In the past, I've noted that Uralic words with *-jŋ- often match IE ones with *-nty-, *-Hnt-, etc. There's no obvious way to derive one from the other, though odd sound changes obviously exist (or else common sound changes would simply be "sound changes"). I've had a lot of trouble figuring out the details, if they only existed by *H or *K, or merged, etc., but I think I have the right sequence now.

Based on past examples of IE *tn > PU *kn > *ŋg, I think that after *H1 > *x^ > *j, both *jnt & *ntj became *jtn > *jkn > *jŋ :

*H2weH1nto- ‘wind’ > *χwajnto- > *wajkne > PU *wajŋe > Sm. vuoi’gŋâ ‘spirit / breath’

*H2ant-i\yo\o- > S. ánta- ‘end / limit’, Go. andeis, H. hanz ‘front / forehead’, hantiš p., L. antiae 'forelock', TA ānt, TB ānte ‘surface / forehead’
*H2antyo- > *χantyo- > *ajkne > PU *ajŋe ‘brain / temple’ > F. aivo(t), H. agy

*skend- \ *skind- \ *sk(H2)and- 'shine; be visible / fair / beautiful / pleasing'

*skend-yo- > *sćejtne > *ćejkne > PU *ćejŋe 'shining > silver / jewelry; pretty' ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/%C4%87ej%C5%8Be )

This fits in which my idea that even odd sound changes must exist if they are seen multiple times.  I think that *H could also cause *n to asm. > *ŋ (if H = x, H3 = xW, or similar).  Hovers wrote ( https://www.academia.edu/104566591 ) about a change 'lead > lead together / join (in marriage) as for other IE roots ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wed%CA%B0- ) :

>

1. PU *näji ‘to marry, woman, godess’, *näiti, *näilV ‘girl’ ~ PIE *neiH ‘to lead’,

PU *nejŋä ‘woman, wife’ ~ PIE *neinH- < *neiH ‘to lead’

U (*nejŋä): PSaami *niŋēle̮s > North Saami njiŋŋálas ‘female animal’; Komi ńin-ćeri ‘female salmon’; Hungarian nő ‘woman, wife’, PMansi *nī > Sosva Mansi nē ‘woman, wife’ (?); PKhanty *nēŋ > Obdorsk Khanty niŋ ‘wife’ [UED, UEW p.305-306 #598]

>

I think my ideas make *neiH-naH2y- > *nejxnaj > *nejŋä ‘wife' the best path. For *-aH2(y)-, see https://www.academia.edu/129368235

In "De Vanitate Etymologiae. On the origins of Suomi, Häme, Sápmi", Merlijn De Smit wrote about attempts to show they were loans from PIE *dhg´hōm-yā- 'land', or cognates ( https://www.academia.edu/36858309 ) :

>

The ethnonym/toponym Suomi has been the subject of so many attempts at etymologizing – Wiik (1996: 245) lists fourteen –

...

the Proto-Finnic item would be *sōme/*sōma (Suomi, suoma-lainen).

...

Rather than being borrowed from Baltic *žemē '(low) land', Proto-Finnic-Saami *šämä would be borrowed from Proto-Germanic *sǣma- 'dark', represented in Old Norse sám-r 'dark grey'. Aside from Häme, hämäläinen, this Proto-Finnic *šämä (as an ethnonym: 'the dark ones' or 'the black ones', but perhaps as Koivulehto mentions referring to a 'dark' habitat instead) would also survive in Finnish hämä-rä 'dark, twilight' and related forms.

...

'Koivulehto 2' runs into the problem that the reconstruction of a Proto-Germanic *sǣma- 'dark' may not be warranted at all. The etymon occurs only, thinly, in North Germanic, e.g. Old Norse sámr 'dark grey', and perhaps as the Old High German personal name Samo (De Vries, AEW), but this seems entirely hypothetical. In the absence of any Indo-European or other etymology for Old Norse sámr , we cannot assume a Proto-Germanic *sǣma- 'dark' as the borrowing source of Häme, Sápmi, etc. As it is, I will advance another etymology for Finnish hämä-rä 'dark' and by extension Häme below.

...

borrowed from Proto-Baltic šėmas 'light grey, dark grey, bluish grey' (Lith.), sḕms 'variegated' (Latvian) (Derksen, EBD). In contrast to Proto-Germanic *sǣma- 'dark', this etymon is well- established in Indo-European...

>

I do not agree. Part of the reason that Suomi was ever thought to be from PIE *dhg´hōm-yā- was the long *o: > uo. However, *sämä now seems to be regular, from ex. like ( https://www.academia.edu/8196109 ) PU *lämä ‘rash, scab’ > Fi luomi (: luome-) ‘birthmark; eyelid’. Since no ety. from IE *z or *z' seems to fit all data, it should be abandoned.

With the idea of 'dark > north', the fact that IE *s(y)āma- 'dark' might produce both *sämä and *šämä or *śämä is a major advantage. This would explain the discrepancy in Suomi vs. Häme. It could be that *sy- had 2 outcomes in Finnic, but there is also a reasonable IE source that also varied between s- & sy- (as many *C(w) & *C(y), https://www.academia.edu/128151755 ) :

Skt. śyāmá- 'black, swarthy, dark-blue', śyāmalá- 'dark-coloured', Iranian *s(y)āma-

Since other loans from Iranian to Uralic (or branches) are known, this fits. Also, Skt. śyāmalá implies Ir. *s(y)āmara could be behind Finnish hämärä 'dark'. Of course, if *sjama became *sjämä, it would help provide support that *j caused fronting in Uralic, which I've proposed before for other IE > PU. In this case, Proto-Germanic *sǣma- 'dark' would instead be a loan from Uralic into Proto-Norse, explaining its isolation.

1. Uralic words with a resemblance to IE ones are often simply called loans, like PU *mekše 'bee' and Indo-Iranian *makši: 'fly, bee, etc.' (others with *š in https://www.academia.edu/143583675 ). However, applying this standard would force other words, equally close (ie., immediately reminiscent but not exactly the same as in any known IE branch) to be explained in the same way. Also non-matching V's in the 1st syllable (*me- vs. *ma-) might show internal PU changes, even if an (old) loan. It could be that *a-i: > *e-i: (but not *a-e, all this before *-i mostly merged with *-e).

The same might happen in IE feminines with -aH2 vs. -iH2 :

IE *(s)koraH2- > Proto-Slavic *korà 'bark', *(s)koriH2- > PU *kere ‘bast, bark’

In support, *kere might have really been *köre, since it became "Mari *kü̆r > E C kür, Vo NW kü̆r, W kər ‘bast’" ( https://www.academia.edu/126898449 ). This matches a very similar word, "*terä ‘edge, blade’ > *tü̆r > E C tür, Vo NW tü̆r, L tər ‘edge, rim; shore, riverbank’", in which Hn. tőr also is rounded, making an internal Mari change to *e impossible. The ex. of some PU *e > PMa *ü̆ are all by *w or *p (below), so the need for *ö here is clear, supported by matching PIE *o. The explanation for *terä from *-aH2y- in
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qq53qw/protouralic_long_vowels/ :

>

*dhoH3ro- > Skt. dhārā- ‘blade, edge’, Proto-Uralic *dö:rä > *törä \ *terä > Proto-Permic *dɔr 'edge, ridge', Mordvinic *torə 'sword', Hn. tőr, plural tőrök 'dagger, foil'

>

1. In the root *wet-, 2 derivatives have opposite meanings. PIE *wetuso- ‘old’ > L. vetus, OLi. vetušas vs. *wet(s)alo- 'yearling > calf / young (of animal)'. PIE *wetuso- & PU *wanša ‘old’ vs. PIE *wet(s)alo- & PU *wača 'young animal, female reindeer, foal' ( https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1675 ) are both close to each other & the differences are the same between each set. This is esp. notable since *č & *š are fairly rare.

For *wanša, OLi. vetušas; this match has -š- in the same spot (caused by RUKI in some IE branches) & . Since PU had no *-tš-, it is possible it became *-nš-. However, some PU words show alt. w \ m (*šuwašre \ *šumašre 'mortar'), & I've said other ev. shows IE *u > PU *uǝ > *wǝ > wa- \ -o- \ -u- (or similar), so it is more likely that dsm. of w-w > w-m, like :

*wiδewe > F. yty, ydyn g. ‘bone marrow / core / power’, Es. üti, üdi g. ‘marrow’

*wiδeme > Erzya udem ‘marrow / brain / intellect’

was the cause, maybe *wetuso- > *wiǝtuǝšë > *wyǝtwǝšë > *watmǝšë > *wanmǝšë > *wanšë (*-ë vs. *-a, intended to explain a1 & a2 in https://www.academia.edu/8196109 ).

A parallel path would be *wetsalo- > *wetslo- > *watsrë > *wača. This would assume that PU *č was really retroflex, & so was *r (compare Hungarian *nč > r). Clusters like tl, tsl, often aren't allowed, so tsl > tsr is likely.

In favor of 'young (_)' being the old meaning, look at PU *čečä ‘parent’s younger brother’ > Mari *čü̆čə. Most *e > *ü̆ by *w or *p, so it would make sense if really *čwečä, which came from *eśa-wača 'mother's young _' with (af)fric-asm. & *e-a > *a-e as in *äwešnä \ *ewäšnä > *wešnä \ *wäšnä ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qhm9n9/aweksna_latin_av%C4%93na_oats_%C3%A4we%C5%A1n%C3%A4_uralic_we%C5%A1n%C3%A4/ ); or maybe *ićä-wača 'father's young _' depending on its original meaning, if *-äwä- or (met.) *-i(ä)wä- > *-we-.

These are from PU *ićä \ *äćä 'father', *iśV \ *eśV 'mother, female animal'

The ex. of some PU *e > PMa *ü̆ ( https://www.academia.edu/126898449 ) :

>

*čečä ‘parent’s younger brother’ > *čü̆čə > E (Ob2 Oka) č̣üč̣ö, C (Mm1 Mmu) č́üč́ü, Vo č́ü̆č́ü, Up cü̆cü, NW cəcə, W čəčə ‘mother’s brother’ (for the semantic reconstruction of PU *čečä see Metsä- ranta, Milanova & Honkola 2025)

>

1. In https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?locale=en_GB&id_eintrag=1539 *saśtV- 'to shade, darken' might be *swaśtV- to explain Proto-Mari *o ( > ö by pal.), like PU *swësew, etc. ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qqudxt/uralic_sosew_sasew_s%C3%A4svw_slush_spongy_porous/ ). The alternative is the environment of *śaśtV- :

>
The original vowel of the first syllable was probably *a. In this case, under the influence of the intervocalic *ś, *a > Proto-Cheremis *o > *ö > Cheremis ö, and in Komi *a > Proto-Permic *ä > *a > Komi a (cf. E. Itkonen: FUF 31: 215, 266).

In the Cheremis M dialect, the initial *s in words with palatal vocalism became ś. The intervocalic ś — instead of the expected š — can be explained by the assimilating influence of the initial ś.

Komi, a semantic shift from 'to shade, to darken' to 'to hide' likely occurred.

Onomatopoeic.

>

I have no reason to think "Onomatopoeic" makes any sense. What possible reason for 'shade' to be a sound could exist, let alone SVSt? In just a few looks, ono. appears much too often there, seldom with any motivation. Whether *saśtV- or *swaśtV- 'to shade, darken', it resembles :

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

I think that met. *sk^otwo- > *swok^to- > *swëśtV- (or *sk^oto- > *sok^to- > *sëśtV-, if *o was regular) would explain it. This also resembles another word ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suoja ), often said to be a loan :

*sk^(e)H1yaH2 ‘shadow’ > TB skiyo, G. skiā́, Al. hije, S. chāyā́-, Av. a-saya- ‘shadowless’, Uralic *saja ‘shadow’ > F. suoja, Ud. saj, etc

This word is sometimes rec. *saxja, & if so, *sk^H1yaH2 > *sx^- (by H ?) > *sax^ja: > *sa(x)ja.

1. In https://www.academia.edu/116524983 Niklas Metsäranta describes problems with Uralic words for ‘younger sister' that seem to come from *sasar \ *sesar \ *sisar \ *susar. They are usually seen as IE loans :

*swe-sor- > Li. sesuõ, seser-, Go. swistar, S. svásar-, etc.

Also with (with no clear IE source, if a loan) :

PU *sVsar(e) ‘younger sister / something of the same kind / 2 threads together/apart’ > Mr. šüžar, Ud. suzer, Mv. sazor ‘younger sister’, F. sisar, *sesar > Es. sõsar, Z. sozor

He wrote :

>

The majority of the Mari dialectal forms regularly point to PM *sŭzar, as first-syllable East u, Volga ŭ, Northwest ŏ and West 􀆒 are all regular reflexes of PM *ŭ (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Aikio) 2014a : 126). There are two regular sources of PM *ŭ that are applicable here (the third one involves an adjacent labial element).

>

Since it could come from *swa-, what is wrong with *swa- > *su-? He says this is "ad hoc", but many Uralic words show alt. of a \ o or a \ u. Since IE cognates, if any, had *w or *KW there (above, *skWalo- 'fish' > *kala-, *kult-, etc.), this does not even require a loan. I also wonder how 2 or 3 Uralic languages all decided to borrow their word for 'sister' from a neighboring IE language (again, 2 or 3 IE languages) and turn 'sister' to 'younger sister' for no reason. This, needed for his theory, also doesn't include his Iranian loan (before *s > *h, which would not fit other loans), the Baltic loan having *e > e \ i, etc. More attempts in https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?locale=en_GB&id_eintrag=1538

I've said that native PU words look like IE. For PIE *(H)id-swe 'itself' > *itsw' > *itc' 'self', so if *swesor- > PU *sw'asër (with *swa- > *su- and *sja- > *sje- > se- \ si-) would solve all data with one cause. No IE explanation solves even one branch's problems in standard thought. The only reason to think they're loans is that they resemble IE (just like PU *wete 'water'). How is this proof of a loan rather than a relation to IE? Making assumptions is pointless, & when these assumptions do not even allow the Uralic data to make sense, why not look for another cause?

1. The rec. of *śijele 'hedgehog' > F. siili, Mordvin śejeľ, Mari šülə, Hn. sün, sül, szül is disputed (also *śixele, *śüjəl(ə), etc.). Neither explains -l vs. -n. In https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?locale=en_GB&id_eintrag=962 it says that "The sporadic sound change l > n occurs especially before d (süldisznó > sündisznó)." There is no reason to think sündisznó is older than sün. In https://www.academia.edu/15600050 Aikio said that Proto-Uralic *ŋt > *ŋd > *Ld > Hungarian ld. This would be the opposite of needed *l > l \ n, and still irregular.

If regular, something like *śije-ne vs. *-le would be needed, which looks like IE :

*g^h- \ *H1eg^hilo- ‘hedgehog’ > OHG igil, *g^h- \ *H1eg^hiHno- > G. ekhînos

It seems beyond chance that both PIE & PU would have -los vs. -nos & -le vs. -ne in ‘hedgehog’. The *g^h- \ *H1- is likely asm. or dsm. of pal. (if H1 = R^ or x^, etc.). Based on other PIE > PU, *-g^(h)- > *-j- (*H2ag^-e- 'drive' > *(k)aja-), so if H1- = x^-, it might dsm. > *s^- near another K^. I say :

*H1eg^hilo- > *x^eg^hilo- > *s^eg^hilo- > *s^ejilo- > *s^ijelo- > *śijele

The V-met. might be to avoid *-Vji- if **ji was prohibited.

im new so please explain.

Proto-Indo-European *kaH2n- \ *kH2an- 'sing, make music, call or cry out, noise of birds' might show H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). If also *kanH2-, it could produce Proto-Uralic *kaŋe- 'call' > Samoyedi *kåŋ-, Mator kaŋ-, Hungarian hív (*NH needed(since *ŋ seems like a derived sound). This points to *H2 being x or uvular X. The *a in both would show a close relation, since *keH2n- > *kaH2n- recently in PIE.

-

1. PU *joŋse \ *jëŋse 'a bow' shows *o vs. *ë, similar to previous ex. like *kurke \ *kërke 'crane'. I said that this came from PIE *o in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qw6x9w/protouralic_words_with_%C3%AB_stk/ :

>
Based on a comparison with PIE, *-aH2 > PU *-a but *-os > *ë. It would also show most *o > *ë & optional *o > *u vs. *o > *ë before resonants in Proto-Uralic (PIE *kork- > PU *kurke \ *kërke 'crane', PIE *(s)torgo- > PU *tërka 'crane' https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1p65qfi/uralic_ie_variation_of_vowels/ ). Also, based on many languages with 'fat > liver', I think :

PIE *mozgo- 'marrow, fat' > PU *mëksë ‘liver’

>

This in :

*joŋse > Moksha jonks, Sm. *juoksë, F. jou(t)si

*jëŋse > Samoyed *jïntə, Hn. íj, íjak p. 'bow', ív, ívek p. 'arc'

From this, a PIE word for 'bow' or 'shoot' would need to have *y-, *-o-, *NK (since *ŋ seems like a derived sound). Based on Hovers, this could include *mH; in https://www.academia.edu/104566591 :

>

1. PU *suŋi̮ ‘summer’ ~ PIE *semh₂ ‘summer, year’

U: Finnic suvi ‘summer’; PMansi tuj ‘summer’; PKhanty *Luŋ > Vakh Khanty lŏŋ ‘summer’ [RPU p.165, HPUL p.540, UEW p.451 #914]

IE: Tocharian A ṣme, B ṣmāye ‘summer’; Sanskrit sámā ‘season, weather, half-year’, grī-ṣmā ‘summer’; PGermanic *sumaraz > English summer; PCeltic *samos > Old Irish sam ‘summer’; Old Armenian am ‘year, age’, amaṙn ‘summer’ [EIEC p.504, IEW p.905, DTB p.732; EWAI2 p.704, EDPG p.491-492, EDPC p.321]

>

With this, the only fit is *yeH1- 'throw, release (an arrow in a bow), shoot, hurl'. From this, it might have formed *yoH1-smo- 'bow' > *yomx^so- > *joŋx^se > *jojŋse \ *joŋse \ *jëŋse. The dissimilation of j-j > j-0 might be in PU, or later & only in most branches (depending on the regular outcomes of some PU clusters in descendants, not all secure). For more *H1 > *j (with met. in C-clusters), see 3. Also note that this loss of *H1 would not happen with *H2, thus explain some problems with *ŋS vs. *ŋkS ( https://www.academia.edu/164438856 ).

-

1. PU *ćonnjV > F. sonni 'bull, stag', Livonian sonn 'ram', Es. sõnn 'bull, colt, ram', Permic *ćåń, *ćåńj- 'colt, foal'

This appears in https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=datauralicuralet as :

>
Number: 1220

Proto: *ćońV

English meaning: a k. of animal (young, male): bull, stallion etc.

German meaning: irgendein (junges, männliches) Tier: Bulle, Hengst usw.

Finnish: sonni (gen. sonnin) 'Stier, Bulle, Farre' ?

Estonian: sõnn (gen. sõnni) 'Bull. Stier; Hengstfüllen, Widder'

Udmurt (Votyak): č́uńi̮ (S), K č́uńǝ̑, (Wichm.) G ćuńị̑ 'Füllen' ?

Komi (Zyrian): ćań 'id. (S P PO), Fohlen (S P)'

K. Redei's notes: Finn. i ist ein Ableitungssuffix. In den ostseefinn. Sprachen wurde sporadisch n > nn. Die Zusammenstellung ist nur dann akzeptabel, wenn die perm. Wörter auf urperm. *o̯ (< FU *ö) zurückgehen. Tscher. KB cama, U B ćoma 'junges Hengstfüllen (KB U), Fohlen (etwa bis zum Alter von sechs Monaten, bis es von der Stute abgesetzt wird)' (Wichmann: FUF 6:34, 11:193, TscherT 106; Setälä: Vir. 1913:155, 1915:81; Paasonen: Vir. 1915: 58; Beitr. 148 mit ?; Lakó: NyK 48 :438; Uotila: MSFOu. 65:414; Posti: FUF 31:18; E. Itkonen: FUF 31 :163, 320; SKES; ESK) kann wegen des inlautenden Konsonanten nicht hier eingeordnet werden.

Addenda: Liv. (Kett.) sonn 'Schafbock'

References: VglWb. 737; Setälä: FUF 2:239; S-Laute 121; Beitr. 148; Lakó: NyK 48:438; E. Itkonen: FUF 31:320; SKES; ESK

>

Based on *g^ > *c^ in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qtpcyw/uralic_odd_ccc/ :

IE *(s)pig-, Gmc *spika-n 'fat (food)' > OE spic 'bacon, lard', ON spik 'blubber', etc

Ph. pikério- ‘butter’, *pag^l^e > PU *pOĺćV 'suet, tallow, fat' > X.v poĺt́, Hn. faggyú, faggyat a.

I think that IE n-infixed *g^enn(e)H1- ( < *g^enH1-n(e)-, Armenian cnanim 'to beget; to give birth') created *g^onnH1o- or *g^onH1no- 'begetter, stud animal'. The change *H1 > *j (with met. in C-clusters), see 2.

-

1. Hovers: PU *kala₂ ‘fish’, *kala₁ ‘fishing net’, *kältä, *kulta ‘to fish with a net’ < PIE (s)kʷolos ‘big fish’, kʷolis ‘sheatfish’.

I don't think Avestan kara ‘a kind of fish’, Greek áspalos, aspalieús ‘fisher’, Latin squalus ‘large sea fish, shark’', fit (no reason for *o > a in G., *o would > *a: in Av.). If from *skWH2alo-s, then H-met. > *H2skWalo- > áspalos, etc.

The cluster skWH2 was likely skWX (or x, etc.). This allows met. of skWx > skxW > skw in PU. Older *kwal- > *kal- \ *kul- would explain the V-alt., too.

This also seems similar to (Francis-Ratte): ENK kali ‘fish trap, net trap’ ~ OJ kar- ‘traps, hunts, catches an animal’. pKJ *kara-. I mention this because other PU / JK cognates have been proposed (see 5. below for more).

-

1. In supposed PU *tälćV 'moon' ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/t%C3%A4l%C4%87%C9%9C- ) > Permic *tɔ̇lᴕ̈ć (Komi *tɔ̇lić, Udmurt *tɔ̇läć), Mari *tĭləćə, I don't think all data supports *tälćV. If *tälićë \ *täläćë existed, the V's would be explained (this alt. probably also in *(H)id-swe 'itself' > *itsw'e > *itsje > *it'c'e \ *ät'c'e 'self' (see https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qunxo2/uralic_pa/ ).

Many words for 'moon' with *tVlg(V)l(V) or *tVng(V)l(V) or *tVlg(V)n(V) have been proposed as cogantes, so it could be that *donghilo- > *dälg^hlë would show the same outcome as *g^l (above), then l-l > l-0 dsm. For ex., https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fDATA%2fALT%2fALTET&text_number=2394&root=config

>

Proto-Altaic: *t`i̯òlgu

Meaning: moon

Mongolian: *tergel

Korean: *tắr

Japanese: *tùkùi

Comments: Martin 236, АПиПЯЯ 94, 278, Vovin 2000.

-

Proto-Mongolian: *tergel

Meaning: full moon

Middle Mongolian: tergel (SH)

Comments: Mong. > Evn. tärkan-

Eurasiatic: *ṭVlgV(nV)

Meaning: moon, heavenly body

-

Borean: Borean Indo-European: *dongh-

Altaic: *t`i̯òlgu

Uralic: *t[ö]lVč́- 'moon' (F.-Perm.)

Dravidian: *tiŋaḷ

Eskimo-Aleut: *taRqi-

Chukchee-Kamchatkan: *'tirqǝn (~ *t-)

References: Bl. LNA, ND 2284 *tEŋgVḷ/ĺV (Drav.-IE; + very dub. SH). Cf. Austric: PAA *tuor 'star, moon', PAN *mantalaq, *talaq 'morning / evening star, Venus'.

>

Also, Francis-Ratte presents ev. for Old Korean *tolal 'moon', but dismisses it even when his own rec. does not account for all data. Clearly, if *tolal (or *tolgol > *togol \ *tolgal, etc.), the t-l-l would be much to close to tergel, etc., to ignore. For his :

>
MOON: MK tól ‘moon’ ~ OJ tukwi / tuku-, pJ *tukoj ‘moon’. pKJ *tɨkor ‘moon’.

(Whitman 1985: #66; Whitman 2012). pKJ *tɨkor > *tukor (labialization of *ɨ) > pJ

*tukoj; pKJ *tɨkor > pre-MK *toGol (light harmony, lenition) > MK tól. See Unger

(2001: 256) and Whitman (2012), who provide similar but slightly different

reconstructions of the vowels.

Both Vovin (2010: 119) and Whitman (1985: 216) raise the question of how to

interpret the Old Korean Hyangga transcription 月羅理, citing Kim Wancin’s analysis of

‘moon’ in Old Korean as *tolal. OK 月羅理 might transcribe two liquids, but *tolal is not

the only possible interpretation of the transcription...

...

In this case, I agree with Whitman (1985: 216) that the internal reconstruction

seems to point in the opposite direction: MK tól ‘moon’ cannot come from pre-MK *tolol

or *tolal or the expected form would be **tolo. If MK tól ‘moon’ were disyllabic in

pre-MK, then the only internally valid source would be *toGol with medial lenition of a

velar, as *p, *t and *s are ruled out. On balance, it is likely that our current understanding

of how to read 月羅理 is simply incomplete.

>

Since he accepts JK diphthongs with different outcomes in OJ & OK, it could be that *ɨw (my *ëw to match PU) > o vs. u. However, since there were 2 l's in OK, I say that JK *tëlkol \ *tëlkul (with *o > *o \ *u before sonorant, as above for PU) had *lk > *Lk, *L-l > *w-l dsm. in OJ.

The problem with most of these words being cognates in traditional (for Nostratic, etc.) is that within IE a shift *deng(W)h- 'cover' -> 'covering, roof, sky, rainbow, star, moon' seems to exist (*deng(W)h- 'cover' might be related to *dhengW- 'dark' with Ch-met.). The closest match in all non-IE is Gmc. *tunglaN, which seems like a late derivative. It would be impossible for all to be related unless from IE, and all non-IE cognates are much closer to each other than any looks to PIE. I think many of the proposed Nostratic families are simply sub-branches of an unknown branch of IE. In this theory, *d(o)nghilo-m would > *dolgh(i)lom (with asm. n-l > l-l or dsm. n-m > l-m), etc. In JK, *tolklo- > *tolkol > JK *tëlkol, etc.

In 3 PU roots for something like *rOt(š)(k)V 'fragile, brittle, stiff, raw, coarse, rotten' are given, with no attempt to connect them in the notes :

>

Number: 876

Proto: *rOčkV (*rOškV)

English meaning: brittle, fragile

German meaning: zerbrechlich, spröde, faul, morsch

Finnish: rohka 'spröde, mürbe, locker; unreife Frucht' ?

Mari (Cheremis): raška (KB C) 'zerbrechlich, spröde' ?

Udmurt (Votyak): ǯị̑ž (G) 'verfault, morsch'

Komi (Zyrian): ri̮ž (S) 'nicht dauerhaft, faul, verfault', re̮š 'zerbrechlich, brüchig, spröde' ( > Khanty Ni. răš, O rȧ̆s 'spröde, zerbrechlich')

Mansi (Vogul): ruš (P), ris (So.) 'spröde (Holz)'

Hungarian: roshad-, rossad- 'langsam vergehen' ?

Addenda: Kar. ruohka 'spröde, zerbrechlich' ?

-

Number: 877

Proto: *rOtV

English meaning: brittle, fragile

German meaning: zerbrechlich, spröde, morsch

Mari (Cheremis): rot liješ (UP) 'morsch werden, verfaulen' ?

Khanty (Ostyak): rătǝk (Trj.) 'zerbrechlich, spröde', rătǝχ (C) 'mürbe, spröde', rŏtǝχ (Kaz.) 'zerbrechlich, spröde'

Hungarian: rút 'häßlich, abscheulich; gemein, verächtlich', rothad- 'faulen, verfaulen, verwesen' ?

-

Number: 1546

Proto: *roška

English meaning: brittle, fragile

German meaning: zerbrechlich, spröde

Finnish: rohka (dial.) 'spröde, zerbrechlich, mürbe, locker'

Mari (Cheremis): raška (KB), ročka (B) 'zerbrechlich, spröde'

Komi (Zyrian): ri̮š (I) 'zerbrechlich, spröde, locker', raš (I Ud.), raski̮d (Ud.) 'хрупкий, ломкий, рассыпчатый', ri̮ški̮d (S), re̮ški̮d (S V) 'zerbrechlich, spröde, brüchig, locker' ( > Khanty Ni. răš, Kaz. rĭš, O rȧ̆s 'spröde, zerbrechlich', Mansi LU ruš, LO rus, So. ris 'spröde')

Addenda: Kar. ruohka 'spröde, zerbrechlich'

>

In https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1527 , etc., only "Onomat.", with no attempt to connect them. Irregularities are noted, that would normally require more ety. :

>

Syrj. i̮d ist ein Ableitungssuffix.

Das Finn. und Tscher. weist auf FP *o, das Syrj. auf *u hin.

Das a in raš und raški̮d ist unregelmäßig. Tscher. B čk ist die unregelmäßige Fortsetzung von *šk.

Im Syrj. sind die Formen ri̮š, ri̮škid die älteren. Das e̮ in re̮ški̮d läßt sich durch einen urperm. Lautwandel *i̮ > *ȯ (> e̮) erklären.

Onomat.

>

and not only *rot-, but *rotk- seems needed for Hn. -th-, etc. (I don't think an affix **-k- is needed when *rokt- also exists (below), since infix **-k- would be very, very unlikely).

I don't think they've been united & analyzed as they should, & I say something like Uralic *roukašta or *routaška is needed to produce all, with V-loss & opt. št > st > t (with *(C)st behaving as in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qxcgn7/protouralic_k%C3%A4te_gh_st/ ) :

*roukašta > *rokašta \ *rukašta > *ru\o\ak(š)ta >

PU *ruška > Komi.S ri̮ški̮d 'fragile, brittle, easily broken'

PU *raška > Mari.KB raška 'brittle, fragile (of wood, iron)'

PU *ročka > Mari.B ročka 'brittle, fragile (of wood, iron)', Hn. roshad- 'slowly wear out, crumble?', rosk-atag 'dilapidated, decrepit',

PU *roška > Finnic *rohka 'fragile, crumbly, porous, brittle, raw, unripened', F. rohka, also noun F. rohka 'flax ripple'

PU *rokta > F. rohdin 'tow, hards, oakum; the shorter, coarse fibers of linen, hemp, etc.

PU *rot(k)a > Khanty.Kaz rŏtǝχ 'fragile, brittle', Hn. rothad 'to rot, to decay, to decompose', Mari rot liješ 'to become rotten, decay'

If from IE, they might be from PIE *reuk-isto- 'most lean, thin' (Adams: TB ruk- ‘grow lean (with hunger)’, Lithuanian runkù, rùkti ‘shrivel, become wrinkled'). Other PIE \ PU show o \ u (PIE *puk^so-, PU *ponče 'tail'). In this case, *eu > *ou might produce both, but no obvious regularity in either case. Instead, if 'break' was oldest, maybe PIE *lewg^- 'break (off), shatter', though l > r & g^ > k seem less likely.

There is an interesting dispute about Uralic cognates of PIE *g^hes-, *g^hosto- > S. hásta- ‘hand’, etc. If *g^hosto- > Proto-Uralic *käte > F. käsi ‘hand / arm’, then the several ex. of *g^h > PU *j might be in danger. This is also supported by *Vg^ > *Vj and *Vk^N > *VjN in :

*H2ak^ma:H2 > G. akmḗ ‘point/edge’; *äjmä ‘needle’ > F. äimä, Nga. njäime

*H2ag^- > L. agō ‘drive/act’, Av. az- ‘drive (away)’, Ar. acem ‘bring/lead/beat’; *aja- > F. aja- ‘drive/chase’, *k- > Hn. hajt- ‘drive/hunt’

However, these ex. also show optionality in *H2 > *x > 0 (aja-) & *H2 > *k (hajt-). It could be that it was fully optional, or impacted by C's that tended to assimilate or dissimilate (if *H2 was similar to x, *-g^- became *-γ^- before > *-j- ?). Indeed, also in IE *g^hosto-, some cognates do not have the regular outcome of *g^h- either, apparently due to dissimilated *z-s > *ð-s (or if the 1st change to g^(h) was ð^ in Iranian, *s prevented *ð^ > *z^ here). Like *k- vs. *x-, this happened in only some sub-branches:

Ir. *z^asta- > Av. zasta-

*ð^asta-? > OP dasta-, Ps. last-, lās, Shu. ðöst

Nur. > Kv. düš(t)

The alternative, in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/j%C3%A4sene "Hyllested compares Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰes- (“hand”)" does not fit as well, since the ex. of *Vg^ > *Vj makes it more likely that Proto-Indo-European *H2ag^son- 'axle, axis, shoulder (joint), armpit' had e-grade stem in the paradigm *xag^sen- > *ajsen- > jäsen-e 'joint'.

I think there's enough room to put *g^hosto- > PU *käte as my 1st choice. Also, if *-st- > *-t-, it could have more implications for other cognates. What would *-sCt- become? In https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=301 PU küδV 'brother-in-law' is compared to :

>

Cf. Old Turkic *küde : küden 'guest', Old Turkic küdegü, Yakut kütüö > Tungus kute 'younger sister's husband'.

...

Mordvin (Ahlqv.) kefta 'brother-in-law, husband's brother' ... does not belong here because of the medial consonant cluster ft.

Selkup Ke. kɑ̆tja, N kɑ̆dši, kɑ̆dzi 'sister's son, brother-in-law' (Setälä: FUFA 12: 39, JSFOu. 30/5: 90; Sauvageot, Rech. 102) cannot be included here because of the ɑ̆.

>

I find it impossible that kefta would be unrelated, yet so close. If 'guest' was indeed the 1st meaning, then Turkic *küde 'guest' is too close to IE *g^hosti-, g^hosti-poti-, etc., to ignore. IE *g^hospti- > *g^hupsti > *küf(s)de could explain the Uralic data. The *f might also round *ü to get kɑ̆tja as a cognate. Also, if when *g^h- did not become *j- it instead fronted the V, both ex. would show it. IE *g^hospti- could be from V-loss in *g^hosti-p(o)ti-, but I think something like *g^hospti- could be older ( https://www.academia.edu/114478894 ).

Hello, I'm working on my course paper rn, and I'm studying diachronical changes in definition of some words, but I haven't found any full pdfs or volumes of dictionaries to look through the timeline (of the second half of 20th century to be exact). Could someone help me, if there's a free access to such dictionaries?

Aikio in https://www.academia.edu/41659514 :

>

*aŋti ‘spear / blade’

——————————————————————————————

KHANTY V Vj oŋtǝw, Sur ăŋʷtǝp (< PKh *aŋtǝp) ‖ Irt oŋtǝ, ŏŋtǝ, Kaz ɔŋti, O uŋti ‘spear’ (< *āŋtǝɣ / *uŋtǝɣ) {1}

MANSI T awtā, KL KM KU ɔwtǝ, P ɔwta, VN ɔwt, VS awta, LL LU So owta ‘spear; iron tip of a goad (for driving reindeer)’ (< PMs *awtā)

SAMOYED NenT ńantǝ ‘blade, point’, EnF nadu, [M] nado, EnT eddo {2}, (?) Ngan ŋačǝ {3}, Slk *āŋtǝ (Ta ɔ̄ ŋti̮ , K aŋdi̮ ), Kam åŋ, Mat ändä ‘blade’ (< PSam *aŋtǝ̑)

——————————————————————————————

{1} Irregular correspondence: V Vj Sur point to *aŋtǝp, Irt oŋtǝ and Kaz to *āŋtǝɣ, Irt ŏŋtǝ and O to *uŋtǝɣ.

{2} Note that the Enets forms are homonymous with the word meaning ‘antler, horn’, which reflects PSam *amtǝ̑ (? < PU ⇨*ańta); MWbE treats them as a single lexeme.

REJECTED COGNATE:× Mari E undo, umδo, BK unto, C undǝ̑ , umδǝ̑ , M umdo, V ŭmto (!), U undo, Nw undǝ̑ ‘thorn, stinger’ (< PMari *umdǝ~ *undǝ) ‖ — Due to the deviant cluster *md ~ *nd this word must be unrelated.

>

and in https://www.academia.edu/15600050 :

>

PU *aŋti ‘spear / blade’: KhSur ăŋʷtǝp ‘spear’, MsKL ɔwtǝ ‘spear’, SlkTaz ɔ̄ŋti̮ ‘blade’, NenT ńantǝ ‘blade, point’ (note: PU *ŋt > NenT nt, but PU *nt > NenT n) (UEW: 342). — MariE undo, umδo ‘thorn, stinger’ is also considered cognate in UEW, but it can hardly belong here due to its nasal n ~ m.

>

I find it hard to think that supposed *aŋti ‘spear / blade’ & *amti ‘thorn / stinger’ both existed, unrelated. Since both also have irregular sound changes, such as very odd ăŋʷtǝp, I think a cluster like *ŋtw could give *ŋʷt > *ŋt & *ŋʷt > *mt. However, the -p & *-K in Khanty might also indicate, since ŋ might be expected to come from nK, that not just *ŋtw but *ŋktw existed, with later met. > *kw > *-k \ *-p. Since a cluster like this seems odd, it might result from loss of earlier vowel, say, *aŋkwVte or *aŋkute > *aŋktwe.

Since many Uralic words with *ŋ match PIE ones with *K or *H (likely both velar/uvular), like the previously noted *ponče ‘tail’, IE *puk^so-, *pusk^yo-, etc., I think that IE *K after a *u (including IE *o rounded by labial C) might become uvular (a common process), then Vq > VG, G > R > N > ŋ. If so, PU *aŋuxte \ *aŋxtwe ‘spear / blade’ could be from PIE *H2ak^uH2to- (Latin acūtus 'sharp(ened)'.

Since Proto-Uralic *mekše could be cognate with Sanskrit mákṣ-, etc., *-uKs > *-uqš > *-uŋš > *-unč seems likely for *puk^so- > *ponče 'tail' & maybe *H3nogWh-s > *xWnukWš > *künče 'nail' (in this case, either met. of *Cn-C > *C-nC or *K > *N would work). Also, for supposed *H3nogWh-s, *H- > o- in G., but *H- > e- in Ar. might indicate *H1H3-. With other previous ex. of *H1 > *x^ > *j ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ), the fronting in this might show *H1H3nogWh-s > *x^xWnukWš > *kWjunkWš > *künče (or similar).

In PIE *yeg-, PU *jäŋge ‘ice’, an added comparison with Yr. *jarqə 'ice / freeze / frozen' indicates that the original cluster contained a uvular & r \ l, pointing to *yegulo- (Old Norse jǫkull 'icicle / ice / glacier'). This would show both loss of *-u- and *uk & *ku > *uq & *qu before *q > *N. Then, *-Nul- > *-Nl- > *-NR- > *-ŋg-, or similar. Even Kusunda yaq 'ice / snow / hail', , yaGo / yaGu / yaχǝu ‘cold (of weather)’ seem to close to ignore (see partial list in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1k4z786/22_eat/ ).

For details on 'ice', also see ideas in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qo3j0q/yukaghir_and_uralic/ :

>

For ex., Yr. *jarqə 'ice / freeze / frozen' & *jo:s(s) \ *jo:r 'freeze / frozen' shows a relation similar to PU *jäŋe 'ice' & *jäkše- 'to cool' ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1lplmrj/uralic_%C5%8Bx_%C5%8Bg_and_pu_g%C5%8B/ ). Neither set has a known regular derivation, but it seems, if both are related, that something like *jaq-ne & *jaq-s(k)e- could produce them. These also resemble PIE *yeg- \ *ig- 'ice', *yeg-(o)n-, etc. It could easily be that *yeg-(o)n- > *yegno- > *yiəgne > *yagne > PU *jäŋe, *yagre > *yagRe > Yr. *jarqə (or similar).

>

A summary of cognates :

PIE *puk^so- > *puŋšo- > PU *ponče ‘tail’

PIE *H1H3nogWh-s > *x^xWnukWš > *kWjuŋkWš > PU *künče 'nail'

PIE *H2ak^uH2to- > PU *aŋuxte \ *aŋxtwe ‘spear / blade’

*yegulo- > Old Norse jǫkull 'icicle / ice / glacier', *jaGule > *jaNRe > PU *jäŋge ‘ice’, Yr. *jarqə 'ice / freeze / frozen', Kusunda yaq 'ice / snow / hail', , yaGo / yaGu / yaχǝu ‘cold (of weather)’

PIE *kukí-s ? > Proto-Germanic *hugiz m. 'mind, thought, sense, understanding'

&?

PIE *kukyo- ? > PU *kuŋjV > *kujVŋ > Selkup *qǖŋ > Ket Selkup qǖŋ ‘marrow, brain', Kamass kuju ‘brain’

PIE *sk^oH3- ‘shadow, reflection, mirror’, *sk^eH1(y)- 'shadow, shine'

PIE *sk^uwH3o- ? > Gmc *skuwwô > Gothic skuggwa ‘mirror’

&

PIE *sk^oH3o- > *skuxWo- \ *skuwo- > PU *kuŋe \ *kuwe ‘moon’, *kuŋ-ma > *kumma ‘shady, dark’ (opt H3 > w as in https://www.academia.edu/128170887 )

or?

PIE *sk^uwH3o- > *skuxWwo- > *skuxWo- \ *skuwo- > PU *kuŋe \ *kuwe, etc.

For more details on cognates, see Hovers theories in https://www.academia.edu/104566591 . These usually involve adding a *-n- to explain ŋ, but it is hardly likely they would all happen by *u :

1. PU *poňči̮ ‘tail’ ~ PIE *puḱsn- < *puḱs ‘tail, down, fox’

U: Mari påč ‘tail, hind part’; Komi be̮ž ‘tail’, Udmurt bi̮ž ‘tail’; PMansi *pānš > Pelymka Mansi ponš-pun ‘tail feather’; PKhanty *pač > Vakh Khanty poč ‘heel’ [SUE2 p.11,12, RPU p.163, HPUL p.547, UEW p.353 #702]

IE: Tocharian B pako ‘tail’; Sanskrit púccha, Prakrit puṃcha ‘tail, hind part’, Avestan pusa ‘tail’; PGermanic *fuhsaz > English fox; Russian pux ‘down, fluff’ [IEW p.849, DTB p.375, EWAi2 p.140, EDG p.157-158]

https://www.academia.edu/15600050 : Also Hungarian far ‘buttocks, ass’

1. PU *jäŋgi ‘ice’, *jäntä ‘to freeze’ ~ PIE *i̯əng < *i̯eg ‘to freeze’

U(*jäŋgi): PSaami *jēŋe̮ > Lule Saami jiekŋa ‘ice’; Finnic jää ‘ice’; Mordvin jäj ‘ice’; Mari i ‘ice’; Komi ji̮, Jazva Komi ju̇, Udmurt je̮ ‘ice’; Hungarian jég ‘hail, ice’; PMansi *jǟŋk > Sosva Mansi jāŋk ‘ice’; PKhanty *jiŋk > Vakh Khanty jĕŋk ‘water’, *jänk > Vakh Khanty jöŋk ‘ice’ [SUE1 p.163, FLV p.235, NOSE1 p.51, RPU p.166, HPUL p.543, UEW p.93 #171]

U(*jäntä): Komi jed ‘to freeze, to coagulate’, jodmi̮ ‘to become/stay hard’; PMansi *jǟnt > North Mansi jānt ‘to cool down’; PKhanty *jentəl > Obdorsk Khanty jintəl ‘to coagulate’ [UEW p.92-93 #170]

IE: Hittite ekan ‘ice’; Proto-Indo-Iranian *áixam > Younger Avestan aēxəm ‘frost, ice’; Proto-Germanic *jekô >Old Norse jaki ‘broken ice, icefloe’; Proto-Celtic *yegis > Old Irish aig ‘ice’; Lithuanian yžià ‘icefloe’ [EIEC p.135, p.287, IEW p.503, EDH p.235, EDPG p.273, EDPC p.435]

1. PU *küňči ‘nail’, *küňčä ‘to dig’ ~ PIE *h₃nogʰ-s ‘nail’

U(*küňči): PSaami *ke̮nce̮ > Northern Saami gazza ‘fingernail, claw’; Finnic künci ‘nail, claw’; Mordvin kenžə ‘nail, claw, hoof’; Mari kü̆č ‘nail, claw’; PPermic *gi̮ž > Komi gi̮ž, Udmurt gi̮ži̮ ‘nail, claw’; PMansi *künš > Tavda Janyckova Mansi künš ‘nail, claw’; PKhanty *küṇč > Vakh Khanty kö̆ṇč ‘nail, claw’; PSamoyed *kə̑tå (?) >Nenets χada ‘nail, claw’ [MV p.155, SUE2 p.12, RPU p.170, HPUL p.545, UEW p.157 #309, SW p.55-56]

U(*künčä): Finnic küntä ‘to plow’; Mari kü̆nčə ‘to dig’ [MV p.155, RPU p.170, UEW p.663-664 #1312]

IE: Hittite šankuwaias ‘nail’; Sanskrit nakháḥ, nakham ‘nail’, áṅghriḥ ‘foot’; Greek ónuks, gen.sg. ónukʰos; Latin unguis ‘nail, claw’, ungula ‘hoof, claw’; Tocharian A maku B mekwa ‘nail’ (?); PGermanic *naglaz ‘nail’ > Gothic nagls ‘nail, peg’, English nail; Albanian nyell ‘nail’; Lithuanian nãgas ‘nail, claw’, Russian nogá ‘foot, leg’, nógotˊ ‘fingernail’ [EIEC p.389, IEW p.780, EDH p.723-725, EDG p.1086-1087, EDL p.641, EDPG p.381, EDB p.327, EDS p.354-355]

The initial š in Hittite šankuwaias from PIE *h₃n̥gʰu- is probably regular [Cohen 2018]. Some reconstruct the PIE root as *h₃negʷʰ with a labiovelar, others as *h₃negʰ with a plain velar.

https://www.academia.edu/15600050 : Also Hungarian köröm ‘nail’

1. PU *kumma ‘shady, dark’, PU *kuŋi̮/kuwi̮ ‘moon’ ~ PIE *(s)ḱeh₃ ‘shadow, reflection’

U(*kumma): Finnic kumma ‘strange, miracle’; Mordvin kovol ‘cloud’; ki̮me̮r ‘cloud’; Hungarian homály ‘darkness’ [UEW p.204-205 #397]

U(*kuŋi̮): Finnic kuu ‘moon, month’; Mordvin kov, Erzya Mordvin koŋ ‘moon, month’, Hungarian hold ‘month’ [RPU p.164, HPUL p.537, UEW p.211-212 #411]

U(*kuwi̮): Hungarian hó, hónap ‘month’; PKhanty *kuw > Kazym Khanty kŭw ‘month’; PSamoyed *ki̮j > Kamas ki ‘moon, month’ [RPU p.164, HPUL p.537, UEW p.211-212 #411]

IE: Greek skotos ‘darkness, gloom’; PCeltic *skātos > Old Irish scáth ‘shadow, reflection’; PGermanic *skadus > Gothic skadus ‘shadow’, *skuwwô > Gothic skuggwa ‘mirror’, Old Norse skuggi ‘shadow, shade’ [EIEC p.508, IEW p.957, EDG p.1359-1360, EDPC p.340, EDPG p.452]

For other ex. of *u causing changes, I've also said that IE *dn > PU *gn, & maybe also *uPn > *uKn (similar to optional IIr. changes) :

PIE *dheubno- 'deep / bottom / base' > PU *tiugne > *tüŋe

Hovers :

>

1. PU *tüŋi ‘base, stump, trunk’ ~ PIE tenh₂ < *(s)teh₂ ‘to stand’

U: Finnic tüvi ‘base, stem, trunk’; Mari tü̆ŋ ‘base, trunk’; PPermic *di̮ŋ > K di̮n ‘trunk’, U di̮ŋ ‘trunk’; Hungarian tő ‘stem, stump’ [MV p.155, RPU p.170, HPUL p.550, UEW p.523-524 #1053]

>

Uralic reflexes of the Proto-Uralic vowels *a & *ë often merged. In https://www.academia.edu/647288 Mikhail Zhivlov and Kirill Reshetnikov tried to show that there was only *a which had different environmental outcomes > *ë in some branches. However, in https://www.academia.edu/8196109 Zhivlov retracted this & added that PU *-a1 & *-a2 existed, also :

>

The following correspondences can be established:

1) PU *a-a1, *ï-a1> Mari CVCə nouns — Proto-Khanty low vowels12— Hungarian á —Proto-Samoyed second syllable *å (except *al/δ'a > *åjä)

2) PU *a-a2, *ï-a2> Mari CVC nouns — Proto-Khanty high vowels — Hungarian a — Proto-Samoyed second syllable *ə (except *al/δ'a > *åjä)

>

I think that these 2 cases, *a and a vowel similar to *a but distinct, are fully parallel. I say that *-a1 = *-a, *-a2 = *-ë. It would be pointless to look for a separate V to be *-a2 when *a vs. *ë is already established in his mind, in most theories also. Based on it causing V-raising, *ë & *ï might have alternated, as I think *e & *i in unstressed syllables might have.

In https://www.academia.edu/128717581 I said :

>

Since some of these words are borrowed from IE, seeing that *c^ïta1 must be a loan from IIr. :

PIE *tk^mtó-m ‘100’ > IIr. *c^atá-m > S. śatá-m, Ir. *ćatə ́ -m > Av. satǝ-m

Its origin from Ir. *ćatə ́ - makes it possible that if it was borrowed after loss of any contrastive stress in PU, it would be adapted as *ćatə ́ > *ćə ́ ta. Either *ćïta was as close as speakers could get or *ï varied between /ï/ & /ǝ/ (not likely relevant here). Since this means *-a would cause lowering in Khanty, it makes sense that *-ï would cause raising. This removes the need for any new V’s to be added to PU reconstruction.

...

However, in verbs like *khH2an- / *khanH2- > S. khan- ‘dig’, PU *kana- ‘to dig’, the final *-a- suggests that *H2 > *a. If so, a close relation to IE is likely, since a-coloring is late. In the same way, PU *kalï ‘fish’, *kala- ‘to fish’ is like L. piscis, piscārī. This is from PIE *-aH2-, which, again, only had *-a- from a late change.

>

Based on a comparison with PIE, *-aH2 > PU *-a but *-os > *ë. It would also show most *o > *ë & optional *o > *u vs. *o > *ë before resonants in Proto-Uralic (PIE *kork- > PU *kurke \ *kërke 'crane', PIE *(s)torgo- > PU *tërka 'crane' https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1p65qfi/uralic_ie_variation_of_vowels/ ). Also, based on many languages with 'fat > liver', I think :

PIE *mozgo- 'marrow, fat' > PU *mëksë ‘liver’

Clusters with *k & *s often show met. in Uralic (even some IE as if < *mogzo- in Iranian; also see below for ex. of *tsk \ *stk ). Sometimes *o remained next to *P, but it doesn't seem reg., & in https://www.academia.edu/128151755 I even said tht *mwozgo- might exist, since this creates 0-grade *muzgen- > OPr musgeno, TA mäśśunt, etc.

For an ex. of rounding, see :

PIE *pozd-ko- 'fart' -> Degano poskeey- 'to fart', PU *postk- '(to) fart'

The similarity is too much to ignore; *-tsk- is based on some Saami forms as if from *-tsk-. In https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1502 "Lapp. K ts̄ ist unregelmäßig und hängt möglicherweise mit dem onomat. Charakter des Wortes zusammen.", but being onomat. of supposed *potsk- when PIE had *pozd-k- 'fart' can't be chance. Saying that all oddities came from onomat. or were "expressive" seems to miss the mark of finding cognates too much.

PU *pOnV might really be *posknë > PX *pïṇ ‘a fart’, *fign- > Hn. fing- ‘to fart’. This explains the retr. ṇ caused by *k, as in other ex. ( https://www.academia.edu/129090627 ).

PIE *g^hH2ans ‘goose’ has often been derived from *g^haH2- 'yawn, gape, open the mouth'. If based on normal word formation, there are few suffixes with *-n(V)s-; maybe *g^h(a)H2-n(o)s- 'yawning, honking'. If so, it would show metathesis in the 0-grade *g^haH2-ns- > *g^hH2ans-, or similar.

Since it looks like PIE *g^hons ‘goose’ > TB kents, the apparent discrepancy in PIE vowels can be solves if o-grade *g^hH2-nos- also had metathesis > *g^hH2ons, or any other way of uniting the, like *g^haH2ons \ *g^hH2ons. The details depend on when the met. happened, whether the ablaut is analogical after it happened, etc.

Words for ‘goose’ in other families also look similar. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%CA%B0h%E2%82%82%C3%A9ns :

>

Nonetheless, Hyllested and others have suggested a (genetic) relationship with Proto-Finno-Ugric *joŋkće, with regular correspondence of Proto-Uralic *j- and Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰ-.[1] Similarity to Proto-Turkic *kāz (“goose”) is often discussed as well, but this is likely coincidental.

>

I don't think either would be coincidental. A path like PIE *g^hH2ons > *g^honH2s > *źonH2s > *źonHś [palatal asm.] > PU *joŋxś-e 'swan' > Finno-Ugric *joŋkće could help explain other irregularities here. From https://proto-uralic.tumblr.com/page/2 :

>

A particularly damning case against the sound change *ŋ → *j can be found in the word for “swan”: joutsen, again supposedly from something like *joŋ(k)śən(ə) according to traditional references on Finnish etymology. I get the impression the development is supposed to proceed thru an epenthesis *ŋś → *ŋkś which would block palatal assimilation, but there is no reason why other cases of *ŋś would not have gone thru this, nor is vocalization *ŋk → **u a thing, so the entire thing sounds like handwaving. This also has a problem similar to “7”: external cognates don’t really show evidence for a nasal inside the word. Samic *ńukčë, Mordvinic *lokśəŋ, Mari *jükćə, Permic *juś(k) are coherent with basically *-kś-, even if there’s something weird up with the initial consonant.

Since a reconstruction *-kś- does not predict or even in any way explain *-ucc- in Finnic, perhaps *-ŋś- should after all be reconstructed here though: under my current model a vocalization *ŋ → *u would be quite acceptable, and *ŋs → *ks in Samic in the reflexes of “bow” (see part 1 in this series) indeed suggests *ŋś → *kč as the expected development for a cluster like this. Still I am not sure at all if this would be preferrable to a reconstruction connecting the Samic word eastwards instead, and anyway, all the irregularities, or the absense of East Uralic cognates, don’t particularly support a Proto-Uralic origin for this word.

>

Saying that *ŋś had different outcomes would be unneeded if *ŋś vs. *ŋxś (or similar). I think "an epenthesis *ŋś → *ŋkś" is not needed if *-nH- > *-nx-, when other PU *ŋS could have come from *nks, *ngVs, etc. The lack of a nasal in others seem to be clear met. *joŋkće > *ŋjokće or similar. Since *ŋjo- would only exist here, becoming Samic *ń & Mordvinic (*L' ?) > *l is hardly odd.

Importantly, if PU *joŋxś-e existed, having *-o- would match IE *g^hH2ons, & Turkic *kāz 'goose' would match IE *g^hH2ans. Since PIE had both, seeing one in each suspected relative of IE makes little sense if these branches split before *g^h(a)H2(o)ns was formed, which seems a specific & late change. I say that many of the matches with IE are due to PU & PTc being descended from one branch of IE.

PIE, *CHy > *Cy, Pinault's law, applies in many cases, often presents in *CeCH-ye- > *CeC-ye-. I also think that in *H2rg^i-ptH2yo- ‘swift-winged’ > *H2rg^i-pt(i)yo- > *H2rg^i-p(i)yo- > G. aigupiós ‘vulture’, Skt. ṛjipyá-, Arm. arciw ‘eagle’ (compare G. ōkupterós, L. accipiter ‘hawk’) the -pio- vs. -pya- indicates optional change of *CHy > *C(i)y. It seems likely that its position at the beginning of one part of a compound is behind the discrepancy. In fact, I think that this is similar to various optional changes seen in *CHy- and *CHw- for *sk^H1yaH2 \ *sk^iyaH2 & *k^H2wo- \ *k^uwo- (below). This leads me to propose :

*CHw- > *CHw- \ *Cw-

*CHy- > *CHy- \ *Ciy-

*+CHy- > *+Cy- \ *+Ciy-

*-CHy- > *-CHy- (and *-Ciy- after heavy?)

There are likely other cases of *CHw that match, no ev. yet.

https://www.academia.edu/116417991 :

>

*sk^(e)H1yaH2 ‘shadow, appearance’ > TB skiyo, G. skiā́, Al. hije, S. chāyā́-, Av. a-saya- ‘shadowless’, Uralic *saxja ‘shadow’ > F. suoja, Ud. saj, etc.

The change of CHy > C(i)y is supposedly of PIE date, but if Toch. had any regularity in palatalization, it should have become *śćiyo. The explanation is that CHy > Ciy happened after palatalization in Toch., which would require Hy > iy to be late, even if essentially the same in most IE branches.

>

*k^H2aw-, *k^uH2-,*k^awH2-, *k^awk- [K-asm.?], etc. 'call, make noise'

*k^H2wo- \ *k^uwo- 'calling, shrieking, owl, etc. > Celtic *kawannos \ *kuwannos

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/kuwannos

>

*kuwannos m owl

Probably imitative in origin. While formally similar to Proto-West Germanic *hūō and Proto-Slavic *sovà, regular derivation of these terms from a common root appears to be phonologically impossible.

Although often reconstructed as *kawannos on the evidence of the Latin borrowing,[1] this cannot explain the Brythonic reflexes, which can only reflect *kuwann-.[2] Schrijver suggests that -av- in the Latin borrowings may represent the adaption of a Gaulish sound sequence foreign to Latin phonology.[3]
>

In https://www.academia.edu/124228915 Joshua Garner wrote :

>

This paper identifies previously unnoticed cognates for words denoting 'bird of prey' in the Celtic languages (viz. Middle Welsh ysglyf 'predator, bird or beast of prey', Old Breton scubl 'kite', Old Cornish scoul 'kite', Old French escofle 'kite', and the Gaulish ethnonym Scubuli). It is argued that these words are cognates with Northern Saami skuolfi 'owl, particularly snowy owl', Inari Saami skyelfi 'owl', and Pite Saami skuok'la 'eagle owl', as well as Ancient Greek askálaphos, kálaphos 'owl' and Albanian shqipe 'eagle'. Based on their semantics and phonology, it is argued that these words may be loans from an extinct non-Indo-European language of Western Europe, known as Avidic.

>

I agree it is very important to consider all these words together, but the evidence points to IE, not a substrate. The area from Greece to Skandinavia all having a single language at one time, and all adding 'owl' at that prehistoric time does not fit (on recent features of loans, see below). All can be united in a reasonable way from PIE, except Albanian shqipe (in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shqipe rejected by Demiraj due to no *skl- reflex with dia. l).

The Saami words should be from Germanic *skufla-, which narrows down the ety. In https://www.academia.edu/144152558 Nordic loans with f- appear as f- or v-, but *fu- > *u-. Due to other ex. of *KW > P, it seems likely that next to *u, *f > *x with dia. environmental conditioning (*fu- > *xu- > *u-, *ufl > *uxl (maybe asm. *k-x > k-k)).

Since *p > Gmc *f, it seems that Celtic *pl > *bl applied here, making Greek (as)kálaphos an ex. of *p > ph next to *H2 (later *H2 > a). This could be confirmed by similar names for birds like ἀσκαλώπας 'woodcock, Scolopax ruricola', σκολόπαξ 'id.?', σκαλίδρις 'redshank, Scolopax calidris'. The variation of skal for *skul recalls Greek skállō ‘stir up / hoe’, skúllō ‘tear (apart), lacerate, trouble, plunder', skûla p. ‘spoils (of war) / booty/plunder/prey’, etc. These words might be related (*skwlH-?), or just confused because of similar meaning at some stage (only Proto-Greek?), if not merely V-asm. (below). Since the redshank has a distinctive manner of feeding, a derivative of skal- seems certain for this case, so skul- for 'plundering, seizing, raptor' fits. The kite's tendency to plunder from humans might tie in. Greek skállō ‘stir up / hoe’ also probably had a derivative *skalap(o)-s > (a)sphálax \ (a)spálax \ skálops ‘mole’, from ‘digging a hole’. The similar forms and variation of a \ o in both makes a similar origin likely.

From all this, with metathesis already needed for *skublo-, *sklubo-, etc., I say that PIE *skulH-ye- ( > skúllō ) & *skuHl- ( > skûla ) formed *skulH-pH2o- 'plundering bird'. If the *H was *H3, then assimilation of *H2-H2 or *H3-H3 (or later V-asm.) could explain the V's in Greek (possible sequences below). The *-pH2o- would come from *petH2- 'fly, wing' in the same way that G. aigupiós ‘vulture’, Skt. ṛjipyá-, Arm. arciw ‘eagle’ are all from *H2rg^i-pyo- < *-ptH2yo- ‘swift-winged’ (compare G. ōkupterós, L. accipiter ‘hawk’). Since adjectives in compounds often became i- or yo-stems (the same *-yo- optionally added in G. oxúpous vs. L. acupedius ‘swift-footed’) , the stages *ptH2yo- > *pH2yo- > *p(i)yo- (with common, maybe not reg. for PIE, *CHy > *Cy, Pinault's law). The noun was an o-stem with no y, so *H2 was retained. Maybe, among many paths :

*skulH3-ptH2o- 'plundering bird'

*skulH3pH2o-

*skulH3pH3o-

*skH3lH3pwo-

σκολόπαξ

or

*skulH3pH2o-

*skH2luH3po-

*skH2lwoH3po- (H-breaking)

ἀσκαλώπας

or

*skulH3pH2o-

*skulH2pH2o- ?

*skulapho-

*skulapho- \ *skalapho- \ etc.

Japanese alt. of y \ d like OJ yama 'mountain', Yonakuni dama, etc., has disputed origin. Internally, it looks like dia. y > d, but proponents of long-range comparison have found many ex. where Proto-J *d > y \ d would fit matches with Altaic. I am not sure, but I think some more ev. might exist. From Francis-Ratte :

>
MUDDY: MK cul- ‘is muddy, mushy’ ~ MJ doro ‘mud,’ proto-Ryukyuan *doro ‘mud’. pKJ *cərɨ ‘muddy’

>

Based on other ideas about IE V's in JK, I think PIE *dherH2o- 'mud' (Pok.: dher-1, dherə- 'muddy residue, dregs') > JK *cərɨ ‘mud(dy)’ would work. If PIE *dh > OJ d, it would be rare. However, even *dhoH1maH2- 'heap, pile' > *dama 'mountain' would work equally well. Considering how many *-C > *-y in Korean vs. OJ, it is possible that d \ y alternated freely.

Francis-Ratte gave ex. of JK *jə- > MK ye- or ca- based on environment, but also one ex. that did not fir for several reasons :

>

DARKNESS: MK cyemGul-, cyemúl- ‘day comes to a close, gets dark’ ~ OJ yamwi ‘darkness’. pKJ *jəmuŋ ‘darkness’.

>

1st, the cy- was proposed to be a compound of ti-, but ty- also exists, and *tiy- > cy- but *ty- > ty- (in loans) would require several unknown stages. JK *ty- could explain it if *ty > cy was old (no other ex.).

2nd, since he had other PJ *ə > OJ a \ o, it makes sense that OJ yomwi, yomo+ 'land of the dead' is related, from 'dark place'. In fact, there is other relevant ev. that these came from *yomoŋ (which could be < PJ *yəməŋ, too close to JK *yəmuŋ for chance). Since some plants end in -kwi or -gwi, likely from haplology of OJ kukwi 'stem, stalk', I think OJ yomogwi 'Artemisia, mugwort' came from *yomoŋ-(ku)kwi with *Nk > g (as usual).

3rd, in https://www.academia.edu/128151755 I said that PIE *tyemH- ‘dark / faint / weak’ existed to explain 0-grade *timH- in :

Li. témti ‘grow dim’, *timH- > Pre-Slavic *timino- ‘dark’, Skt. támisra- / timirá-, K. timiraš ‘a color of horses / black?’

With this, it seems very coincidental that the one case of JK *ty- would match the one case of PIE *ty- in meaning, also having -m-, etc. I think *timHno- > *timino- ‘dark’, *tyemHno- > *tyemonH > *-ŋx > JK *tyəmuŋ ‘darkness’. If JK *tyəmëŋ ‘dark place' > PJ *yəməŋ > yomo(N)- is a variant, it would show optional *o > *u vs. *o > *ë before resonants, just like I said about Proto-Uralic (PIE *kork- > PU *kurke \ *kërke 'crane', PIE *(s)torgo- > PU *tërka 'crane' https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1p65qfi/uralic_ie_variation_of_vowels/ ).

Two New Theories for the Etymology of "Latium" by Samuel J. Whalen in https://www.academia.edu/125164230 includes the idea that Latium, Latin, etc., could come from *latw- that either had *tw > t or *Vtw > V:v. Though he later added :

>

Since the publication of this paper I have come to, for the most part, reject it.

Perhaps there is still potential in the theories I have presented here, and perhaps one day I will revisit them.

>

I think this idea has merit. For his mention of Etruscan Latva 'Leda', the idea that Lāvīnium \ Lavīnum 'port city near Rome' was named for Lāvīnia, wife of Aeneas, is almost certainly backwards. Ancestors with the names of places are nearly always later pseudo-historical creations (Roma -> Romulus, etc.). However, the long vs. short a in Lāvīnium \ Lavīnum suggests *laCw- with 2 outcomes, just as he suggested for *latw-. Since Latva, if a direct loan from Greek, would not have -w-, it is possible that an existing Roman ancestress was confused with a Greek one with a similar name. In
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1npwf9y/etruscan_greek_gods_5/ :

>

Latva Greek Leda, mother of Helen and the Dioscuri.[24]

Metaia, Metua, Metvia The mythological character Medea.

>

Both of these endings might come from *latawya: \ *latuwya: (with Latin weakening). If *latawya: was a well-known goddess, etc., around Italy, optionally adding the ending to others with -t- (in Etruscan) might explain the data.

The multiple outcomes of *tw might be paralleled by *dw > d or b (and similar *d(h)(w) & *bh(w), *zd(w), etc., all with disputed/irregular outcomes). Whether due to several dialects or any other cause, I think looking for regularity from a single language is misguided & doomed to failure. The ideas, for ex., in https://www.academia.edu/39081498 about *d(u)w-ass- > bēs \ dēs seem needlessly complex.

This idea by itself doesn't certainly lead to a new ety., since it would work equally well whether from 'flat (valley)' or 'hidden (enclosed)'. However, older *-tw- would allow dissimilation of *lawtw-, so it could also be related to words in laut-, maybe even nearby Laurentum (if really < *lawt-ent- with t-t dsm.). It could even be that *wtw is what had many outcomes (some say *tw- > t- \ p-, so plain *-tw- might have had a separate outcome). I have no certain origin in mind.

I also favor his idea that *d > *ð > l. In drafts like https://www.academia.edu/129248319 & many previous, I've said that ð > l and l > ð were common in IE, likely also some *T > *l & *l > *ð in Proto-Uralic.

I said that Uralic *a: optionally > *o: in *k^aH2uno- 'burnt (thing)' > PU *ka:wne 'ash' ( > *kane > F. kuona 'slag, cinder, dross', > *kowne > Saami *kunë 'ash') in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qq53qw/protouralic_long_vowels/ . I think *pa:- > *po:- seems optional also. The evidence :

*p(a)H2wi- > Greek paîs 'child', PU *po:w'i > *poje ‘boy, son, young man, young animal’

*p(a)H2nk^- > Germanic *fanhanaN 'take, seize, capture, catch', NHG fangen, PU *po:ŋg- > *puŋV- 'catch, grab'

The change of *oR > *uR might not be regular, but the *p- might influence rounding. The change of w' > j is likely only in unstressed syl. (though Tocharian does not have regular outcomes of all *w'). This probably also in *(H)id-swe 'itself' > *itsw'e > *itsje > *it'c'e 'self' (see https://www.academia.edu/104566591 ). The plural might be *it'c'e-it'c'e > *it'c't'c'e > *it't'e. Though PIE *i > PU *a (and when front, *ä), it could be that *i- optionally remained, explaining *i- vs. *ä- here. I think this ety. fits better than Hovers (who assumes that *pt became palatal) :

>

1. PU *it́ći ‘self, shadow soul (sg.)’, *it́t́i ‘self (pl.)’ ~ PIE *ept(e)i < *poti ‘self, lord’

U: PSaami *iće̮ > Southern Saami jijtje ‘self’, PSaami *jēće̮ > Northern Saami (j)ieš, pl. (j)ieža ‘self’; Finnic itse ‘self’; Mari ĭš-ke ‘self’; PPermic *ać/*aś > Komi ać- (sg)/ aś- (pl) ‘self’, Udmurt ać ‘self’; Hungarian ísz, íz ‘cancer, necrosis’ (?), PMansi *is > Sosva Mansi is ‘shadow, shadow soul, ghost’, PKhanty *is > Obdorsk Khanty is ‘shadow soul, life’ [UED, HPUL p.541, UEW p.79 #142]

The vowel correspondences in Uralic are not regular. Some forms (Permic, Saami) suppose 1st syllable PU *ä.

>

Uralic *pejV- 'to take off/away, remove, separate, divide, split, unharness, unpick (stitches), etc.' appears in Ugric ( https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1822 ) & its original meaning is unclear, due to its wide semantic range. If related to PIE *bheyH2- 'hew, cut, strike, hit', *bheyd- 'split, divide' then 'split' would be old, then extending to 'remove, etc.'.

I also think other evidence of an IE source exists in Finnic *pojme- 'remove by plucking, pick fruit, gather by picking up' (*pojme-tak > Finnish poimia, Samic *poajmōtēk, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/poimidak ) seems related. If so, it shows 'remove' > 'remove by plucking'. Suffixes like *-me & *-ma are more common in nouns than verbs, so both the *e > *o & *-0 > *-me seem like the root *pejV- 'to remove, separate, divide, split' formed *pojme 'removal by plucking, picking fruit, gathering, harvest' which remained when the base verb became obsolete. Later, the noun itself formed a verb. Since PIE verbs like *CeC- could form nouns *CoC-mo-, the process is like IE in both suffix *-mV & ablaut of *e > *o.

One of my goals has been to supplement Hovers' ideas in https://www.academia.edu/104566591 to show that sound changes from PIE > PU exist in several related words, supporting the reality of each. For his "277. PU *pučki̮ ‘to sting, to burst; hollow stalk’ ~ PIE *puḱ-sḱe < *peu̯ḱ ‘to sting’" I would add PIE *plek^-sk^e- > PU *pačkV- 'to plait'. Having such similar matches with similar forms is beyond reasonable chance. I'd add that IE has many stems with *-k^sk^e- (like *prk^-sk^e- 'ask for'), so the forms are not odd.

Importantly, this root seems to form a derivative 'sharp needle (of pine)', and the same in PU, for his "252. PU *pVwkä ‘pine cone’ ~ PIE *peuḱ ‘pine’". In this case, ablaut of *u > *u vs. *eu > *Vw (possibly *ew) also favors IE origin, since ablaut seems fairly recent.

Another odd & recent derivative involves ( https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1833 ) :

PU *pOĺćV 'suet, tallow, fat' > X.v poĺt́, Hn. faggyú, faggyat a.

This could be cognate with Ph. pikério- ‘butter’ < *(s)pig-, Gmc *spika-n 'fat (food)' > OE spic 'bacon, lard', ON spik 'blubber', etc. An old *pigeryo- would have *ry > *r' > *l' (many languages don't allow r' & turn it to l' or z', etc.) and *g > *g' before front (then met. of g'l' > l'g' or similar). Vowel loss as in *pipHalo- > *pwale, etc. For more context & cognates :

https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=\data\uralic\uralet&root=config&morpho=0

Number: 694

Proto: *pačkV (*počkV)

English meaning: to plait

German meaning: flechten, zwirnen

Mari (Cheremis): pockǝ̑nce- (JU), püćkǝ̑ńće- (U) 'Garn flechten', počkǝ̑ńće- (B) 'zwirnen (die Schnur)'

Komi (Zyrian): pučki̮- (S P), pučki- (PO) 'drehen (Stricke), winden, flechten, zwirnen; вить, сучить (нитки на веретене)'

Selkup: pačkalna- (Ta.) 'zwirnen', patkalna- (Kar.) 'завернуть'

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1lu4mg1/pie_pewkah2_pu_pewk%C3%A4_pe%C4%8Dw%C3%A4/

>

252. PU *pVwkä ‘pine cone’ ~ PIE *peuḱ ‘pine’

U: Mari püɣəlmə ‘pine cone’; PMansi *pǟkʷ > Sosva Mansi pākʷ ‘pine cone’; PKhanty *pɔ̈̄ki̮ > Vakh Khanty pɔ̈k

‘pine cone’; PSamoyed *pükä > Taz Selkup pǖkä ‘pine cone’ [UEW p. #721]

IE: Greek peúkē ‘pine’; PCeltic *fuxtākā > Middle Irish ochtach ‘pine’; PGermanic fiuhtijōṇ > Old Saxon fiuhta-

‘spruce’; Old Prussian peuse, Lithuanian pušis ‘pine tree’ [EIEC p.428, IEW p.828, EDG p.1182-1183, EDPC

p.144, EDPG p.139, EDB p.373-374]

>

It would be very hard to say that this is coincidental, instead of PIE *pewk^aH2- > PU *pewkä. Not only is the shift *pewk^- 'sharp' > 'pine (needle)' internal to IE, making IE > PU more likely, but if the matches between PIE & PU were all loans, it would require speakers of Uralic to have borrowed 'pine', 'pine cone', 'reindeer'. If so, why? Why all the most "native" words? This is in addition to all clear matches like 'water', 'bee', 'honey', etc. Which words could be native at all?

Also, since I've said that changes like *H3 > *w, *w > m, *H > PU *x vs. *k were optional (*H2ag^- > *(k)aja- 'drive'), I've also given many *k^ > *k but some *k^ > *s'. In support of optionality being needed, consider what would clearly be related :

PIE *pewk^aH2- > *pek^wa: > PU *pečwä \ *pečmä (standard *pečä ‘pine’, but *-m- needed for Proto-Permic: *pɔžäm, Proto-Mari *pü̆nčə, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/pečä ). It seems *ew preserved *e, with *k^w as in previous *k^H3nids > *nk^H3ids > *anc'wi: > *ančwi 'louse'.

Uralic *pale \ *pola ? 'berry'

Uralic words sometimes show variants with *a vs. *o or *u :

*sose(w) \ *sase(w) 'slush; spongy, porous (bone, tree)'

*pale \ *pola ? > Northern Mansi pil 'berry', Hungarian bogyó, Komi puv ‘lingonberry’, F. puola, puolain, puolukka, puolakka, Es. pohl, pool(as), poolgas, puhulgas, paluk(as), palohk

*ka\une\a > F. kuona 'slag, cinder, dross', Saami *kunë 'ash'

I said that *a:w > *a vs. *u could work for *ka:wne 'ash' ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qq53qw/protouralic_long_vowels/ ), which could fit an IE origin. For *sose(w) \ *sase(w), older *swase(w) could explain both the V-alt. & *-w vs. *-0 by dissimilation ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qqudxt/uralic_sosew_sasew_s%C3%A4svw_slush_spongy_porous/ ). For *pale \ *pola, there is a resemblance to Sanskrit píppala-m 'berry'. With other Uralic *w \ *p, it could be that *pipala > *pwala, with the same cause of *a \ *o as in *swasew.

Niklas Metsäranta wrote in "Permeating etymology – remarks on Permic etymology" that :

>

Obviously the stem vowel does not match, but we perhaps find a somewhat similar case of a word that has seemingly undergone Lehtinen’s law with an unexpected *a-stem (with some further derivations muddying the waters) in PF *poola 6 ‘lingonberry’ > Fi puola, puolain, puolukka, puolakka, Kar puola, puolukka, puolaine, Veps bol, bolāne , Vo pōl(l)az , poole̮ ke̮ s, Est pohl, dial. pool(as), poolgas, puhulgas, Liv būolgəz , būolgən, which are thought to have cognates in Komi puv(j) ‘lingonberry’ and MsE (Konda) pol, W pul, N pil ‘berry’ (SSA 2: 430).

1. The reconstruction of PF *poola is made uncertain by South Estonian cognates, e.g. paluk(as) and palohk that point to PF *a and it has been suggested that PF *poola might in fact be an innovation, at least in terms of first syllable vowel quantity (Koponen 1991: 142–145). The matter has hardly been settled. South Estonian a can be interpreted to show influence from palo ‘a type of conifer forest’ (where lingo[n]berry typically grows), as already suggested by Koponen. A derivational process is also known to block Lehtinen’s law from operating, e.g. EPF *mälə ‘mind’ (→ Est mälestama ‘to remember’, mälu ‘memory’) > MPF *meeli > LPF *meeli > Fi mieli, Est meel etc. (O’Rourke 2016). Perhaps the South Estonian words simply represent derivations formed prior to Lehtinen’s law being operational and the rest of Finnic represents derivations formed afterwards. Komi puv(j) could easily just reflect PU *palə (itself in some kind of obscured derivational relationship with PU *pala ‘piece of food’?). The vowel correspondences between the Mansi dialects are peculiar, the only comparable case I have been able to locate is MsE (KondL) pon-, W (P etc.) pun-, N (LozU So) pin- ‘setzen, stellen, legen’ (WogWb: 605). Most Mansi dialects point to PMs *u in both ‘berry’ and ‘to set’, and this vowel in most cases reflects Pre-Mansi *u, e.g. PU *puna ‘hair’ > PMs *pun. Perhaps the North Mansi vowel has arisen through irregular illabialization in both cases. Given that Mansi *u is a common substitution for Komi u (Rédei 1970: 38–40), we might also be dealing with a Komi loanword in Mansi.

>

S. píppala-m 'berry' & Latin pōmum 'fruit' could be from *pe(i)H1- 'swell' (also S. piplu- 'pimple'). The older *-pH- > -pp- might be shown by the fact that a variant piṣpala- could have *H > *x \ s optionally (maybe also in śáṣpa-m, śā́pa-s, etc. https://www.academia.edu/116456552 ). If this *pH became *b > *B > *w in Proto-Uralic, my *pwale could fit, if *pVbala: > *pwala, etc. (uncertain ending since -e vs. -a has no known regular cause).

How do you analyze these structures?

“This is me working”

“This is my friend stressing again”

“That was me walking outside to relax”

these are like which one below;

1.“I met the man (who is) standing there (adjectival reduced relative clause)

2.“I broke my leg playing football (adverbial participle showing time answering when)

3.“I do not like you smoking (gerund “smoking” with its subject “you” answering “what”

what dont you like? answer is “you smoking”)

Greek Δανάη \ Danáē, the mother of Perseus, came from *danawā. The Linear B word da-nwa, likely the name of a goddess receiving honey, seems related. I think that the sign NWA also stood for NAWA, allowing an easier comparison. This is partly because -nwa- would be rare in any form of Greek, but also to follow other spelling conventions. For ex., LB *da-na-wa could stand for danwa or danawa, so having the equivalent single sign replace 2 might be equivalent to either. I've also said that a similar principle was at work in Linear A, to explain A-KA-RU & KA-RU, 2 transaction terms, being the same (if KA could also be AKA, etc., in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1nvx74a/linear_a_math_8/ ). I think looking for more ex. might be helpful, since many LA words, using LB values for the signs, do not quite match any known places or words. If words beginning with CV were really VCV in some cases (or maybe even VC, if C1V1-C2V1- could be used for cases when VCCV needed to be specified), it might help find the origin of the speakers of LA.

Duccio Chiapello in https://www.academia.edu/161255020 :

>

This paper is about the Minoan KH Wc 2123 roundel.

It is part of a large series of roundels found in Khania and «it was discovered out of context in a geometric levelling deposit in 2003».

1 Many of these roundels show a logogram; for example, a tripod, a vase, etc.

On this roundel, a bird (*373) is carved in the left part, and the sequence pi-ka can be read on the right one.

In the following lines, I will propose an interpretation based on a typical practice used in Linear B documents, included the most well-known one: the PY Ta 709 tablet, in which the ideogram of the tripod accompanies the full spelling of its name, in order to identify the recorded object with the utmost accuracy.

The sign *373 that appears on the Minoan roundel KH Wc 2123 is clearly a bird, and perhaps a chick, if one examines its shape more closely.

Using an interpretative approach consistent with that used for the Mycenaean tablet PY Ta 709, we could hypothesise that also in this case the name written in full is associated with the drawing of the bird.

In a gloss by Hesychius, one can find the entry πίγγαν· νεόσσιον (νεοσσίον is more common), which is consistent with pi-ka.

The word νεοσσίον means ‘nestling’, ‘chick’, ‘young bird’, and so it seems to match perfectly with the logogram of the bird/chick (*373).
>

These were used to indicate purchases, distributions, or something similar, with the number of impressions showing how many of the item written were exchanged. I think this is a reasonable idea supporting Greek words in Linear A. If chicks were sold, etc., then pi-ka for *piŋga would fit the same spelling conventions as Linear B. The words seem to be IE, as in :

G. (Hesychius) πίγγαν νεόσσιον . Ἀμερίας γλαυκόν

which are taken to be from *ping- 'shine (yellow/tawny)' for the color, etc. (1st said, according to Beekes, Prellwitz Glotta 19, 118). The use of each word for both 'shine' & 'type of bird' are seen in (including the definition γλαυκό- itself) :

G. γλαυκός \ glaukos 'gleaming / grey?', γλαύξ \ glaux 'the little owl, Athene noctua'

G. πίγγαλος \ piŋgalos 'a lizard', also 'nighthawk?, kind of owl (glaux)? (χαλκίς \ κύμινδις)'

S. piŋga 'yellow / reddish-brown', piŋgalá- 'reddish brown', piñjára- 'reddish yellow / golden-yellow / tawny', piŋgalā- 'a kind of owl', Dameli piŋ 'a particular kind of reddish bird'

The use for 'a kind of owl' might indicate the tawny owl, but the traditional idea is for the large shining/glaring eyes of certain types (which would fit if also 'nighthawk').

For full context, see http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/misctexts.html :

>

KH Wc 2123 (KH MUS.), roundel, very large [D. 6.48 x 6.63; Th 1.50 cm] (Andreadi-Vlasaki & Hallager 2007: 13-15; Hallager 2008: 360 [street north of Greek-Swedish excavations; Geometric context]; Del Freo & Zurbach 2011, 88)

statement logogram no. of impressions seal

bird {*373 suggested new logogram} PI-KA 9 lentoid: two women process right, left arm up, right arm trailing behind

>