Comparative Indo-European Linguistics

This trilingual study presents the grammatical and semantic analysis of the Linear A inscription PRZa 1, a stone libation vessel from Petsophas / Palaikastro (East Crete, LM IB). The inscription consists of three short formulaic lines — TA‑NA SU‑TE‑KE | SE‑TO I‑JA | A‑SA‑SA‑RA‑ME — representing an early Indo‑European ritual syntax. The analysis integrates palaeographic, morphological, and lexical evidence and identifies structural parallels with the Baltic‑Slavic and Anatolian branches of Indo‑European. The work includes full versions in English, German, and Greek (identical scientific content) and cross‑references the comparative inscription CRZf1 (hairpin).

Full text also available in German and Greek at Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17145125.

License: CC BY 4.0 – Open Access.

The fragmentary stone libation vessel PRZa 1 from Petsophas/Palaikastro (Eastern Crete) bears a three-sided Linear A formula (LM IB). The inscription is structured by side into semantic units: TA-NA SU-TE-KE | SE-TO I-JA | A-SA-SA-RA-ME. Palaeographically, NA with four vertical dots and TE with horizontal strokes (conservative ductus) stand out. Morphosyntactically, there emerges a clear ritual microsyntax with adjectival attribute (TA-NA 'hidden/dark'), theonym/hydronymic addressee (SU-TE-KE, plausibly ≈ 'Styx' in the sense of a chthonic oath-/boundary-river), verb in 3rd sg. present (SE-TO 'to sow/scatter'; -TO PIE -ti), proximal ← demonstrative (I-JA 'this') and post-nominal possessive enclitic (-ME 'my'). As a literal-idiomatic translation we obtain: "This, my tear, moistens the hidden Styx." Lexically, A-SA-SA-RA ('tear') anchors in the PIE *dakru-family (cf. Gk. δάκρυον, Lat. ašara), TA-NA in the semantic field of darkness *PIE temH-(adj. derivation with -no-), SE-in *PIE seh₁-'to sow'. The forms -TO (3rd sg.) and -ME/-MI (poss. 1st sg.) correspond to CRZf1 (hairpin) and attest to a consistent system (present -TO vs. preterite/perfective -SI, possessive enclisis). Typologically, Cretan (Linear A) displays early Indo-European structures with distinctly Balto-Slavic archaic parallels; a final genealogical classification remains reserved for the main publication. PRZa 1 thus provides key evidence for the morphosyntax of ritual formulas in the Linear A script.

There is a conflicting opinion about the language of the Indus script. Some linguists believe it was based on the Indo-European language; another group claims it was based on the Dravidian language. My findings indicate that the Indus script was a composite language, comprising elements of the Indo-European (IE) language and Egyptian hieroglyphics. I refer to the influence of hieroglyphics as a Dravidian component. My decipherment effort so far reveals that many Indus symbols resemble Egyptian hieroglyphs, and there is a close connection between these two writing systems. The Egyptian priests and scribes likely contributed to the development of the Indus script, along with Iranian and Vedic priests. The Indus symbols show a composite culture of all three great civilisations. This paper argues for a moderate interpretation of Sanskrit influence within a hybrid cultural context.

There is a conflicting opinion about the language of the Indus script. Some linguists believe it was based on the Indo-European language; another group claims it was based on the Dravidian language. My findings indicate that the Indus script was a composite language, comprising elements of the Indo-European (IE) language and Egyptian hieroglyphics. I refer to the influence of hieroglyphics as a Dravidian component. My decipherment effort so far reveals that many Indus symbols resemble Egyptian hieroglyphs, and there is a close connection between these two writing systems. The Egyptian priests and scribes likely contributed to the development of the Indus script, along with Iranian and Vedic priests. The Indus symbols show a composite culture of all three great civilisations. This paper argues for a moderate interpretation of Sanskrit influence within a hybrid cultural context.

This work re-examines the origins of Indo-Iranian civilisation by shifting the focus from migrationist models to the historical sequence of landscape, ritual, and reform.
At the heart of the study is the insight of the Italian historian Gherardo Gnoli, who recognised that Zarathustra’s denunciation of Indra and the haoma-rite presupposes a locally established heroic-sacrificial cult on the Iranian plateau.
This implies that the older Vedic-type tradition had spread east-to-west long before the prophet’s time, overturning the Steppe-to-India storyline.

The book situates this reform within a broad river-oasis continuum stretching from the Sarasvati–Sindhu basin to the Helmand and Bactrian oases, where fire-altars, cattle-rituals, and hymn-poetry flourished for centuries.
It draws on archaeology, geo-ecology, linguistic archaism, textual chronology, and ancient DNA to reveal a past shaped by regional continuity and moral-ideological turning-points rather than single invasions.

Iranianists Mary Boyce, Jean Kellens, and Antonio Panaino, along with Kazanas, Bryant, and Talageri, independently reinforce this east-leaning historical orientation.
The study reframes the homeland debate as a story of civilisational creativity and reform, not conquest, and invites readers to see Indo-Iranian history as a braided narrative of rivers, rituals, and the ethical imagination that reshaped them.

Keywords: Infinitive; Nominalizations; Word-class change.

In ancient Indo-European languages, the infinitive arises from the grammaticalization of a deverbal noun as a part of the verbal paradigm (Kuryłowicz 1964: 158-170; Bauer 2000: 337-349; Ramat 2002; Kapović 2017: 104; Lundquist & Yates 2018: 2110). This process is somehow completed in some languages (Latin, Ancient Greek, Balto-Slavic), where the infinitive shows the accusative government (Lat. mulcere dedit fluctus ‘(he) allowed (you) to rule the sea’ Verg. Aen. 1.66; Gk. líssom’ Akhillêï methémen khólon ‘I beg (you) to let go (your) anger against Achilles’ A, 283), while still ongoing in others (Vedic, Avestan), where it shows both genitive and accusative government (Ved. kó […] gāt práṣṭum etát ‘who will go to ask it? R̥V. 1.164.4d’; dhánānām sātáye ‘for the conquering of wealth’ R̥V. 1.4.9c). As a result, the infinitive has acquired a consistent number of verbal categories in Greek and Latin (namely, tense, aspect and diathesis: Fabrizio 2018a-b-c), unlike in Vedic (García Ramón 1995, 1997, 2009; Lazzeroni 2012): as such, it is conceivable as an action noun (Comrie & Thompson 1985) and cross-linguistically as an Action-Argument (in Croft’s terms: Croft 2001).
This contribution aims at: 1) investigating the morphological encoding of the Action-Argument correlation in three ancient Indo-European languages: Early Latin, Homeric Greek, and R̥gvedic Sanskrit; 2) giving an account of the process of word-class change that the infinitive undergoes.

Indologists hope that through interpretation based on later texts will come an understanding of the language of the Rigveda. This paper argues, on the contrary, that until all assumptions, the accretion of three millennia, are abandoned, and the text subjected to independent linguistic analysis, the meaning of the Rigveda will remain as closely guarded as ever it was by Brahmanical priests.

In 2007, a collection of rare manuscripts of the text of the Rigveda was added to UNESCO's 'Memory of the World' register. This register is designed to honour and protect precious landmarks in the intellectual history of the world. Two years before, in 2005, Penguin had issued a second edition of its selection of translations from the poems by an American Sanskritist and professor of religion. For the past thirty years this slim volume has represented the Rigveda for the English reader. At the end of the book the editor supplies fragments of the text, albeit in an unaccented form that came centuries later, in an index of first lines. According to this index (Doniger 2005: 321), the opening word of the first poem is the mystical particle ōm. This particle, conveying religious awe, has been silently added by Professor Doniger from later Indian religious writings. It is not present in the first line, and is entirely unknown to the Rigvedic poems. These two very different ways of showing respect to the earliest Indo-European poetry pull in irreconcilably different directions.

We have inherited an assumption that the Rigveda is primarily a ritual text, and that much of the vocabulary, whose meaning was forgotten at a very early date, belongs to the language of ritual. This belief has been confirmed, established and rendered fixed and immutable throughout the history of the transmission of the text by an immense literature deriving from and dependent upon the assumed meaning. The belief that the text is largely devoted to the description of a complex ritual procedure, detailing “physical activity and the manipulation of objects” (Jamison 1991: 1), has led interpreters to understand its use of language to be regularly more concrete than abstract. In particular, the verbal usage is consistently taken by translators to belong to the external, physical world, rather than to the internal world of sensation and intellect. This, while upholding the traditional ritual interpretation of parts of the text, has rendered much of it incomprehensible, and continues to frustrate the attempts of linguists to make progress in deciphering the Rigveda.

The lack of response from indologists working on the Rigveda to the arguments in the first part of 'A Still Undeciphered Text' is understandable. Proponents of competing paradigms operate in such different worlds that debate may seem impossible. In view of this silence I am grateful to Professors Mumm and Zimmer, linguists who have grown up with the Vedic approach to the earliest Sanskrit poetry but whose main research areas are in other fields, for stepping into the breach. Professor Zimmer acknowledges that he cannot comment on "the breadth and completeness of my critical survey", and this must be true of almost all of my readers. The attempt to convince this overwhelming majority, which includes Sanskrit scholars, remains a significant challenge. Mumm and Zimmer are representative of most Indo-European linguists in believing that the Rigveda has received, and continues to receive, the kind of scientific attention accorded to other early Indo-European texts. The comments of Asko Parpola, an expert on the later ritual texts, provide evidence of the ways in which this is not the case, and of the different kind of attention accorded to the Rigveda by Vedic scholarship.

In previous research, the preterite participles lypauwa at B 591 a3 and lypaṣ at B 492 a3 are commonly taken as derivatives of the root luā- 'send', with <p> spellings for expected *lywauwa and *lywaṣ. I argue that both forms in fact belong with lip(ā)- vi. 'remain', vt. 'leave (over)', in which p is original. I show how this proposal leads to a better understanding of B 591 and B 492 and sheds new light on the issue of so-called "hypercorrect" <p> spellings in Tocharian B. A number of linguistic, philological, and Buddhological details are discussed along the way.

Indo-European is a branch of Indo-Uralic which was radically transformed under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum when its speakers moved from the area north of the Caspian Sea to the area north of the Black Sea (cf. Kortlandt 2007b). As a result, Indo-European developed a minimal vowel system combined with a very large consonant inventory including glottalized stops, also grammatical gender and adjectival agreement, an ergative construction which was lost again but has left its traces in the grammatical system, especially in the nominal inflection, a construction with a dative subject which was partly preserved in the historical languages and is reflected in the verbal morphology and syntax, where it gave rise to new categories, and a heterogeneous lexicon. The Indo-Uralic elements of Indo-European include pronouns, case endings, verbal endings, participles and derivational suffixes. In the following I shall give an overview of the grammar of Proto-Indo-European as it may have been spoken around 4000 BC in the eastern Ukraine, shortly after the ancestors of the Anatolians left for the Balkans (for more recent developments I refer to Beekes 1995). This stage preceded the common innovations of the non-Anatolian languages such as *mer-'to die' < 'to disappear' , *tu << *ti 'thou', *seʕ-'to satiate' < 'to stuff', *d h ugʕtēr << *d h uegʕtr 'daughter', *ʕerʕ w -'to plough' < 'to crush', *meʔ 'don't!' < 'say no!', *ʔekȗos << *ʔekȗ 'horse ' (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 8-10). It also preceded the rise of the subjunctive and the optative and dialectal Indo-European developments such as the rise of distinctive voicedness (not shared by Tocharian), the creation of a thematic middle voice (cf. Kortlandt 2007a: 151-157), and the satemization of the palatovelars (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 43). The lexicon included words for 'cart', 'wheel', 'axle', 'yoke ', 'carpenter', 'house', 'vessel', 'to plait', 'to weave', 'to spin', 'to clothe', 'ox', 'sheep', 'goat', 'horse', 'swine', 'cow', 'dog', 'to herd', 'to milk', 'butter', 'wool', 'lamb', 'gold', 'silver', 'copper', 'ore', but not for 'donkey', 'cat', 'chicken', 'duck', 'field', 'to sow', 'to mow', 'to mill', 'to plough', 'iron', 'lead', 'tin'. There was no agricultural or metallurgical vocabulary at this stage. PHONOLOGY Proto-Indo-European had two vowels: *e [ae] and *o [ʌ], which had long variants *ē and *ō in monosyllabic word forms and before word-final resonants (cf. Wackernagel 1896: 66-68). At a later stage, *e was colored by a contiguous *ʕ or *ʕ w to *a or *o,

disagrees with my account of the Slovene neo-circumflex. he rejects compensatory lengthening as an explanation of the neo-circumflex, primarily on theoretical grounds. his "moraic analysis" is quite unacceptable to me because it starts from an a priori segmentation of the speech flow. in a strict autosegmental approach, the segmentation of the speech flow should be part of the analysis and not be given a priori. Langston's rejection of van Wijk's law, according to which the simplification of certain consonant clusters yielded lengthening of the following vowel, is based on a misguided theoretical interpretation which led him astray. Keith Langston disagrees with my account of the Slovene neo-circumflex (Kortlandt 1976: 51-58, Langston 2007). instances of secondary circumflex alternating with a rising tone in related forms are the following (cf. Jaksche 1965: 19-29): (1) gen.pl., e.g. lȋp, brȃtov, lẹt, (2) masc. loc.sg., e.g. o brȃtu, (3) masc. dat.sg., e.g. k brȃtu, (4) masc. inst.pl. and loc.pl., e.g. z brȃti, pri brȃtih, (5) inst.sg. a-stems, e.g. lȋpo, (6) inst.du. and inst.pl. a-stems -ȃma, -ȃmi, (7) neuter plurals, e.g. lẹta, vȋna, (8) oblique cases of i-stems, e.g. nȋti, Ključne riječi: akcentuacija, slavenski neocirkumfleks, akut, kompenzacijsko duljenje, van Wijkov zakon, Dyboov zakon

There are many Indo-European roots with alt. of H2/3, sometimes also with other variants with H1 or 0. Some rec. them with only one non-varying *H, but in most cases this is impossible in standard theory. Some have given ev. like *prH3-mo-> *-wo-(if H3m > H3w); whether these are regular & correct is not certain, but fits with *pro:-\ *pra:-varying. For most cases, more direct ev. is used. In part : *pet-'fall / fly' (or *pHet-if from met., see Ar. p'etur 'feather') *petH2-'fall / fly' *petH3-'fall', *ptoH3-mn *ptaH2k(h)-> G. πτήσσω \ ptḗssō 'crouch / cower for fear', Ar. t`ak`-čim,'hide oneself' *ptoH2k(h)-> G. πτώσσω \ ptṓssō, πτώξ 'cowering (animal), hare',-kh-(with other variants, some likely met. *petH2k-> *petak(h)-> *patek(h)-, *ptoek-, etc. (certainly *-k-with *pet(H)-) *pro *proH (most w/o distinguishing H2/3) *proH2, Dor. πρᾶτος \ prâtos 'first', *prH2-ei > *-ai ? *proH3, G. πρῶτος \ prôtos 'first', *prH3-mo-> *-wo-? *tu-'swell', *tuH-, *tuH1-, *tuH2-, *tuH3-(below) *krH3-'burn', Li. kùrti 'to kindle' *krH2-(a: > o: in Li. krósnis f. 'oven / kiln'), if related *wlHnaH2 'wool' > L. lāna, OIr olann, Go. wulla, *wilHnā > Po. wełna, Li. vìlna 'wool strand' *welH3no-> *wH3olno-> G. oûlos 'woolly / twisted / twined / curly / crinkled' *welH3->> *welH3mn > Arm. gełmn 'fleece' *wloH3mn > G. lôma 'hem / fringe' *wloH3k^o-> OE wlóh 'fiber / fringe', Ic. ló 'flock' (more ev. in https://www.academia.edu/126857503) *H2merg^-> G. amérgō 'pluck / pull' *H3merg^-> G. omórgnūmi 'wipe' *stlH2-*str(H3)-'stretch / expand' I said about one group in https://www.academia.edu/127198281 : > Knowing this, these names can be useful in analyzing other IE words. L. Mutunus Tūtūnus \ Mutinus Tītīnus 'phallic god of marriage' probably had dissimilation of ū-ū > *ū-ī / *ī-ū / ī-ī, since it came from *tuHto-\ *tutHo-> OIr toth 'vulva/vagina / fem. gender in grammar', G. sáthē 'penis', Arm. tutn \ ttun 'tail / end' (since many IE words can mean both: G. kérkos 'tail of a beast / penis'; more below). Note that G. sáthē 'penis' has the fem. gender in grammar, OIr toth 'vulva/vagina / fem. gender in grammar' has the masc. gender in grammar (old o-stem). Some IE words were used first for male genitals, then any genitals, then only female genitals (Skt. grdá-'penis', sárdi-grYdi-'vagina'; dual sakthyáu 'pole / shafts of a cart / vagina'; G. baubṓ(n) 'vagina / dildo'; sélīnon 'celery / *stalk > *penis > vagina'; Bq. potro 'testicle', potorro 'vulva'; Sino-Tibetan *puta 'penis shaft / vagina'). Arm. tutn \ ttun might retain *tH > t or be based on analogy with *tit 'breast' (merka-tit 'with bare breast(s)', titan 'a nurse', Luwian titan-'breast', OE titt). G. sáthē would show *tuH2to-> *twaH2to-> *tswatH2o-, however, this is disputed. In words for 'swell / be swollen/strong/firm', PIE seems to have *tuH3-, *tuH2-, tu-. In others, G. has tū-, which would (if all regular) come from *tuH1-: *tuH3lo-> G. sōlḗn 'channel/gutter/pipe/penis' *tu(H2)lo-> OE þol 'peg', G. túlos 'knot/callus/bolt', Skt. tū _ la-'tuft / wisp of grass / panicle of flower' *turo-> Skt. turá-'strong/abundant', turī _ pa-'semen' *tuHro-> L. ob-tūrāre 'stuff / fill up', LB tu-rjo, G. tūrós 'cheese', Av. tūiri-'milk that has become like cheese' *tuH3ro-> G. sōrós 'heap (of corn) / quantity' *tuH3ko-> G. sôkos 'bold/stout/strong one' *tuHko-> Slavic *tūkū > *tyky 'pumpkin', Greek tûkon / sûkon >> *t^ü:kos > *thü:kos > L fīcus 'fig', Arm. *thüg > t`uz There is a simple explanation for this. If H2 = x or χ and H3 = xW or χW, then dissimilation of *uxW > *ux could produce *tuH3-, *tuH2-. Depending on the nature of H1, a similar dissimilation might have given G. tū-, but direct *tuxW > *tuw > tu / tū is also possible (IE *H3 / *w also alternated). Supporting this is *tuH(2)turo-> G. Sáturos, Dor. Tī _ turos 'satyr / goat' with the same *u-u vs. i-u seen in Tutunus / Titinus. This is based on Solmsen's idea that it meant 'having a swollen penis' due to their nature : > Since the other roots with H2/3 have w or P, I think H3 = xW could dsm. > x or x^ near u \ w \ P (likely also KW). For *stlH2 \ *strH3, these are not usually seen as variants and do not fit. However, other types of dsm. exist. I see alt. r \ l in roots as caused by *H > *R; from https://www.academia.edu/129161176 : > Armenian & Tocharian show a lot of unexplained changes. There are many examples of PIE *r > l and *l > r. Though PT *ml-> TB ml-is regular, there is also *mluw-> TB pälw-. Maybe the same in Arm. *mlo:-> *pru:-> pr-(the regular outcome of *ml-is not known). Some words contain both oddities. ... Since almost all these words had PIE *H (2) or Ir. *h in them (mrāha-, maskah), it is likely that *H was

> pils-(vt.) '± stretch, strain [the ears]'PP /pepilso-/ klautsne=naiśai pepīltsoṣ śau[l]mpa mā spänteträ '[those who have] listened attentively, do not trust in life!' (3b4/5). ∎If correctly identified semantically, TchB pils-may reflect a PTch *päls-from PIE *pels-'quiver, tremble' otherwise seen only in Slavic [: OCS plachъ 'quivering, nervous, anxious' (< *polso-), plašiti 'be fearful' (P:801)]. In Slavic we have a semantic development *'quiver' > 'quiver with fear' while in Tocharian we see *'quiver' > 'quiver with excitement' vel sim. See also klausa-pilṣi. > With this, maybe : TB klau(t)sa-pilṣi 'with ears quivering, listening?, attent?' = S. upaśrutika-Now, if it was really *pels-> pils-, it would be in keeping with changes known from TB, though they don't seem regular: pils-from PT *piäls-from PIE *pels-. The changes to *iä & ä by P can include ä, u, i. However, consider what it would mean if from PIE *pyels-. Since IE 'mouse' & 'rabbit' are often < 'fearful / shaking', like : *petH2-'fall / fly', *ptoH2k-\ *ptaH2k(h)-> G. πτώσσω \ ptṓssō, πτήσσω \ ptḗssō 'crouch / cower for fear', πτώξ 'cowering (animal), hare', Ar. t`ak`-čim,'hide oneself' it allows *pyels-to have 0-grade *pils-: *pilsko-'mouse' > Sl. *pĭlxkŭ > R. poloxók, Po. pilch 'dormouse' The unique *-lxk-would be explained from *-lsk-. Since Celtic *il & *ir sometimes > ul & ur by P, likely also : *pilsko-s 'mouse / shrew' > *plikos-s > *plukot-s with *ss > *ts like S. Gaulish Lucotius, etc., favor *-ot-to *-u:t-given in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/luk%C5%ABts This would resemble another root (maybe with s \ H, ex. in https://www.academia.edu/128052798) : *py(e)lH1-> ON felmta 'be frightened / tremble', G. pállō 'shake/brandish', ptólemos / pólemos 'war' *py(e)lH1-? (if 'shaking / raging') > G. ptélas 'wild boar' The existence of *-i-& *-y-in both can hardly be unrelated. PIE *p-sometimes appears as Greek p-/ pt-/ ps-. Hamp said that this resulted from false division of *d#p > *t#p > #tp-> pt-, etc. This is not likely when G. should never have had *tp-to begin with, let alone preferred to analyze them in the exact opposite way expected. This sort of thing is known from E. (a-n-apron), but is most likely when a common word has 2 forms (*ainaz > a / an), allowing false division to create a reasonable alternative interpretation in speakers' minds. If from false division of *t#p, why would G. not also have many *k-> kt-for the same reason? Why also ps-from this? Why always followed by-Vl-? I said in https://www.academia.edu/128151755 that PIE had many *Cw-and *Cy-, and these are often seen in IE words, simply ignored. Even more of their effects are seen in alt., like *mwezg-, *muzg-. Why would *pels-form *pils-? It seems clear that a reevaluation of the standards of examining IE cognates is needed. Each piece of data that can not be explained with standard theory should not be ignored, but examined as ev. for possible theories and reconstructions closer to the truth.

The Greek god of war was Ares, but found in the name LB e-nwa-ri-jo \ e-nu-wa-ri-jo \ e-no-wa-ro, G. Enualios \ Ἐνυάλιος, Lac. Inualios \ Ἰνυάλιος. These are from enualios 'warlike / fit for fighting / belligerent / crazy' (some of these might also be people named after the god or for hope for virtue in war). The name also in G. Ἐνυώ \ Enuṓ, a war-goddess.

A. The Philistines were said to have come from the land of Caphtor in the Bible, which has usually been seen as the same as Ak. Kaptaru & Egyptian Keftiw 'Crete' (*R > w known in Eg.). This was supported in the mid-nineteenth century by newly translated records from the region that also mentioned invading "Sea-People" with names that matched European locations. Later archeological finds showed that Mycenean pottery entered the region at the same time as the Philistines. So far, all evidence supported one conclusion. However, that idea was later challenged, in part based on the ideas of William Yewdale Adams that pottery and other elements of culture usually were introduced by trade, not invasion. His supporters had a major turnaround in academic circles, but in recent decades the invasion theory has gained support. Looking for DNA evidence a few years ago, more support for Cretan invasion appeared; see https://www.reddit.com/r/MinoanLang/comments/1hnekzq/philistines_messapians_crete/ So, how are Crete, Kaptaru, & Keftiw all related? Krētē must come from *Krwātā, *Kruwātā, or *Kruātā based on its legendary founder Krus (like Dôros founding the Dorians in myth, etc.). This would show *Kra:pta: in which-pt-> *-ft-> *-wt-> *-w-t-. For f > w, consider G. aleíphō 'anoint', *aleiwon 'oil' > *elai(w)on > élaion. Note that Crete was also called Khthonía '(is)land' (Κρήτη, Χθονία) from PIE *dhg^ho:m, *dhg^hom-'earth'. In Greek, some dia. had th > s, thus khth > ks in epíxenos 'upon the ground'. The Cretan Greeks also turned ks > *kx > *xR > *hR-in *ksew-'carve / scrape' > G. xū́ō 'scrape / scratch / shape by whittling/shaving / etc.', *ksustom > xustón 'spear/lance', Cretan rhustón 'spear'. Since Eg. Keftiw had its w < *R in standard thought, the need for *kx > *kR within Cretan is important. Other ex. of this change for *kR > k(h)r : Egyptian kekšer >> *kikhxor > *kikhror > G. kíkhora 'chickory' (r-r > 0-r) *kizdno-> *kistno-> *ksítanos > G. krítanos 'terebinth', Gmc. *kizna-> OE cén 'fir/pine/spruce' Khotanese kṣuṇa-'period of time, regnal period', Tumšuquese xšana-, *khs-> *khR-> G. khrónos 'time' *ksówano-'carving' > xóanon '(wooden) image/statue (of a god) / idol', *ksówano-> *kRówano-> Krónos Toxeús 'Archer', *Tokseus > *Teuksos > Teûkros (great archer from Salamis Island who fought in the Trojan War) Cretan shows words with alternation of m / p, and other Greek words do as well : *s(a)m-akis > Greek hápax 'once', Cretan hamákis Cretan kamá 'field', Dor. G. kâpos, Al. kopsht 'garden / orchard', ON hóf, OHG huoba, B. kapO / kOpO 'field / adjacent fields owned by same person' *kwa(H2)p-'foam / smoke / etc.' > G. kápnē \ kapnía 'smoke-hole' G. kámīnos 'oven/furnace/kiln/flue', NG kamináda 'chimney' *sH2aip-? > L. saepēs 'hedge/fence', G. haimasiā́ 'wall of dry stones' (if not <-*-mn-) G. hapalós 'soft / tender / gentle / raw (of fruit)', amalós 'soft / weak', Cretan hamádeon 'a kind of fig' (l > d like G. dískos, Perg. lískos 'discus/disk/dish', etc.) which seems like part of m / p / b in G. and other IE : *kH2am-> L. camur(us) 'bent', G. khamós 'crooked', khabós 'bent' G. kolúmbaina / kolúbdaina 'a kind of crab' (maybe a swimmer crab)

The present paper focuses on the question of Balkan Indo-European, a historical subgroup often assumed to include at least Greek, Armenian, Albanian, and Phrygian, and which, according to some scholars, also exhibits affinities with Tocharian; cf. inter alios Klingenschmitt 1994:244-247 and Matzinger 2012. An ongoing DFG research project being conducted at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich (see footnote 1) has carried out investigations into the inherited lexicon of Old Albanian since 2018 (DPEWA, Digitales Philologisch-Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altalbanischen), yielding a number of both new and revised etymologies. In light of these results, further headway concerning the question of a post-PIE Palaeo-Balkanic subgroup can be made, confirming also its looser affiliation with pre-Tocharian.

Piquero argued that the traditional source of Greek smáragdos 'emerald' (Semitic loan, cognate with Ak. barrāqtu, Heb. bāreqet 'emerald') is wrong, and that instead they are related to Eblaite wa-ru12-gatum, which he takes as a blue-green stone separate from emerald. He does so, in part, because (s)mfrom b-is problematic. Though it is, I can solve it in another way, that includes variants máragdos, zmáragdos, as well as barakís 'blue-green piece of clothing', and relates them to Linear B pa-ra-ku-ja 'emerald green? / inlaid with turquoise?' and similar words.

Melena considers Linear B *79 as WO2, representing wwo(:) and (*wyo(:) >) w^w^o(:). Though I agree with most of his points, this can not be true since not all his words contain *ww from any source: *Diwós-sunos 'son of Zeus' > *Diwós-nusos > *Diwóh-nusos > Diṓnusos, with metathesis, also *Diwó(s)-nusos > Diónusos with *s-s > *0-s (or similar). Instead, they ALL have-wō-. From his evidence, there is no reason to take *79 as anything except WŌ. Though I agree with Melena's G. Maîa and LB ma-79 (hisma-wo2), and see more ev. for *-awya in Whalen 2025a, since it is from *Mawyōi, related to Maîa but with fem. *-o:y, this is a clear case in which *y-y > 0-y would be expected (it would be less likely for *-yo: to exist beside many other fem. *-o:y if one had to be chosen

This thesis deals with the three stem pairs in Ancient Greek where alongside a simplex thematic present μένω, νέομαι and ἔχω, we also find the reduplicated forms μίμνω, νίσομαι and ἴσχω, from the same root. In the past, an aspectual difference has been claimed between the two present stems, often defined by the vague term “perfectivity”, on the assumption that Indo-European reduplication conveys “perfectivity”. Adopting a clearer perspective on aspect and Aktionsart, this thesis finds that no such aspectual distinction exists in the Homeric corpus. The stems are found to be in complementary distribution, having different metrical shapes. In the case of ἔχω versus ἴσχω, minor semantic differences can occasionally be found; these are argued here to be the result of Greek internal semantic developments, rather than the result of an inherited Indo-European semantic characteristic of  the reduplication syllable.

It is not just about a fine luncheon packed with omega-3 fatty acids and proteins that a fish caters to us. Rather it is like an intense passion for the fish rising from the deepest part of a Mecho Bengali's (Bengali people who love to eat fish) heart which goes to the extent of being reflected as an eyecatching moment in a wedding or in a temple where fish plays a significant role ranging from its rituals to recipes. We, the Bengali people, not only use fish in our food but also worship them. Fish is considered very auspicious and lucky before starting something good and important in our life as the fish (one of the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu) becomes the rescuer of all living beings during the time of the great flood as is stated in the 'Matsya Purana'. Since ancient times fish has been considered a symbol of divine power and luck. This paper has put forward an honest effort to develop an understanding of the social, cultural, and religious significance of fish in Bengali societies. From economic importance in the fishing industry to folklore, mythology, religion, art, and literature, fish plays a significant role. In a wedding, there are some rituals related to fish starting from the Tatta to the bride's welcoming day and then there is a sudden shift in this discourse. And this shift is found in the fish bhog tradition that the paper has also tried to brief in this very discourse.

Who were the original inhabitants of Europe? And how did they relate to contemporary populations on the continent? Such questions immensely fascinated contemporaries during the 19th century. This article argues that the ensuing search for the indigenous peoples of Europe was closely intertwined with colonial discourses and practices. By the 1830s, the ›ethnic interpretation‹ of the results of comparative philology suggested that multiple waves of immigration had replaced indigenous Europeans with ever more advanced peoples. This ›migrationism‹ and an ethnically stratified image of prehistory that had emerged by the 1880s had profound political implications for both intra-European ethnic relations and colonial interactions: Narratives derived from the European past that understood cultural and physical change as the result of clashes between different ›races‹ helped legitimize colonial expansion, painting the conquest, displacement, and annihilation of colonized peoples as a mere continuation of timeless mechanisms of humanity’s cultural and physical evolution.

Philippe Ha0at (Independent researcher) Benoît Sagot (Inria) Leiden -29th May 2019 1. "Fossilised" preverbaFon with well aHested primary roots 2. "Fossilised" preverbaFon with unaHested primary roots 3. Reanalyses 4. DenominaFve verbs Conclusion

This note introduces the Tomato Principle as a teaching model for phonemic reversal in syllabic texts. The English word tomato (TO-MA-TO) is expressed in tablet form to demonstrate that reversal may produce redundancy: the word remains unchanged in all reading directions. The Tomato model provides an analogy for understanding the mechanical basis of phonemic reversal in the Linear B corpus. Linear B itself preserves this principle. Several inscriptions are palindromic at the syllabic level: A-RO-A, WE-JE-WE, and O-DA-O. Like tomato, these sequences are ductus-agnostic: their form does not change, but their interpretation can shift. Their existence shows redundancy and ambiguity ostensibly as a function of the system. The Tomato Principle highlights how Linear B can sustain meaning across multiple paths of reading, and offers a learning example for how directionality in the script may be better understood.

Melena (2022) examines occurrences of Linear B *86 in : me-86-ta 'an ethnonym' wa-86-re 'a shepherd's name' u-ra-86 'a place' ]86 'a place?' (same as me-86-?) This sign has been the most difficult to assign a value to, since only one word seems to be written out (in full, using separate signs of known value) another time in LB. Melena recognized it (1983), wa-86re must be one of the many PN's beginning with wa-duin LB and LA (including LB wa-du-na-ro, wadu-na, LA wa-du-ni-mi), often seen as "foreign" shepherds. Since LA names like pa-ja-re often appear

The Romanian language, on the one hand, and the Scandinavian languages, on the other hand, have much in common, although this is very little known. And it is natural that it should be so, since all these languages are part of the common Indo-European trunk, more precisely of its European branch. However, in a more precise classification, there are also elements of differentiation. Thus, Romanian is considered a Romance language, which, broadly speaking, is true, but some clarifications must be made. More precisely, the author of these lines discovered that the pre-Roman (Dacian) lexical element in the composition of this language is very pronounced, so that Romanian is, in reality, a Daco-Romance language. This special status of Romanian is due to the specific historicalgeographical circumstances in which it was formed and evolved, different from those of other Romance languages. More precisely, due to the fact that the Romans conquered only about a third of Dacia and ruled this territory for only 165 years, in the newly formed language (much later called Romanian) many words from the native language (mostly Dacian) were preserved, more precisely 41% of the main lexical fund. As for the Scandinavian languages, as is known, they are included in the Germanic language family, along with German, English, Dutch and Frisian. They evolved from Old Norse (or Old Scandinavian), which, in turn, comes from Proto-Germanic. Studying Romanian words very likely of Dacian origin in the Romanian languageI discovered many similarities of Indo-European origin with terms from the Scandinavian languages: Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese. In this article I will insist on those from the first three languages mentioned. But along with the terms of comparison from the respective words, I will also use others, selected from all other Germanic languages. For this, I have selected a number of 24 Romanian words, assumed to be of Dacian origin, with their detailed etymology.

In Greek-like Elements in Linear A (https://www.academia.edu/58619465), Nagy provided an early and broad list and analysis of Linear A words matching Linear B, Greek, etc. For the 1st section, in 9., he considers that the names LA qa-qa-ru & LB qa-qa-ro might be related, maybe also G. Πάρπαρος. There is no certain IE ety., but maybe 'maker' < *kWr-kWr-<-*kW(e)r-(compare similar reduplicated Daedalus 'fashioner').This u \ o is important, and in others he did the same for LA ka-ru, LB ka-ro (G. Kallōn or Kha(i)rōn ?), LA pa-ra-tu, LB pa-ra-to (G. Platōn, or Palanthos 'bald' (words for 'bald' in names are fairly common)), LA ku-ru-ku, LB *ku-ru-ko, fem. kuru-ka (G. Glukos, Glukōn < gl(e)uk-'sweet'?), LA da-mi-nu, LB da-mi-ni-jo (G.-damno-or daimōn ?). Some with i \ e, maybe LA di-ki-se, LB de-ke-se-u, G. *Dexeus. Others with no changes (LA ma-ka-rite, G. Makaritēs), maybe showing that o > u and e > i were optional in some LA dia. (maybe applied to long & short, if *a: > *e: was unaffected).

A. Uralic supposedly did not have any *CC-, however, alternation of n-, sn-, *?n- > ny- occurs in
*(s)nolke 'snot / saliva' https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/ńolke :

Northern Sami: snuolga

For more, it refers to https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?locale=en_GB&id_eintrag=634 which only
says that Lapp s- is secondary. How could they know? Why would it change *n- > sn-? I'd note that
sn- appears in many IE words for 'snot', etc., notably *snudH- \ *snuHd- > Gmc *snutt- 'snot', *snu:t- 'blow the nose' (apparently related to W. nodd 'wetness / sap'). If a Gmc loan, it would be odd for sn- to
only occur in Lapp and for it to be spread throughout Uralic.

Based on other alt. of IE *d, *l with PU *δ, *l (below, F), I think that PU words with *-ke & *-
ka often being suffixes supports *snud-ke > *(s)nolke. Where the *-
H- appears, or its effects, is hard to say since it seems to disappear or move in IE.
For Hungarian nyál, in https://www.academia.edu/31352467 Zhivlov shows that *n could > ny near
*K. For apparent exceptions (his *n > ny out of nowhere), I said
in https://www.academia.edu/129090627 that *Kn- > ny- also. Since
in https://www.academia.edu/129640859 I said Turkic *kulxāk ‘ear’ ( Karakhanid qulaq, qulqaq,
qulxaq, qulɣaq ) and Uralic *kuxle- ‘hear’ (F. kuule-, Mi. kōl-, NMi. hūl-, etc.) were related and < PIE
*k^leus- 'hear'. With *-s- > *-x-, it could be that *sn- > sn- \ *xn- > ny- also. Without these changes,
both sn- and ny- would be unexplained.

The so-called Pashupati seal depicts a seated anthropomorphic figure; the pose of the figure is often described as a 'yoga pose'. On the head of the figure is a headdress of bull horns, and the face resembles the muzzle of a bull, so the figure depicts a deity. Around the seated figure there are figures of animals and a figure of man. At the top of the seal is an inscription of six signs. The inscription is read from right to left (if we work with the imprint), it means the following: traps catch fish, hunting catches people. The text is a warning against turning hunting into an entertainment. Previously it was shown that the Harappan language is a dialect of Burushaski, so Burushaski should be used as the key in this case also. Having added reconstructed readings, we receive the following: *jāl *tʃ *t *ɣa[n] *ɣar *hir / *ses.

Several PU words with *-mt-resemble IE ones. For *wamta 'forest', based on other ex. of *e & *i > a (https://www.academia.edu/143975134), it could be part of IE *w-w > PU *w-m or *m-w : IE *wid-won-'knowing / brain' (https://www.academia.edu/129119764) PU *wiδewe > F. yty, ydyn g. 'bone marrow / core / power', Es. üti, üdi g. 'marrow' PU *wiδeme > Erzya udem 'marrow / brain / intellect' IE *wetuso-'old' > L. vetus, OLi. vetušas; PU *wiǝtuǝšë > *wyǝtwǝšë > *watmǝšë > *wanšë 'old' IE *widhu-'wood / tree' > E. wood *widhw-aH2 (neuter plural or fem.?) > PU *wiǝtwa: > *watma > *wamta 'forest' https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/wamta IE *work^wuko-> Ar. goršuk 'badger' (https://www.academia.edu/129175453) *wërs^wuka:(y-) > PU > *märskwä > *märkä(s) \ *m\när(s)kä \ *närkäs 'badger' (below, D) The difference in *-dw-& *-dhw-might show that *dh > *th before changes to *dC. B. m, ntl,-ay Some PU words show variants with front vs. back V's. Many of them end in *-a, likely showing that PIE had fem. *-aH2(y)-from *-oiH2-(https://www.academia.edu/129368235). If so, PU *-ay > *-ä \ *-a. With some previous examples also showing IE matches, I'd add : *m(e)ntH3-uRo-> Greek μόθουρα \ móthoura 'shaft of an oar', Lithuanian mentùris 'cooking beater ', *mH3ontuRo-> Gmc *mandula-z 'handle on a grinding mill' *mentH3-tlaH2(y-) > *mentla:(y-) > *melä \ *mela 'oar' Note that there is no long **V: in Finnish (below, C). More in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/mel%C3%A4 C. Václav Blažek in https://www.academia.edu/118037313 provides ev. for IE words with *me(:)l-'think / perceive / sense / taste'. This seems to me to show *melH1-\ *meH1l-with H-met. (https://www.academia.edu/127283240). I don't agree with his details, but he also mentioned PU *mäle 'senses / mind'. Since this appears as Finnic *meele, it would be rec. as *mäxle by those who believe in PU *x. Clearly, *meH1l-& *mäxle would be too close to simply dismiss. Again, *e > *a (fronted by *-e, maybe < *-i: or *-Vy). The opposition to *x comes from those who think many Finnic *V were lengthened before certain C(V). I find it hard to accept that *melä \ *mela 'oar' would need to behave so differently from **mäle (with similar changes in Saamic) just to get rid of *x. Most protolanguages contain much more complexity & more C's, V's, than their daughters. Why would *x, similar to (and here cognate with) IE *H be treated in exactly the opposite way? *H was doubted in the past, now is standard, but *x somehow remains controsversial? Most who oppose *x causing V: also oppose any relation to PIE, except for Hovers (https://www.academia.edu/104566591). Cognates in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/m%C3%A4le D. w-w, rs^kw Above, I proposed : IE *work^wuko-> Ar. goršuk 'badger' (https://www.academia.edu/129175453) *wërs^wuka:(y-) > PU > *märskwä > *märkä(s) \ *m\när(s)kä \ *närkä(s) 'badger'

The Balochi word rastar ‫,)رﺳﺗر(‬ meaning "wild beast" or "beast of prey," preserves one of the most evocative and ancient designations in the Iranian lexicon. Its etymology reaches deep into the religious and linguistic history of the Iranian world, tracing back to a time when predatory and scavenging animals were marked out in Zoroastrian cosmology as xrafstras-creatures aligned with the forces of evil and disorder. From "Corpse" and "Eating" to "Beast" Avestan texts give us the clearest window into this history. The form xrafstra-refers to "noxious animals," those that were ritually impure and spiritually harmful. But there is a deeper story behind the word. By analyzing its morphology, we can reconstruct a Proto-Iranian compound *krep-(e)d-tro-, literally meaning "corpse-eater." The first element comes from kəhrp-(Avestan) "body, corpse" (PIE krep-/kreb-), while the second element is a verb of consumption, likely (a)d-"to eat." Together with the common agentive suffix-tro /-stra (forming nouns like "one who does X"), the compound originally named "one who eats the corpse." This makes sense within the Zoroastrian worldview, where hyenas, wolves, and other carrion-eating animals were seen as allies of the Evil Spirit, polluting the world of the living by feeding on the dead. Interestingly, a parallel formation exists in Avestan: kǝrǝfšx˅ar-, also meaning "corpse-eater," built from the same kəhrp-root but with svar-"eat." The existence of this parallel strengthens the case that xrafstra-was originally a compound of the same type.

PIE *tep-'warm / hot' also appears as *t(e)p(e)H1-in L. tepēre, *tpeH1-sk^e-> Al. ftoh 'cool'. IE *tp-> *pt-> ft-is probably reg. in Al.; other ex. come from met. of *t-p-> *tp-that could be late (https://www.academia.edu/143644895). There is other ev. that *-H1-existed in all forms. S. tápas-'heat' exists beside tápus+ (tápur-vadha-'striking like fire?', tápuṣa-aśna-'fiercely burning?') in a similar way to *g^en(H1)(o)s-'birth / family' > IIr. *j^anas-\ *j^anus-. Though most *H > i(:), some > u(:) (maybe in a similar way to *r(H) > i(:)r \ u(:)r). H-met. (https://www.academia.edu/127283240) may be the cause, since *tpeH1-sk^e-looks fairly odd, and *tepH1-sk^e-> Av. tafs-'become hot' is possible. There is more ev. in *tepH1to-> L. tepidus (with pre-aspiration https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/zuprzr/jens_elmeg%C3%A5rd_rasmussen/), since some IIr. point to *tH1epto-. Turner : > 5679 taptá 'heated, hot' RV. [√tap] Pa. tatta-, °aka-'hot, burning', Pk. tatta-, Gy. pal. tátă, arm. tatav, eur. tato, Ḍ. tʌ ́ta, f. °ti, Tir. táta, Woṭ. tat, f. tyet, Bshk. tʌtt, f. tεtt, Phal. tāto, f. °ti, Sh.gil. tātṷ, koh. tăto, gur. tāttŭ, K. totᵘ, S. tato (pp. of tapaṇu), L. tattā (pp. of tappaṇ), P. tattā, WPah.bhad. tattū, pāḍ. tāttā, cur. tattā, Ku. tāto, gng. tāt, N. tāto, B. tāt, Or. tatā, OAw. tātā, lakh. tāt, H. tāt, tātā, tattā, Marw. tāto, G. tātũ.-Verbal pres. stems formed from past participle: K. tatun 'to become hot'; Ku. tatoṇo 'to warm'; N. tātnu, tātinu 'to be hot, be energetic', tatāunu 'to warm'; B. tātā 'to be heated', tātāna 'to heat', Or. tātibā, tāteibā; Bhoj. tātal 'to be hot'; H. tatānā 'to heat'; Ext.-ll-: B. tātal 'hot, Or. tātalā, °tilā, Bhoj. H. tātal. Addenda: taptá-: WPah.kṭg. (kc.) tattɔ 'heated, hot', J. tātā, Garh. tātū. > There is also : S. taptá-'heated/hot/molten,' Ti. tath, A. táatu 'hot', Sh.d. tʌ ́to 'hot [of heated objects]', čhʌt 'hot [of the sun]', Indus Kohistani tʌ ̀th In some Dardic-th-, met. of aspiration from *thatta-is likely (seen in other words cognate with S. C-Ch-, etc.). If H1 = x^ (https://www.academia.edu/115369292), *tx^-> *th(y)-could give Sh. čhʌt. For other ex. of H1 \ y, see https://www.academia.edu/128170887. In others, older *th, even if not attested, is implied by tone. In A., other ex show alt of aa & *áa > óo. Retained áa must come from an older more complex tone; other Dardic clearly show that h & Ch caused low tone, so *thàptá > *thàptȃ (downstep) > *thàáptà (move tone back, one tone per mora) > *thăáptà (or a similar path). This also could be helpful in reconstructing other words not secure as cognates. In https://www.academia.edu/128170887 : PIE *tep-'warm, hot', PSCc *ṭep-/ *ṭp-*teplo-> OCS teplo-, OGr t'pil-i 'warm', Gr. tbil-, Mg. t'ubu OGr t'pebis , Gr. tbeba 'warm oneself', Mg. o-t'ibuans , Sn. t'ebid A relation with IE & SCc seems clear (for many other words), but here some have objected that-p->p-but t-> t'-makes no sense. If really *tH-, it would fit. Since H-met. happened within IE, often different in each branch, this would work best if SCc were a branch of IE.

A. The 2 nearly identical roots : *k^esH2-> G. keá-z-'split', eu-kéatos 'easy to split', Celtic *kesta: > MI cess 'spear / javelin' *k^H2as-> S. śáśati 'cut', OCS kosa 'sickle' are likely the same, with H-met. in https://www.academia.edu/127283240 B. G. has several cases of mn \ *md > bd, often next to u : *tumdaros > G. Túndaros, Tundáreos, LB *tumdaros, *tubdaros, tu-da-ra, tu-ma-da-ro, tu-pa3-da-ro G. kolúmbaina / kolúbdaina 'a kind of crab' (maybe a swimmer crab) *wra(H2)d-> rhádamnos 'branch', rhámnos 'box-thorn', rhábdos 'rod (for punishment) / staff (of office) / wand' I think this is part of a larger alternation of P \ T near labials. In part https://www.academia.edu/120561087/Greek_and_Skt_P_dissimilation : *graphma > G. grámma, Dor. gráthma, Aeo. groppa 'drawing / letter' *samH2dho-> *(p)sam(a)tho-> G. fem. ámathos 'sand', psámathos, *psáthmos > *psáfmos > psámmos 'sand', *psámfos > Dor. psâphos 'pebble' There are plenty of ex. of certain IE origin, so Ranko Matasović's doubts in https://www.academia.edu/1489376 about *krumbo-& *krumdi-being IE are unneeded. It looks like another ex. of umb \ umd, just as likely as those in Greek. Adding to data & ideas rrom https://www.academia.edu/129170239 : *kH2awmb-> *kRamb-> 'wrinkled / shriveled' > G. krámbē 'cabbage', krambaléos 'dry', krombóō 'roast' *kRumb-> OE hrympel 'wrinkle', E. Shetl. krump 'crooked back', Sw. krympa 'shrink', ON kryppa 'hump / hunch', kroppr 'a hump on any part of the body', OI cromm, OBr crum 'hunchback', Br. kromm 'crooked' *krumbi-> *krumdi-> OI cruind 'round / globular / circular', OW crunn G. kramb-vs. kromb-might be from a > o near P (*madh-ye-> G. masáomai \ mossúnō 'chew'; G. ablábeia, Cr. ablopia 'freedom from harm/punishment'; *kapmos 'harbor' > Kommós; G. spérma 'seed', LB *spermo; *graph-mn > G. grámma, Aeo. groppa; *paH2-mn 'protection' > G. pôma 'lid / cover'; lúkapsos / lúkopsos 'viper's herb'; (a)sphálax / (a)spálax / skálops 'mole'; kábax 'crafty/knavish', kóbaktra p. 'knavery'; *H2merg^-> G. amérgō 'pluck / pull', omórgnūmi 'wipe'). Since Gmc used ablaut of a \ i \ u productively, *hrimp-doesn't require IE *kremb-, instead it could be analogy. C. PIE *(s)kr̥ dhu-has some oddities. G. σκυρθάλιος seems to show *r̥ > ur. This, of course, led Beekes to say, "The variation may point to a Pre-Greek word." However, the same in Indic https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/soas_query.py?qs=krdh : 3254 *kuḍha 'defective'. [See list s.v. kuṇṭha-] Pk. kuḍhiya-'blunt', m. 'fool'. Addenda: *kuḍha-[Perh. kr̥ dhú 'small, deficient' RV., Ir. *kr̥ du-in Shgh. čūrδ 'crooked', Pers. kul, Yazgh. ḱiδ] Shughni shows *kirdu-> *cirdu > *curdu, so it is likely that older *-dhw-could influence the V of *r̥ > *Vr. It's also possible, since Armenian shows *-ur-\ *-un->-r \-un-in some u-stems, that older *skr̥ dhur-existed, with some IE having met. or asm. > *skurdhr̥-or *skurdhur-. Though many IE roots with *(s)C-existed, Beekes wondered if G. σκυρθάλιος, Lac. κυρσάνιος vs. σκυρθάνια p. could be dissimilation of s-s after th > s. If so, it would make Doric th > s fairly old, which is also what I favor, even witih ex. from LA.

Old Japanese: tosi 'year(s)', Middle Japanese: tòsì, Middle Korean twols '1 year' <twol-'turn' These words were not related in Francis-Ratte (who said that all *-rC-> *-nC-in OJ, while I see it as optional), who mentioned some parts in : > PORTIONS: MK mwok, NK mwoks 'portion, a cut' ~ OJ muk-'peels it'. pKJ *mok-'takes off a portion'. MK mwok 'portion, a cut' < pre-MK *mwok-'takes off a portion' + *-a 'deverbal derivative'. Assumes NK mwoks < *mwok-'takes off a portion' + verbal substantivizer *-s (cf. twols '1 year' < twol-'turns' + *-s).

A group of IE words for 'barley' shows alternation unexplained in standard theory. Most say *H2albhit, G. álphi(ton), Al. elb, but this does not fit Iranian *arpačya: or *arpušya:. The Iranian words have few cognates, so the exact form is unclear, but see Note 1 for ev. for *arpaćya: & *arpa: in loans. Ir. *arpaćya: & *arpa: require a compound (or suffixed forms), & since IE *p can become *b next to *H3, *C > *Ch next to *H (neither regular), starting with *-p-is best : *H2alp-'sharp / peak / stone' > H. alpu-'sharp / pointed', L. Alpēs 'Alps' *H2alp-'sharp thing > barley' > G. álphi(ton) '(barley) flour', Al. elb 'barley', Iranian *arpaćya: > Is. wurwǝs, etc. In part, this is due to other IE grains <-'sharp' in other roots. Iranian *arpaćya: would essentially need to be from *H2ak^H-'eat / bite', found in words for 'bait or food', as 'sharp food'. This suggests that *H2albhit was really *H2albhid (with *-d > *-t >-0 in G., but with opt. analogy to an o-stem at the stage with *-t) < *H2alb-H3id-< *H2alp-H3H1d-'sharp food', also from *Hed-'eat / bite'. For ev. of *H3H1ed-or similar, due to G. e-vs. o-, see www.academia.edu/128931671. For opt. syllabic *H1 > i, see *p(o)lH1-> G. ptólis / pólis 'city', *pelH1tno-> palitá-'aged/old/grey', G. pelitnós, *dolH1gho-'long' > G. dolikhós, *delH1gho-> G. en-delekhḗs 'perpetual'. Starostin's claim that Altaic *arpa can't be a loan from Iranian (1) makes no sense, since he has no ev. of the timing of the Altaic breakup in relation to the presence of Iranian. From only the evidence he gives, it would be possible to see them as cognate to IE, but, in fact his details are clearly wrong (and inconsistent) & also require *arpašyV in Proto-Mongolian. This is far too close to Iranian to be chance, & its recent nature w/in Iranian makes an old cognate impossible. On the other hand, knowing its IE

Greek Hekátē 'Hecate' and Hekatos 'name of Zeus / Apollo' come from PG *wekatos 'to be obeyed / lord', PIE *wek^-(S. vaś-'be willing/obedient', G. hékāti 'by the will of _', etc.). Most G.-a-came from *-n-, but with no specific internal ev. for that here (but see below for support). This hek-shows optional *w > h (*wespero-> L. vesper, G. hésperos 'evening'; *wid-'know'-> G. hístōr 'wise man', Boe. wistōr 'witness'; *westu-'dwelling, home'-> L. Vesta, G. Hestíā, *wel-> G. hélix 'object with spiral shape'). Despite theories that seek order like *w-s > h-s, there is no regular

Despite the loss of semantic differentiation between the inherited imperfect, perfect, and aorist, the three do not occur equally often in Epic Sanskrit. The perfect is the default past tense, while aorists are rare. The durability of certain aorist stems amid the general collapse of the category requires an explanation on a stem-by-stem basis. I examine a sample of ninety aorist tokens from seven passages of the Mahābhārata, among which eighteen stems are represented, and discuss factors that may underlie their staying power. I argue that morphological transparency was significant, since all but one of the forms collected contain vowels either stem-finally or within, before or after the stem formants, which prevents confusing sound changes that might otherwise lead to opacity. I also discuss non-formal factors that may help to explain the continuing occurrence of aorists in general or these stems in particular: the non-existence of perfects built to certain roots, the use of aorist stems in prohibitions, the frequency of certain forms, the usefulness of a past tense not restricted to the third person (unlike the perfect), and perhaps a preference for the rhythmical shape ◡ –◡ –.

A. There are several problems in a group of words from traditional *lok(^)s-'see / be visible' : S. lakṣati 'recognize',-te 'perceive', Pk. lakkhaï 'see, know', Psh.ar. läč-, laš-, laṣ-'to see', Sdh. lakhaṇu 'to ascertain'; Turner 10883 S. lakṣá-m. 'stake, prize' RV, 'mark, sign' S. lakṣita-'marked', Pk. lakkhia-'recognized', Mth. lāśā 'branded, cauterized, having a spot like the mark of a branding iron' S. lákṣman-nu. 'mark' S. lakṣmī-'good sign, fortune' RV, 'bad sign, misfortune' AV G. Λοξίας 'Apollo' (if < 'bright', etc.

A. In https://www.academia.edu/63925078/Slavic_me%C4%8D%D1%8Cka_she_bear_ Václav Blažek attempts to explain OCS mečĭka \ mešĭka 'she-bear / sow / hyena', etc., as from *meki-ka: 'desiring bees' or 'small bee' (with comparison to Semitic d-b-r). This requires that-š-be contamination & that an IE *mek-existed beside *mVks-, for which I see no ev. His support that *meko-> I. meach 'bee' means little when I. beach is standard, & in a fn. he says that Hamp explained m-from a contamination of with mil 'honey'. It would be quite a coincidence if the only IE with ev. of *mekowas right beside *beko-, with m-so restricted to dia. Irish. Also, the oldest meanings do not show 'bear' as the certain source, esp. as 'bear' is always the meaning in later words but not OCS (this distribution is typical for words with a shift). For 'sow / hyena', the range seems certain to be from ety. explanations of Greek hu-aina <-'sow' (not certainly correct, but irrelevant if believed at the time). Since 'bear sow' is known elsewhere, I think oldest 'sow' fits the ev. best. This would show a relation to Ct. *mokkū > OI mucc 'pig / sow', etc. (below). Since the *-kk-is rare, & I said it came from *-kH-, in the same way *-kH-\ *-khH-> Slavic *-k-\ *-x-would allow mečĭka \ mešĭka to show a real alternation. In https://www.academia.edu/128817000 : > In support of *mokkuH2-'mother', I propose its origin in : *maH2k-> Cz. mákati 'make wet', R. makát' 'dip', *-os-aH2-? > L. mācerāre 'soften, make tender by soaking or steeping / weaken, waste away' *mH2ak-> Li. makõnė 'puddle/slop', maknóti 'walk through the mud', Al. makë 'glue', OBg mokrŭ 'damp/humid/wet', R. močítʹ 'wet, moisten, douse, soak, steep', močá 'urine', Lw. makisa-'drain?', *mH2akni-'swamp(y)' > *māni-'turf, peat' > Ml. móin f., W mawn p. > which would allow : *mekH2i-kaH2-> Sl. *mekika: \ *mexika: > OCS mečĭka \ mešĭka 'she-bear / sow / hyena' *mokH2uH2-'nursing / mother' > Ct. *mokkū > OI mucc 'pig / sow', W moch *mokkuwo-'of the mother / on the mother's side' > Og. muccoi g., OI. moccu 'belonging to the gens or family of' B. In https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329005620_Indo-European_bear Václav Blažek discusses many IE words for 'bear'. His comparison of words for sacred animals being replaced at intervals, with 'honey-eater', etc., later used supports his idea of 'bee-eater' (or 'honey-eater' if they were called by similar words, as in some IE). I do not agree with his details, however, as it might require (with opt. of *H in compounds) : *H2rd-H2k^H3o-'bee-eater' > *H2rd_k^_o-> *H2rdk^o-However, the problems with *H2ak^(H)-'eat' are not solved if from his **H2ak^H3-. He has *-H3-to explain-o-in G. akolos, Ph. akkalos 'bit (of food)', but-kk-must be from *-kH-(just as for Celtic *mokku:, Part A). These might be < *H2ak^H-alo-(since-al(l)o-is so common in G., V-asm. of *a-ao > a-o-o fits internal ev. & comparison with Ph.). It is *H2ak^H1-that might explain this best, & also why *-H-\ *-0-appears in Sanskrit. If IIr. *k^ > *kx^ > *ts^, then if H1 was something like *x^ (or uvular; palatal to explain opt. H1 > y \ i), then a partial (optional?) merger of IIr. *kx^ & *k^x^ would not be very odd, maybe only for *-k^x^C-. If so, then : *H2rd-H2k^H1o-'bee-eater' > *H2rdk^H1o-(> *H2rdH1k^o-in Anatolian ?) This also might also explain another problem. Ártemis & her followers were sometimes associated with bears, leading to previous attempts to link Art-& arktos. The-V-of : G. Ártemis,-id-, Dor. Artamis, LB artemīt-/ artimīt-, *Artimik-s >> Lydian Artimuk / Artimuś *Artemīt->> Artemīśion / Artamītion 'temple of Ártemis'

A redaction of Psalms prepared both as a reference point and experimental application of grammatical and orthographic rules developed for archaized (quasi-Old) Church Slavonic, for students and enthusiasts willing to learn.
Last update 2.10.: Psalms 1-45 (kathismas 1-6)

In this paper, I argue for the necessity of reconstructing two distinct roots
*ǵerh2- ‘become old, age’ and *ǵerhx- ‘crush, grind’ for Proto-Indo-European (PIE). I investigate the averbo structure of both these roots and conclude that they diverge not only semantically, but also morphologically from each other – for instance, the ‘oldness’ root *ǵerh2- builds a full-grade simple thematic present (cf. Ved. járate ‘becomes old’), whereas the ‘crush’ root *ǵerhx- builds a u-present (cf. Ved. jūrva- ‘grind down, destroy’)
beside a root present or an ó/é-present (cf. Ved. jurátam ‘destroy!, break down!’). In addition, I discuss some nominal forms (OCS zrĭno n. ‘grain, seed’, ON kjarni m. ‘kernel’, Lat. glārea f. ‘gravel’, etc.), whose etymology supports the reconstruction of two distinct roots PIE *ǵerh2- and *ǵerhx-.