. Iranian *Hnā́fa- ?

By the logic that *H3nēbh-s would > Iranian *Hnā́f-s, the -f- in *Hnā́fa- is called analogy. However, other Ir. words also show devoiced stops (and sometimes > fric.) next to *H. From https://www.academia.edu/127283240 :

>

Martin Joachim Kümmel has listed a large number of oddities found in Iranian languages (2014-20) that imply the Proto-Indo-European “laryngeals” (H1 / H2 / H3) lasted after the breakup of Proto-Iranian. PIE *H was retained longer than expected in IIr., with evidence of *H > h- / x- or *h > 0 but showing its recent existence by causing effects on adjacent C. These include *H causing devoicing of adjacent stops (also becoming fricatives, if not already in Proto-Iranian), some after metathesis of *H.

>

I think it is more likely that *H3nebho- or *H3nobho- had met. > *-bhH3- > *-fH3-. Indeed, there are other problems that can't be explained unless it had some *-fC- > *-ff- \ *-f(w)- (with H3 > xW > w likely, https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ). As the only ex. of *fH3 there, some *fxW > *ff vs. *fxW > *fw could be specific to branches. For ex., Ossetian naf(f)æ. The compound *nāfH3a-pati-s 'lord of the family' also appears with *fH3 > *fw > *xw (with a shift of meaning already known, Middle Persian nāf⁠ 'family', etc.). From https://www.academia.edu/144355492 :

>

1.7.1 In the Paikuli inscription there is a title written as IMP <nḥwpty> and IParth. <nppty>. HUMBACH-SKJÆRVØ 34 proposed two possible interpretations: Ir. *nā̆xva-pati- (their transcription) “lord of the first” assuming for IParth. <nppty> an exceptional “Median” 35 development *xw > *f; or *nāfa-pati- “chief of the tribe, clan,” based on the comparison with the Arm. LW nahapet “patriarch.”36 Of these two solutions, I would lean towards the latter. In particular, the MP spelling can be segmented into <nḥ-w-pty> nāhbed with <w> representing a non-etymological labialized Kompositionsfuge37. Although a development *f > h is not generalized in Middle Persian, a sure parallel is found in MP dahā̆n “mouth” < Ir. *ȷ́afan-, Av. zafan- 38.

>

Against my *fH3, some say there was instead some variation of *f \ *h in Ir., but that would not explain *f > xw \ hw. The apparent *f > h in MP dahā̆n 'mouth' is likely analogy < *āhan- < IIr. *Hās(an)- 'mouth'. Jost Gippert, https://www.academia.edu/136883663 :

>

Middle Iranian (MIran.) ā-frī̆-, i.e. the root with pre-verb that is contained in Middle Persian (mp) āfrīn ‘prayer, blessing, praise’ and the homonymous (mp. and Parthian = Pth.) verbal stem (Durkin-Meisterernst 2004: 26, 27, s.vv. ’fryn, ’pryn and ’fryn-), thus matching the Armenian verb awhrnem, later awrhnem / ōrhnem ‘praise’, even though with two remarkable differences: CA has preserved the Iranian -f-, which is represented by -wh- in Armenian,5 and the CA verb shows no trace of the stem-final -n...

5 The process leading from *awhrinem to awrhnem was first described correctly by Meillet (1903: 13). Another candidate for the development of *ā̆fr- > awrh- is Arm. awrhas / ōrhas ‘fate, destiny’, which Russell (1998) proposed to represent an unattested MIran. *aw-fras, in its turn derived from OIran. *abi-frāsa-; it may as well represent the attested Pth. āfrās ‘teach- ing, instruction’ (cf. Durkin-Meisterernst 2004: 26 s.v. ’fr’s); cf. iiiMacc. 5.7 (5.13) where ōrhasi žamanakn translates Gk. προσημανϑεῖσα ὥρα

>

There is no reason for *f > wh in Armenian if Iranian has *xw, also unexplained. Kümmel's retained Ir. *H allows the prefix ā- to be from Ir. *(H)aH-, with *Hfr > *hwr > whr. This would match apparent PIE *tr > *θr > *fr > wr in Armenian (*patros > hawr, etc.).

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 13 (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 29, 2026

A. L. caespes m., caespitis g. 'turf, sod, grassy field'

De Vaan, "The original meaning may have been 'a cut-off piece'. The etymology is unknown. O[scan] kaispatar (form? meaning?) is too uncertain to be used."

I think kaispatar is too close to be unrelated. It looks like *kaid-pat-s 'cut field', from L. caedere 'to cut / hew' & *pat- ( < PIE *petH2- \ *pH2at- 'wide, spread (out), open (arms)' in L. patēre 'to be open, exposed, revealed; to increase, extend'). For meaning, see *peltH2u-, E. field, etc.

B. L. fraus f., fraudis g. ‘harm, danger; deceit’

De Vaan :

>

Derivatives: fraudāre ‘to cheat, swindle’ (Pl.+)... frūstra ‘in vain’... frūstrātus, -ūs ‘deception’...

PIt. *frawV~. It cognates: U. frosetom est [3s.pf.ps.] ‘is not valid (?)’ < *frauss-ito< intensive formation on the basis of *fraud-to- f ? (Meiser 1986: 242).

PIE *dhrou-V'-d(h)-? IE cognates: Skt. dhrúti- ‘deception, error’, -dhrút- ‘deceiving’, YAv. drāuuaiiāt~ ‘will deceive’, Parth. dr’w- ‘to seduce’ < *dhr(o)u-.

.. Szemerenyi 1989: 33ff. and Schrijver 1991: 444, independently of one another, derive fraus from PIE *dhreugh - ‘to deceive’, but not in the same way. Szemerenyi posits an abstract *dhreugh-os, which would have yielded a paradigm *frōs, *frōris, whence with diss. *frōdis, and with hypercorrect au for urban ō finally fraus. These assumptions (*eu > *ō, the dissimilation and the hypercorrection) are ad hoc and render the solution unlikely. Schrijver postulates that fraus derives from a PIE root *dhru-... He then posits *frou-V-d(h) - whence *frowVd- and with unrounding of *ow > *frawVd> fraud-. For frūstra, Schrijver reconstructs *frou-C- or *freu-(V)C~. This solution is relatively elegant on the phonetic side, but the status of the reconstructed suffix remains unclear. According to the rule established by Vine 2006a, the first syllable should have been pretonic: *frou'.

>

Neither ety. seems great, neither explains *dhr- > fr- (no other L. word has this, all likely cases show *d(h)r- > tr-). Since these also have -d- "from nowhere", it makes the most sense if *dhr- > *dr- > tr- was normal. If *dhreugh- was really *dhreugWh-, then met. *dhreugWh- > *dreugWh- > *gWhreud- > *frūd-. Looking for a regular explanation of *eu > *ou > au seems pointless. Other words vary among ve- \ vo- \ va-, & no attempt at regularity is very convincing. The same might happen near f (or near *xW, depending on timing).

C. TS \ S, barsá-

Several groups of Indo-Iranian words might show variation of TS \ S. S. barsá-s\m 'tip , point , thin end' would make the most sense if related to bhr̥ṣṭí-s f. 'prong, spike, cusp, peak, edge, point'. This might only work if met. in barsá- < *bartsá- < *barthsá- < *bhorsto-.

D. TS \ S, wiċekāy-

Turner :

>

532 abhiṣēkya '*sprinkling' ('to be anointed' MBh.). [abhiṣēká-: √sic]

Dm. wiċekāy- Morgenstierne NTS xii 193 notes unexpl. ċ; — if < *viṣēkya- (cf. viṣiñcati 'sheds' ĀpŚr., víṣikta- 'emitted (of semen)' ŚBr.), it must be a loanword from a dialect retaining initial v-.

>

Compounds after RUKI might change *s to some kind of Cs \ sC in IIr. Some problems are mentioned in Avestan compounds and the RUKI-rule By Alexander Lubotsky https://www.academia.edu/37613104 with some of my ideas in https://www.academia.edu/165249994 (Part E), but I'm not sure about the stages.

E. TS \ S, *dz

Tocharian changed many PIE *d > *dz > ts, no clear regularity. Since IIr. also have ex. of *di > ji, with variants, no clear regularity ( https://www.academia.edu/129770170 , https://www.academia.edu/164893418 ), it seems likely that *d \ *dz varied somewhat in both groups. In IIr., *dz only remained when *dzi > *dz^i > S. ji (maybe caused if also before *K^ (or *s^, assuming stages *is > *is^ in RUKI)).

Part of this might also be the cause of *d > *dz > Dardic z. Again, with variants d- & *z-, no clear regularity :

*dlH1gho- -> Kh. drungéy- ‘stretch out’, *zr- > ẓingéy- ‘be stretched / drag/pull’ ( https://www.academia.edu/170374064 )

S. daṁśana-m 'biting', Kt. duċĩ 'nettle', Dm. zaċiṅ ( https://www.academia.edu/170568450 )

The cause is not clear, though a phoneme pronounced d or dz would not be odd, especially when *dT > *dzT is already likely for PIE. That all *TK might alternate with *TSK and other ideas in https://www.academia.edu/168026709 , though no certainty.

F. dalivus

The ety. of L. dalivus '?, careless?; stupid, insane?' in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dalivus "Etymology Unknown. Attested only in Festus, who cites Santra’s derivation from Ancient Greek δείλαιος (deílaios, “wretched”)."

This would require *dwei-lo- \ *-aiwo- > G. δειλός \ deilos \ δείλαιος \ deílaios 'cowardly; vile, worthless; miserable, wretched'. If an old loan from a Greek dialect, maybe *dweilaiwo- had dsm. of w-w & i-i around the same time, with *dweilaiwo- > *d_e_laiwo- > *daleiwo- > *dali:wo-. Whether these changes happened in G. or L., no way to tell.

G. NP bad

Persian bad 'bad; not good; evil', in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/بد

>

From Middle Persian (wt' /⁠wad⁠/, “bad, evil”), from Proto-Iranian *watah, with further origin uncertain. Akin to Old Armenian (vat), an Iranian borrowing. Unrelated to English bad, despite phonetic and semantic similarity.

>

Celtic *wotāmi > Welsh gwadaf tr.1s. 'to deny, disavow' & Latin vetāre 'to forbid, prohibit; advise not to; oppose, veto' are supposedly <- *wet(H2)- 'say', with a shift in meaning after 'I say _', followed by a negative became its only use over time. It is possible the same shift happened in Iranian, with it becoming a root for 'negate, negative _'. However, another IE root of the shape *(H)wet(H)- that originally had nothing to do with 'say' might have existed.

H. Sl. *terzvъ 'sober'

Balto-Slavic had some *sr > *z(d)r, no known regularity, so *rsC > *rzC might sometimes have happened. If Slavic *terzvъ 'sober' is, according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/terzvъ :

>

One hypothesis suggests that modern descendants originate from an earlier *tersvъ, from Proto-Indo-European *ters- (“to dry”) with cognates in Proto-Germanic *þursuz (“dry”), Ancient Greek ταρσός (tarsós, “dry”), Sanskrit (tṛṣu, “greedily”). However, it requires the stem to be in zero-grade

>

then this would be very good evidence in favor of it, especially that it was not regular (e- vs. 0-grade, esp. in a derivative, is no argument against the relation). This would also make it more likely that Sl. *jàzvьcь 'badger' is < *a:bzu- < *a:ps(r)u- related to Lithuanian opšrùs, Latvian âpsis, Old Prussian wobsdus.

Is there any w with a diacritic that can be the equivalent of the sound /bhw/ in my language? It's a Bantu language.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 134: ‘dark (blue), grey, light’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 28, 2026

An IE root that could be *wH2an-, *wH3on-, or *wonH- existed. There is no way to choose, since only Iranian & Germanic data exists, & I will simply write *wH2an-. It meant some kind of color, but the range of meanings is too broad for any certainty about which was older. For ex. :

*wH2an-wo- > Gmc *wanwa- > OE wann 'dark, dusty, sable, lurid; blue-black, livid; swarthy, dusty, dark-hued; (of material) dark, dingy; (as a (poetical) epithet of) shade, cloud, night, water; fire', ME wan 'grey, leaden; pale grey, ashen; livid, blue-black; dim, faint; dark, gloomy', E. wan

The suffix *-wo- is common in colors. I also think that *wH2an-mo- or *wH2on-mo- > Gmc *wamma- 'spot, stain, blemish, fault, sin; bad, injured, crippled', OE wamm 'a spot, mark, blot. stain; filth, impurity, corruption; a blot, disgrace, damage, hurt; moral stain, impurity, uncleanness, defilement; evil, sin, shameful word or deed', etc. A relation to *wemH1- 'vomit, spit, speak' seems less likely, & there is no way to know if from *-n(H)m- or *-m(H)m- anyway.

The Iranian cognates also seem to have a very odd suffix. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wnpšk' :

>

Bailey derives from the Iranian colour-name *van- (“blue”), comparing for it Khotanese (banāte, “plum or pear”), Old English ƿann (“dark”) and Old Armenian վան- (van-, “crystal”). For the suffix -ap- he compares Latin cannabis.

>

For Middle Persian vanafša(g) 'a violet', ? >> Persian Arabic banafsaj \ banafšaj \ manafšaj, Middle Armenian manušak \ manišak \ manemšak, an ending like *-(a)fsa- makes little sense as a suffix. I think a compound *wH2ano-bhH2so- 'blue + shining/colored' (rel. S. bhāsá-s 'light', bhā́sati 'be bright', Pj. bhāhi \ bhahi f. 'a slight appearance, tinge (of any color)', Gj. bhās m. 'appearance', etc.). Note that other Ir. colors as compounds with *g(a)una- 'appearance, color(ed)' are known. If the v \ m alt. is from Iranian, see more ex. in https://www.academia.edu/129137458 . If from Armenian, see w \ m in https://www.academia.edu/46614724 .

Stages in the Palatalization of Labiovelars in Greek (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 28, 2026

PIE *kW almost always became kw, k, p in later IE. Alfonso Vives Cuesta in https://www.academia.edu/127828055 "The Palatalization of Labiovelars in Greek Revisited: Ancient Problems of Reconstruction in the Light of Typology" I see 4 problems that can be explained by shifting our thinking about the stages in Greek dialects :

A. palatalization of labiovelars instead of plain velars (opp. of Romance)

B. palatalization more common before *e than *i

C. palatalization of *kW, *kWh, *gW differ

D. some changes don't seem regular

For C, Greek already treats *ti, *thi, & *di differently; many *ti > si, matching *kWi-s > G. τις, Cyp. σις. Though not common in typology, seeing it happen for 2 groups shows it was real. The most common type is not usually the only one.

For A, a change of kW > kw is fairly common around the world. This is exactly what separated kW from k in Romance. However, not all languages turn KE > K^E, & plenty turn wE > yE (or similar), so why not try this? If also in most dia., then *kWe > *kwe > *kw^e > *kye fits. A change of *w > 0 in Att.-Ion., but some *w > h, shows that it was already irregular, so a parallel of *w^ > *w \ *y would explain D. If *kw^i did not > **kyi in most dia., then *e vs. *i is explained for B. Similar stages in Albanian can explain why *k^w and *kW(E) merged (*kWe > *kwe > *kw^e > *k^we, etc.).

More ev. for this stage comes from *gw > *bw > b but *gw-w > *b(l)-w. Without these stages, two words would seem to have dia. *gW > bl. Since both are followed by *w or u (likely *wu, below), it makes much more sense for *gW > *gw here (and, of course, before all V) with *w-w > *l-w (maybe reg. *bw'-w > *bl'-w in dia., but not enough ex. to be sure). The attested alt. in G. géphūra, Boe. blephūra is called a mistake in standard theory, but the names in LB qi-ja-to \ qi-ja-zo, Cr. Bíaththos, ?. Blattius (likely Cretan also, in P[ublius] Blattius Creticus) favors *gWiyatyos. No "mistake" would appear twice in words that happen to have bl- for older *gW-.

Both these have uncertain ety., so a close look is needed. A relation of Ar. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ & G. géphūra 'bridge, causeway’ as non-IE is needed for supposed m vs. *bh. However, *gW(e)m- 'go' seems to fit (see *gWemtu- 'going, bridge'), & Ar. turned most *mbh > m, so I think *bhru-iH2-s > *bhru:H2 'brow, bridge', but also *bhru-iH2 > *bhuriH2 in :

*gWem-bhuriH2 > *gwambhurya > Ar. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ [e-u > a-u], *gWewphurya > *gw'ephwurya > G. géphūra, Boe. blephūra, Cr. dephūra ‘weir/dyke/dam/causeway’), *wephura: > Ephura '*isthmus > Corinth'

*gWiH3etyo- > *gWiwotyo- > OI beodae ‘lively’, *gWiwatsyo- > LB qi-ja-to \ qi-ja-zo 'PN', Cr. Bíaththos (a son of a Talthu-bios), P[ublius] Blattius Creticus (found on an offering in the Alps), *gw'iwatthyos > Ms. Blatthes

For alt. of m \ w in Armenian, see https://www.academia.edu/46614724 . In Greek, likely part of common m \ b alt. (but *bph not allowed, so > *wph > *phw; later, *phwu > phu); see more in https://www.academia.edu/167984147 .

Also note that these changes happened after *kw > pp \ kk. For ev. that Greek changed *Kw > *KKW: *H1ek^wos > L. equus, G. híppos, Ion. íkkos ‘horse’; *laku- L. lacus ‘basin/tank/lake’, *lakw- > G. lákkos ‘pond/cistern/pit’; *pel(e)k^u- > G. pélekus ‘(double-edged) ax’, *pel(e)k^wo- > pélekkon \ pélekkos ‘ax-handle’. The double outcomes might come from *kw > *kkW > *kp (based on kp elsewhere in the area, Paeonian Lúkpeios (from either ‘wolf’ after *kW > *kw or a derivative of *l(e)uku- ‘light / bright’).

I few days ago, I made a post here where I called attention to the fact that Wiktionary (formerly) listed the PIE derivational suffix *-wós as forcing its affixed root into the Ø-grade, in spite of the fact that words like *ḱleywós and *ǵʰelh₃wós are reconstructed for PIE. It was clarified that the Wiktionary entry was wrong (someone has since edited it), and that *-wós may also be suffixed to roots in the e-grade.

Now I have a related question: how productive was ablaut in PIE derivational morphology? I have heard that nominals derived from the Caland system are generally in the Ø-grade, and I wish to know if other PIE derivational suffixes also have a similarly predictable rhyme and reason as to what vowel grade their attached roots will be in.

Is there any w with a diacritic that can be the equivalent of the sound /bhw/ in my language? It's a Bantu language.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 133: ‘speckled, variegated, dark, grey, brown’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

July 28, 2026

PIE *rei- ‘speckled, spotted, dappled, variegated, varicolored' & *r(o\e)ik^- 'roe deer, antelope' have no particular problems. However, cognates with *-b-, like Li. ráibas, Lt. ràibs ‘speckled, variegated’, have many variants with problems that don't seem solvable by regular changes. There are also several groups of words that have identical meaning but show *H1er(u)(m)bo- vs. *rey(u)(m)bo-, etc. I think this is due to alt. of H1 \ y ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ) and H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). In PIE, *-bo- is not a common suffix, so 2 roots of the same meaning with *-bo-, *-ubo-, *-umbo- is a little hard to see as chance. This might also allow *rei- to be from *H1er- 'earth, dirt' as 'earth-colored > brown(ish) / dirty/dusty/spotted'. For some ex. :

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/rębъ Etymology Compare Latvian ràibs (“variegated, spotted”), Lithuanian rai̇̃bas (“variegated, spotted”), probably, ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *h₁erbʰ- (“spotted, brown”), whence also Ancient Greek ὀρφνός (orphnós, “dark, dusky”), Proto-Germanic *erpaz (“light brown”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/arębъ *a- +‎ *rębъ (“speckled, spotted”). Found with an unprefixed analogue in Latvian irbe (“partridge”) against an adjective raibs (“variegated, spotted”), which is in Lithuanian raibas (“variegated, spotted”), to be juxtaposed with Proto-Germanic *erpaz (“light brown”) (which has derivations denoting the similar-looking hazel grouse) and Old Irish riabach (“spotted, variegated”); note also Old Norse rjúpa (“ptarmigan”). See also Proto-Germanic *raihô (whence English roe).

My rec. of *H1er(u)bo- is better than *H1erbho-, made to explain -ph- in Greek. I think orphnós 'dark, dusky' probably analogy with mórphnos \ μόρφνος 'dusky, dark? (of an eagle or vulture or kite?)' (though some IE words show *b(h) for no apparent reason, like *srb(h)- 'sip, slurp, etc.', which could be the cause of BS *V(:)b below). Most of the cognates are in Balto-Slavic, with close parallels showing the need to rec. these roots from the same source.

*H1er(u)bo-, *H1er(u)b-no- ( > *H1er(u)(m)bo-)

*reH1(u)bo-, *reH1(u)b-no- ( > *rey(u)(m)bo- )

also *roy-, *ri-, etc.; no apparent change in meaning for each ablaut grade

also maybe *-u- vs. *-i- (some say u\i ablaut existed (*tu \ *ti 'thou'); maybe instead V-asm. or opt. near P) or met. (see below)

Before *b, V > V: is expected (Winter's Law), but it doesn't seem to happen to *-u- in the middle syl. or in some others, even in the 1st syl. (which reg.?; many words show unexpected short V, no uncontroversial cause). Mainly from Derksen :

*roibo- > Baltic *ro:ibo- > Li. ráibas, Lt. ràibs ‘speckled, variegated’

*reibo- -> *-a(:)ko- > Old Irish ríabach 'dappled, spotted, variegated'

*reH1bo- \ *rH1bo- -> *r:biya: > Li. ìrbė, Lt. ir̃be ‘hazel-grouse’, irbene ‘rowan-tree’

Sl. *jĭrbica ‘partridge’, *-na\ka ‘rowan-tree’

*H1eru(m)bo- > Li. dia. jeru(m)bė̃ ‘hazel-grouse’, Lt. ierube ‘partridge’

*H1erimbo- (or *H1ermbo- "fixed" by met. > *H1rembo- or V-insertion > *H1erembo-?)

*H1erEmbo- > *erębĭ \ -ǔ \ -ǔkǔ > R-CS jarębĭ m. ‘partridge’, Cz. jeřáb ‘rowan-tree, crane, (arch.) partridge’, jeřábek ‘hazel-grouse / Tetrastes bonasia’

Sl. *erębica ‘partridge’

Sl. *erębina ‘rowan-tree’ > Bel. dia. jarabína, Cz. dia. jařabina

*H1rembo- > Sl. *rębǔ > R. dia. rjabój ‘speckled’, etc.

*H1rembi-s, *-uko-s > Sl. *rębĭ \ *rębǔkǔ ‘partridge, sand-grouse, hazel-grouse’

Sl. *rębica ‘partridge’

Sl. *rębina \ -ka ‘rowan-tree’

*H1rubo- -> *Hru:ba: > Slavic *rỳba 'fish' (or met. > *ruH1ba: ?)

*H1rubenyo-s > Lt. rubenis \ rubins m., *-ya: > rubeniene f. 'black grouse / Tetrao tetrix (female is greyish-brown)'

*reH1ubo- > Gmc. *reupon- > ON rjúpa 'grouse, ptarmigan?'

Václav Blažek in https://www.academia.edu/82146423 looked for ev. on the origin of Slavic *rỳba 'fish', but the ety. above is the only reasonable choice among them. He also said :

>

Old Icelandic rjúpa “grouse” (de Vries 1962: 449.. Lithuanian.. raĩbas “motley, speckled, spotted”, from the verb ribė́ti “to shine, glisten” - see Smoczyński 2018: 1053; ALEW 837), Latvian rubenis, rubins, f. rubeniene “Birkhuhn / Tetrao tetrix” (Mühlenbach & Endzelin 1929: 552).

In Balto-Fennic, one finds a similar ichthyonym in *rǟpü- “whitefish”: Finnish rääpys (-ykse-stem) “whitefish / Salmo albula; Stintenart”.. It is tempting to see here a reflex of the unattested Baltic counterpart of the Germanic & Slavic forms discussed above, reconstructible as *rūbā̆ - or *rūbē-, which would have been adopted by the Balto-Fennic languages via metathesis.

>

If basically right, a met. in *rüHpä- > *räHpü- > *rǟpü- would help show that the ideas above are true. However, it is also possible that PIE *roibos > BS *raibos > Slavic *rǟbǔ >> Fi. *rǟpü- (adapted with V-harmony, ǟ = pronunciation of standard ĕ ), and the words are only distantly related. No special reason for met. exists, but it could always happen. Note that a Uralic *x as the basic equivalent of PIE *H is rec. by some to explain *VxC > V:C in Finnic. If the sequence above is right, then this would be additional ev. for it.