Hamito-Semitic *i- & Indo-European

-

On Reddit, Sigma_Linguist proposed:
>

The Arabic noun imruʔu (nom.) has a very irregular conjugation, having accusative and genitive forms imraʔa and imriʔi respectively, with the stem vowel changing in accordance with the case suffix. Even weirder, when definite, the root changes to marʔ- altogether. I propose original imrʔ-{u, a, i}, with the stem vowel being epenthetic.

>

-
It makes perfect sense for *imrʔ-a > imraʔa, etc., but why did only Arabic have a stem like this? All apparent cognates begin with m-, not i-. However, he had an explanation that included many more examples:

>

The restriction against syllables beginning with a vowel is well known as an Afroasiatic phonotactical rule... the idea of mandatory onsets is found in virtually every reconstruction – Though as I will set out to prove, it is wrong altogether both for PAA as well as Proto-Semitic, in fact I don’t believe any primary AA branch ever had such a restriction. In Arabic, a glottal stop as well as the following vowel can be dropped in the beginning of some words when they occur after another vowel.

fa "so" + ʔijlis "sit down!" -> fajlis "so sit down!"

ʔana "I" + ʔibtasamtu "smiled" -> ʔanabtasamtu "I smiled"

baytu "house" + ʔibnika "your son's" -> baytubnika "your son's house"

Yet in other words, no such thing happens

ʔana "I" + ʔaktubu "write" -> ʔana ʔaktubu "I write"

When words of group 1 are compared with other Semitic languages, there is no glottal stop at all and the vowel trades places with the following consonant

Arabic ʔibnu vs Hebrew ben, Akkadian biinum "son"

Arabic ʔuzmur vs Akkadian zumur "sing!"

It is generally assumed here, that Arabic underwent metathesis in these words, and the glottal stop was later added epenthetically... it is problematic to assume that it is Arabic that actually metathesized these formations, because there is no clear criteria for when this metathesis occurs and when it doesn't, syllable weight, vowel quality and other factors are irrelevant. Instead I propose that items such as *bin "son" *sim "name" *ti- [reflexive prefix] and the imperative patterns 1i2i3, 1i2a3 and 1u2u3 were actually *ibn, *ism *it- and i12i3, i12a3 & u12u3, syllables truly starting with a vowel.

Akkadian then metathesized the initial vowel with the following consonant consistently, while NWS did so everywhere except in the reflexive prefix it-. Arabic on the other hand did generally not undergo metathesis, except sporadically in words like bintu "girl" from *ibnatu. I propose that syllables lacking both an onset and a coda were banned in PS due to Arabic forms such as qul "say!" instead of otherwise expected ʔuqul. The "smoking gun" evidence, however really comes from other Afroasiatic branches, where imperatives are similarly formed with a prefix vowel, suggesting this feature to be archaic... An interesting curiosity, but very useful for proving Afroasiatic allowed these onset-less syllables is the fact that the quality of these vowels is very likely to be /i/, which is rather rare for non-root final vowels in Proto-Semitic.

>

-
Some of these can be explained by comparison. The reason so many begin with i- could be because there is a category of words with the same beginning. There is HS *ʔi-nVs- '(young) man' which is "Derived from HS *nüs- “man”" (Orel & Stolbova) and a similar *gal- 'camel' -> *ʔi-gal-, etc. I say that *ʔi 'year' formed an adj. 'young' (like PIE *wet- > *wetalo- 'yearling, calf') that could be added to nouns. This might really be *i (based on Arab met., deletion, etc.) or a more complex form (below). Evidence is seen in this group having Sem. *iC- and met. *iC- > *Cy-, etc. (or really *yiC- > *C(i)y-?). In some words, the original X & young-X were previously treated as one root, since *i- usually > 0- with no trace in most branches (and of course, words for 'young man' can later expand their range to 'boy' or 'man', etc., just as IE words not from compounds). For now:

*gal- 'camel' -> *i-gal > Sem. *igl- 'young of animals; calf', met. > CChad *gyal- 'cow'

*bar- 'man' -> *i-bar- 'child', met. > WChad *b(y)ar-

*nüs- 'man' -> *i-nas- > Berber *ʔinVs- 'young man'

*bin- 'man, male relative' -> Sem *i-bin- 'son' Arabic ʔibn, met. > *biyn- > Ak. bīn- \ binn-

*maʔra- \ *mʔara- \ *maraʔ- 'man' -> *i-maʔr- > Ak. mārum 'son', Arabic imruʔ 'man, person'

*maCr- \ *Cmar- 'sheep, goat' -> *i-Cmar- > Sem. *(ʔ)immar- 'sheep, lamb', Arabic ʔimmar-

-
For *ibin > *byin- > *biyn- > Ak. bīn- \ binn-, the met. is seen at the stage with *Cy- in Chadic; later, a 2nd met. in Ak. & the new *iyC is fixed in one of 2 ways (iiC \ iCC). Some of these also look IE, like *maʔra- vs. IIr. *marya-, etc. Others (https://www.academia.edu/167888674) like:

HS *ʔet ‘eat’, IE *Hed

HS *k'W-m ‘eat, swallow’, IE *kWem(H) ‘swallow, gulp’

HS *ś-r-p ‘drink’, IE *sreb(h) ‘sip, drink, slurp’

HS *su ‘that, he’, IE *so (and *so-u in Toch.)

HS *d-n-s ‘heavy’, IE *dnsu- ‘dense, thick, close', H. daššu- 'heavy, strong'

HS *ś-m ‘heat, sun’, IE *semH2 ‘summer’

-
The same relation might shed light on the *i- here. For *ʔi 'year, time', Orel & Stolbova question if it's related to *ʔi(w)- 'be, become'. This word is similar to HS *ʔ-y ‘go, come, walk’ and the optional -w- recalls *ʔaw- \ *ʔay- 'go, come, run'. It is possible that PIE *H1ey- 'go, etc.' became *xYay- (and opt. dsm. > *xYaw-) with weak *Hi- > *x^iy- (and > *x^iw-). If so, no glottal stop, explaining the difference between groups 1 & 2.

-
Others:

IE *mH3org- > Av. marǝγā ‘meadow’, HS *marVg- 'field, meadow'

IE *leig^h-, HS *lVḳ- 'lick' (and reduplicated *le- > EChad *lya-lik-, just as in IE)

IE *lik- \ *lek- \ *lak- 'bent, leg', HS *lik- \ *lek- \ *loḳ- 'leg' (note odd vowel alt. in both)

IE *g^onur, HS *gorun-gorun- 'knee' (redup. = dual?; -r in Ar. cunr (u-stem))

IE *swepno-, HS *siʔwan- 'sleep, dream'

IE *kH2ar-wo- 'horned animal, cow', WChad *karwa- 'sheep, lamb, bull'

IE *serp- 'crawl; snake, lizard', HS *seRf ? > *seCf- 'snake, lizard' (Sem *šipp- requires some cluster; few *CC reconstructed in HS, but clearly many are needed to explain irregularities)

IE *pup- 'breast', S. pupphusa- ‘lungs’, HS *fuf- 'lung, breast', Gaanda pipifa 'lung' (could be p \ ph > p \ f; likely really *pHup-, *pupH-, etc. if redup. < *puH- 'blow')

IE *mwezg- 'dip, wash', HS *mwaxq > *maq- \ *muq- \ *-x 'wet, pour'

IE *ig^hduH-s, HS *igdos- ? > *dgosi- 'fish' (standard rec. *g-, but Sibine *dg- > dose, plural gose; *(d)gyos > Eg ḏs 'kind of fish')

IE *mHori- 'sea', HS *mRVri > *mrir > *mir- 'river' (also in Altaic > Japanese, Korean, etc.), dsm. *mrin > *min- 'water, river' (maybe several others with m-).

-
The lack of p in *siʔwan- < *swepno- might show that IE changes like Armenian *p > *f > *xW > h \ w happened when *p was near another labial or in certain CC (*sp-?; if met. *spewon-??). The same might exist in *pibH3- 'drink' > HS *ʔib- 'thirst', *spiH1kno- 'spike' > HS *sHiCn- 'tooth' (see Uralic *pinge 'tine, tooth, etc.').

I’ve previously argued that, in Pre-Semitic, the language ultimately giving rise to Proto-Semitic, geminate consonants consonants were allowed to occur initially, finally and medially adjacent to a consonant, yet were later degeminated in these positions, however leaving detectable traces. In fact, I believe all sorts of clusters, be they initial, triple medial and the like originally existed, and in this post, I will be justifying this claim using various pieces of evidence including the well-known alteranation between ya-, ta-, ʔa-, na- and yu-, tu-, ʔu-, nu- verbal prefixes, certain alternating root forms such as CuCC-CuCuC, and the distribution of vowels in Proto-Semitic.

The u-based verbal prefixes, where they appear, are always found on D-stems *yu-qattil and Š-stems *yu-ša-qtil, but also on the less widespread L-stems *yu-qātil. Arabic evidence also points to their existence on all quadriconsonantal roots *yu-qatlim. Several explanations, often considering /u/ grammatical or lexical have been proposed, I would like to propose that the /u/ is strictly allomorphic, appearing whenever these agreement prefixes are in an open syllable. Why? I consider that, in this environment, the prefix was originally allowed to contract, and have no vowel at all- later, when more complex syllable structures started to be disfavored, the /u/ was inserted as an epenthetic vowel.

Now, I acknowledge that this isn’t entirely unproblematic. In Akkadian, for example underived imperfectives are formed on the pattern ya-qattal, where the prefix never contracted, thus showing /a/ in an open syllable. I believe in the existence of seperate strong and weak agreement-prefixes, I will elaborate on this in another post, for now we’ll just hold that the contraction only happens in the base perfective conjugation, where the pattern still holds up. Further oddities with regards to verb conjugation will be resolved in a comment under this post.

Epenthetic vowels show an echoing behavior (though when initial, the epenthetic vowel could not be /a/): We can see this in several alternating formations:

CuCC-CuCuC:ʔuđn-ʔuđun “ear”,θulθ-θuluθ “third”, θ’upr-θ’upur ”nail”

CaCC-CaCaC:ʔaɬr-ʔaɬar “ten”, nahr-nahar “river”

CiCC-CaCiC (note: ban against iCi sequences): kirɬ-kariɬ “belly”

Here, the monovocalic form is original, while the bivocalic form was created from a caseless formation (cases -a -i -u, start with a vowel), having the vowel break up the final cluster.

The Arabic noun imruʔu (nom.) has a very irregular conjugation, having accusative and genitive forms imraʔa and imriʔi respectively, with the stem vowel changing in accordance with the case suffix. Even weirder, when definite, the root changes to marʔ- altogether. I propose original imrʔ-{u, a, i}, with the stem vowel being epenthetic. How in the sigma do we explain marʔ-? Since it’s a definite form it would have originally been formed with a suffix -n. We can explain the insertion pattern like this: The epenthetic vowel will avoid taking stress (which is on the third to last mora), but if it can’t, it will go as far ahead as possible. imrʔVn, thus develops into imarʔVn, no actually marʔVn due to the restriction against syllables without an onset and a coda at the same time.

Now for my last point, I believe unstressed open syllables in Pre-Semitic were largely only allowed to contain /a/, no other vowel. This is why the patterns CuCīC and CiCūC do not exist, the pattern CuCūC was formed from CCūC+epenthetic vowel. CiCīC neither exist, though this is due to i → a / _Ci. The pattern CiCāC I will discuss another time.

To conclude here are the sound changes in the typical notation, chronologically:

Ø → v / #C_C, C_C#, CC_CV{C,ː}#, C_CC

v → i / #C_Ci(ː), iC_ (somewhat more complicated, as alluded to by CiCāC)

v → u / #C_C, uC_

v → a / else

​

At what point do two languages stop being dialects, are there specific parameters that distinguish a language from a dialect, like I know the Chinese government considers the Chinese languages dialects of each other to maintain the perception of a homogeneous nation, but at what point did say French and Italian stop being dialects and become two independent languages?

Let me know your thoughts in the comments

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 179: *H2ak^ -> *H2ok^to(i)H1 ‘eight’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 13, 2026

-

The PIE number *Hok^toH ? > Sanskrit aṣṭā́ \ aṣṭáu 'eight', aśītí- f. 'eighty' has a disputed reconstruction. Greek words beginning with ogdo- are claimed to be ev. for *Hok^tH3- since H3 caused p > b in *pipH3- > *pibH3- 'drink'. However, some other H's also seem to cause voicing (no regularity), like *kH2apro-s 'male goat' > OI gabor. Since no *H of any type seems to exist in *septm > G. hebd-, there must have been analogy between '7' & '8' anyway (which no way to know which came first), and voicing before a nasal is common in G. dialects (as also Slavic *se(b)dm-, etc.). Its match with the dual endings -ā́ \ -áu is suggestive that it once meant '4 (dual) > 8'. Though S. -au is unexplained in standard theory (leading some to rec. *-w in PIE), Khoshsirat & Byrd (2018, 2023) argue that IIr. had *oH > *oHW (or similar), with *-HW > *-w. I have additional evidence of *CW (https://www.academia.edu/127709618).

-
All of this would not lead to finding any IE root, since H1o-, H2o-, H3o- are all assumed as possible (I don't think the lack of *howt' in Armenian is significant, since no regularity of *H > h vs. *H > 0 is clear). The ending as dual would also be supported if PIE had *d(u)wo(i)H1 '2', *dwi(H1)+; *Hok^to(i)H1 '2', *Hok^ti(H1)+ (with optional loss of i & u (or y & w) next to H, no regularity, common in verb roots like *da(i)H2- 'distribute') as the cause of S. aśī-tí- (from *aśtītí- with t-t dsm.). Václav Blažek in "Indo-European numerals":

>

Analyzing older etymologies including Brugmann's assumption (fn.101), Szemerényi (1960: 60-62) presented his own scenarío. He derived aši:tí- via haplology from *aši:-šati-, similarly as sastí- "60" from *šaš-šati. The vowel -i:- is explained by the influence of "30" and "40", .. He also assumed a loss of -t- via dissimilation...

>

-
What word would it be the dual of? In the past, Avestan ašti- 'the breadth of four fingers' has been the main contender. Blažek had a long discussion, & the main points are described by Piotr Gąsiorowski (https://langevo.blogspot.com/2014/09/word-of-month-proto-indo-european-four.html):

>

The Core IE numeral 'eight' is certainly a dual form, which makes it likely that the corresponding singular meant 'four' (at least approximately) at some point. It's a thematic dual, so the stem without the dual inflection is *Hoḱto-. Avestan ašti- means the breadth (not the length) of four fingers (= one "palm"). I-stem nouns parallel to o-stems of adjectival origin are common in Indo-European. The "index" of the initial laryngeal is hard to detemine if the root vocalism is *o. One popular hypothesis is that the word is derived from *h₂aḱ- 'be sharp, sharpen' and somehow connected with *h₂oḱetah₂ 'harrow, rake', with reflexes in several branches. The semantics, however ('an implement with sharp tines' → 'the four fingers of a hand'), is a little convoluted.

>

-
I see no problem with the semantics, & in favor of *H2ok^ti- 'sharp thing?' Blažek listed a group including Greek ἄκαινα \ ákaina 'spike, prick, goad; ten foot rod, used as a measure; square measure of 100 ft used in Egypt'. The 'measure' sense being primary is not even needed, since point > pointer (finger), etc., are known. Sharp tines can also be called 'fingers', and 'point(ed) > nail' is also not possible (though apparently unneeded). A word for 'tine, finger' like *H2ok^(e)to- (for -to- & -eto-, see Blažek) forming a word *H2ok^ti- 'group of fingers' (4 = fingers, no thumb) with dual *H2ok^to(i)H1 '8' certainly seems possible. Blažek also noted that many similar measures in IIr. ended in -sti-, so even *H2ok^(e)to- ->*H2ok^t-sti- >*H2ok^tti- > *H2ok^ti- is possible (no other ev. for this or similar clusters in old IE words).

-
Blažek also gave ev. from external (?) comparison (or loans) in "Kartvelian *otxo- (Fáhnrich), or *o(š)tx(w)- "4" (Gamkrelidze), probably represents a borrowing of (late) Indo-European *ok^to- or early Indo-Iranian *oc'to- > *as'ta-, continuing in Avestan ašti- "breadth of four fingers". It certainly looks like *H2ok^to- > *xos^to > *os^txo (or similar). It would not be alone, as he added, "There are also remarkable parallels in Kartvelian: Georgian p'irw-el- "first" (Klimov 1986:198), p'irmšo- (*p'ir-m-šwe-) "first-bom" = Old Indie pu:rva-su:- id. (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984: 597, fn. 2, 878). They have been explained as borrowings from some unspecified Indo-European dialect (Klimov) oř directly from the Indo-European proto-language (Gamkrelidze)." Why they would need to borrow IE numbers is unknown, but not impossible. However, many other Kartvelian words also look IE (https://www.academia.edu/166167744), so some might be native.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 178: *suH1-s ‘sow’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen ([stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com))
October 12, 2026

-

A. *suH1-s, *suH1-ko-

Patrice Lajoye wrote (https://www.academia.edu/41609721):

>

The word *marisuppa or *marisupa, attested by various Latin texts from the late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and corresponding to the French dialectal marsouppe, refers to the porpoise. The meaning of "sea sow" is then proposed.

>

-

He then compares NHG Meerschwein 'porpoise, dolphin', etc., for form. The -suppa would then be related to Proto-Celtic *sukkos 'pig', W. hwch 'sow', etc. What would the ending be?

>

Mais étant donné les formes signalées ci-dessus, ne pourrait-on envisager que le terme *suppa, lequel serait alors issu d'un élargissement en -kW- et non en -k- de l'IE *sūs, soit une forme reflexe de *succo- désignant (puisque *marisuppa est un terme féminin) la truie?

>

However, given the forms identified above, might one not contemplate that the term *suppa, which would thus derive from an extension in *-kW- and not in *-k- of the IE root *sūs, is a reflex of *succo-, designating (since *marisuppa is a feminine term) the sow?

-

Instead of *sūs I'd say *suH1-s 'mother > sow', since *suH1- 'beget, bear' could have a diminutive *suH1-ko- > *sukko-. This also fits other Celtic ev. In a similar way; if H1 = x^, then asm. of *xk > *kk:

*neH1 ‘no(t)’ = *nex^

*nex^-kWim > S. ná-kim \ ná-kīm 'not (at all), never'

*nex^-kWid > *nax-kWi > *nakki > OI. naicc \ nacc ‘not'

-

I do not think there were 2 extensions with *-ko- & *-kWo-. Instead, analogy fits best. I said (https://www.academia.edu/128817000):

>

Matasović says that Celtic *mak- (MW magu ‘feed / produce / rear’, OI do-for-maig ‘increase / add’) formed a noun *makwo-s > *makWo-s > W. mab, *makWkWo-s > OI macc ‘boy / son’. He can’t explain *kW vs. *kWkW, but Stifter claims it was “probably due to ‘expressive’ gemination in kinship terms”. This is unlikely, since he also shows that it often occurs in the phrase Og. maqi muccoi. With variants, maqqi, mucoi, etc., it is highly likely that -q(q)- & -c(c)- are due to assimilation in either direction for this pair.

>

-

If Celtic *mak- -> *makwo-s > *makWo-s 'son', then its common appearance next to a form of *mokkuH2- ‘mother’ led to analogical mixing to *makWo-s, *makWkWo-s, *makko-s & *mokkuH2-, *mokWkWuH2-, or similar. Since I say this also is related to another 'sow':

*makH2uH2- ‘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'

-

There would be nothing odd about *mokkū \ *mokWkWū 'sow' causing *sukkā 'sow' to become *sukkā \ *sukWkWā also. The shift 'mother’ > 'sow’ in both words might allow this analogy to be very old, since they'd mean the same thing at any point.

-

B. *s- vs. *ts-

The alternation in *(t)suH10s ‘hog, sow’ > G. sûs \ hûs, Al. *tsu:s > thi has been claimed to come from dsm. of s-s > ts-s in the nom. (with analogical spread). However, IE has so few *ts- that this being the outcome seems odd. Indeed, other IE also require *ts-:

*tsyuH-kaH2- > Lithuanian čiūkà ‘pig’, Latvian cūka >> Finnic *tsjuka (*tsuka > Karelian čugu, *sika > Finnish sika, dialects with *tsika > tsika, *suka >> Saami (N Saami dial. sohki, Inari Saami šahe, Kildin Saami sagk)

-

The data is from Adam Hyllested (https://www.academia.edu/32294247), but it is obviously a loan from Baltic in which odd *tsjuka was changed in several ways (likely no *ts- at the time, etc.). This is plenty of ev. that IE had both *suH1- & *tsyuH1- (G. & Al. could be from ts- or tsy-) which had nothing to do with s-s > ts-s.

-

Since the word was 'mother > sow', I say that *dhH1-suH1-s also existed, a compound with *dh(e)H1- 'nursing, female' (or maybe the noun *dh(e)H1so-, since *ss > *s in *H1es-si). With 2 H1's, dsm. of H1-H1 > y-H1 is possible (if H1 = x^, above), though many other cases of H1 > y seem to exist (https://www.academia.edu/128170887). Thus, *suH1-s 'mother' & *dhH1-suH1-s 'nursing mother' > *dhysuH1-s > *tsyuH1-s (both also with *-ko- or *-kaH2- added).

-

C. Hyllested said that u vs. i was native, comparing, "First of all, the irregular vocalism is not unparalleled: for example, it makes little sense to separate BF lintu ‘bird’ from FU *lunta ‘bird’ (cf. N Saami loddi), a word likewise showing -i- for expected -u- in Balto-Fennic only. he situation is admittedly not exactly parallel since, unlike the pig-word, the bird-word does not have alternating vocalism within Balto-Fennic, but in fact this speaks precisely for uniting the pig-words since, in their case, we are not only conjecturing the occurrence of a -u-: we see it attested in front of our eyes. In other words, if we accept lintu < *lunta in the irst place, there is no reason to doubt *(t)sika ~ *(t)suka < *tuka on the basis of the vocalic variation."

-

This is not a reasonable objection, & there is no reason to think that 'bird' came from *u > i or *i > u instead of, say, *uj parallel to *ju in 'pig'. I must add Samoyed *lempä 'eagle' <- PU *lejmp- \ *lijmp- 'glide, fly'. The causative *lujmpV-ta- > *lujnta- produced supposed *lunta 'bird' & *lujnta-woje > *-woj > *-wo (dsm. of j-j > j-0) > *lintaw. The dual outcomes of *uj > u \ i are also likely in *uike 'one' (maybe due to variation of *uj \ *ui ?; hard to tell when optional). Loss of *p is due to *(C)CVC > *(C)C seen in other PU causatives missing one or more C's from their most obvious attested base or similar changes (https://www.academia.edu/166207772):

>

For *wox'e-ta- > *wotta-, I think the ev. from Niklas Metsäranta (https://www.academia.edu/165701779) is due to *(C)CVC > *(C)C.

>

Hovers had the causatives with *o or *u vs. base with *e or *a explained as PIE *CoCeye- vs. *CeC-, etc. The rec. of *lejmp-, etc., are due to internal Uralic ev. & my comparison with IE (https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1x3vvzb/samoyed_kamt%C9%99_soot_pu_kadm%C3%AB_ashes_uralic/).

I have this pdf from a book, which is quite old, name BRAHMA VIDYA, it's got 53 pages.

Sorry about my english in advance, The thing is that the first time when I tried to read and understand with the help of a guru, something happened to me at the same night, first problem is you need a proper translator and who can explain the meaning of that, anyway the same night after reading couple of pages, around 3:30 am in the morning, someone or something kicked me and knocked me out from the bed, I am not a light person, nearly 300 pounds, I got scared and turn on the lights, woke up my parents but no one was in the house, nothing on the cameras too, and when I figured out where that kick or push came from or the direction, it came from the same direction where I put my book, next day I went to the guru and talked about it, he said there could be two things, either you are not ready for that kind of knowledge or someone was waking you up to read it. Maybe you guys or whoever try to read it, may not experience the same thing. I am uploading the pdf which is 53 pages. I am still interested to read it but I am kind of afraid too that maybe I am not spiritually clean.

Samoyed *amantə-, Hungarian imád ‘to pray’

-

The reconstruction of Samoyed *antə- ‘to pray’, Skp. *åmtə- ‘to beg, ask for’ shows variation of *n & *m. If related to Hungarian imád ‘to pray’, this would be due to older *amantə- with partial haplology of *an(am)- or *(an)am-. The *i-a > *a-a would be more ev. of this change, with a list analyzed by Ian Thorney (https://www.academia.edu/171160893).

-
Since PU *ano- > F. anoa ‘to beg, ask for, plead’, Mordvin anams ‘demand, desire, beg’ (Aikio), a causative *anta- < *an(V)-ta- is likely the source, so what would *im- be? The only likely candidate is PU *ilma 'sky, god', with the compound *ilm-an-ta 'pray to god'. Regular *-lm- > -m- in Hn.; most *l > *j in Smd. This is important because the exact rec. of *ilma (vs. *jilma, etc.) is uncertain, so it is possible that Smd. had *jilma > *jijma with j-j > 0-j dissimilation first > *jima (though not esp. likely, depending on whether *Ci-a > *Ca-a vs. *ji-a > *a-a). Instead, maybe *ilma > *ijma > *ama if *i-a > *a-a was matched by *ij-a > *a-a (or a similar sequence). There is no certain way to choose.

-
These are both uncertain but possible because the exact conditions of *l & *l' > *j are not known, & the V's seem irregular (*ijC > *iC is possible if *i lasted longer), as in PU *piľme > Smd. *pijm- 'to become night' vs. *pəjmə- 'to be dark' (Finnic *pijmedä likely became pimedä \ pimmedä). It could be that the palatal env. is the cause, since *śilmä 'eye' > Smd. *səjmä \ *säjmä is also irregular (likely caused before *ś had a merger in *s). Here, *jilma > *jijma would also be very palatal, so 2 outcomes would not be odd, even if only one was preserved.

-
This could also tie into whether *ju(l)ma-la ? is a separate word. Aikio (https://www.academia.edu/145128767):

>

This paper seeks to establish a new etymology for the Mari word meaning ‘god’ and ‘sky’: Eastern Mari jumo and Western Mari jǝ̑mǝ̑, reconstructed as Proto-Mari *jŭmǝ. This noun has traditionally been connected to the Finnic word for ‘god’ (Finnish jumala, Estonian jumal, etc.) within a well-established Uralic etymological framework. However, this study challenges the conven- tional view, arguing instead that Proto-Mari *jŭmǝ originated from Proto- Uralic *jilma ‘sky’. If correct, this would align the Mari noun with cognates such as Finnish ilma ‘air’, North Saami albmi ‘sky’, and Komi jen ‘god’.

>

-
If the Samoyed *ijm- existed, it would support PU *ilma; *jijm- would *jilma. The changes to *l aren't known to be wholly regular, however, so I still wouldn't call it proven. It could be that l-l > w-l dsm. was regular in Finnic (*pel'kalo > *pew'kalo > F. peikalo \ peukalo 'thumb'), thus *jilma-la > *jiwmala > *ju(w)mala (*-la is not common, so maybe a compound with 'high'?).

-
For Aikio's (https://www.academia.edu/164791030) "3 Sammallahti (1988: 553) reconstructs *pelkä ‘thumb’, but MdM päľxkä ‘thumb’ unambiguously points to *ä. While Fin peukalo ~ (dialectal) peikalo does have *e, its connection remains quite uncertain due to the irregular consonant correspondence (-uk- ~ -ik- instead of expected -lk-). YSuS reconstructs the word as PFi *peikälo; however, Mulgi South Estonian päiel ‘thumb’ (MS s.v.) suggests PFi *päikel instead, so the this [sic] word could have undergone the change *äi > *ei outside South Estonian." I think PU *päl'kä ‘thumb’ existed < PIE *p(o)lH1-ik- > Latin pollex m., pollicis g. ‘thumb, big toe’, *poH1lik- > Slavic *pàlĭcĭ ‘thumb, finger’ (based on Hovers). The *H1 is rec. to relate *plH1u- 'many, full' -> 'big (toe)' and became PU *x' or *j. The *l' might have caused changes to the V's, or met. like *peikälo > *päikelo. The *lH > ll seems optional in Latin, like *plH1- 'be many, big, mighty' > polle-.

Kushan royal tamgas: what Akishev's 1984

Samoyed *kamtə 'soot', PU *kad'më ‘ashes’

-

Samoyed *kamtə 'soot' seems related to PU *kad'më ‘ashes’ > Mansi *kūl'əm, Khanty *kājəm, Hn. hamu (rec. with -ë based on a2 in https://www.academia.edu/8196109). I've said that PU had alternation of *t & *d, so *t' & *d' is also possible. Hovers reconstructed PU *t' from PIE *t & *k after *i or *j, making it likely that *kH2aid-mo- (rel. Germanic *haita- 'hot') became PU *kxajdmë > *kad'më \ *kat'më. In Samoyed, *-t'm- likely became prohibited, so > *-mt'- (or after most palatals > plain, etc.). The presence of *-j- might have lasted past the PU stage, with all later branches having *jC' > *C' in most env. (and it would have prevented regular Khanty *a-ë > *i-ë to avoid *aj-ë > *ij-ë ?).

-
The *-mt- prevents coming from *kad'a- as Zhivlov accepted:

>

According to Ante Aikio (p.c.), *kaδ'ma ‘ashes’ is derived from the verb *kaδ'a- ‘to leave’ (*kaδ'a2 in our reconstruction). The semantic development was ‘leftovers’ > ‘ashes (= that which is left over when the fire has burned)’. Thus, *kama contains the same suffix of deverbal nouns *ma (*ma 1 in our reconstruction) as PU *aδma ‘sleep, dream’, derived from PU *aδi ‘to sleep’. Aikio argues that since Hungarian reflexes of these words have different initial syllable vowels (PU *kama > Hung hamu, PU *aδma > Hung álom), this can be taken as an indication that the distribution of Hungarian a vs. á in the initial syllable could not be conditioned by an opposition *a1 : *a2 in the non-initial syllable.

>

Since PIE had nouns in *-mo- & *-maH2-, there is no need for PU to have only *-ma. The vowel in Smd. also supports my *-ë. His idea that there was analogy in the V's of 'leave' & 'ashes' but not 'sleep' & 'dream' makes little sense since the semantics are clear in the 2nd case. Even if the (not esp. likely) derivation of *kad'mA from 'leave' were true, there would be no reason for speakers of Hungarian to know of its origin.

-

-

Uralic Disharmonic Words

-

Uralic often had vowel harmony, but if related to PIE, which had e vs. o in ablaut all the time, how did this come to be? It might not have at the PU stage, explaining some with apparent *i-a, *e-a, etc. Since IE verbs have -e- & -o- in the same stem (*bheroH1, *bheresi, etc.), a PU verb might spread either outcome by analogy, leading to stems with front + back V. Ian Thorney (https://www.academia.edu/171160893): "Niklas Metsäranta, in a 2025 presentation handout Phonological developments in Permic, Mari and Samoyed, briefly entertains the possibility of a sound law PU *i—a → PSmy *a based on two candidate etyma... I believe Metsäranta to have made an ingenious observation, extensible with an array of varyingly strong evidence...". He includes cases like "Smy *lampə- ~ *jampə- ‘to swim, (Slk) to fly over the surface of water’ ← *li̮(j)mpa- ‘to fly’ | Hu lebëg- ‘to hover, to flutter’ | Per *leb- ‘to fly’... U *li̮(j)mp-a- (→ Smy ‘butterfly’) and #li̮(j)p-pa ‘butterfly’ analyzable as correlative derivatives of a stem *li̮(j)mpə-".

-
I must add Samoyed *lempä 'eagle'. Other PU words show alt. of *e \ *i (and even *e \ *a, etc.), so it could be <- *lejmp- \ *lijmp- 'glide, fly'. With the proposed changes several paths are possible (likely irregular next to *j, like other palatals (above)). I also think these might be < IE *leip-, *limp- since they show a range 'stick > cling > climb' in some, so 'climb > rise' might fit.

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

-
Others also match IE. In some cases, *H might have become *ə (and so not subject to V-harmony) before *ə > *a in (and some others, some shown together to detail the same sound changes):

PIE *ks(n)ewH- > Sanskrit kṣáuti 3s. 'sneeze', *kṣṇavīti > Prasun čne-

PU *kčńiwa > *kwičńa ? > *kičńa- \ *kićńa- ‘to sneeze’ > Permic *kidźńï-, Mordvin *kəšńa-, Saami *kësnē-tēk, Samoyedic *kacɜ- (note RUKI, as in *mekši 'bee')

-

PIE *g^welH- > Sanskrit jvalá- m. 'flame', jval- 'to burn brightly, blaze, glow; kindle, illuminate', Lithuanian žvi̇̀lti

PU *jila 'light, day, sun; to burn' (others have *gw- > *w-, so likely *w > *w' before front V, > *j)

-

PIE *krH-sk^e- (TB kärsk- ‘propel, i.e. shoot, throw, spread (by throwing)’, rel. Sanskrit kiráti ‘pour out, scatter, throw’)

PU *kiśkä(w) ‘to pour, to scatter’

-

PIE *krs-sk^e- (rel. TB PIE kärst- ‘cut off, cut down, terminate; tear; destroy utterly’, Hittite kars(iya)- ‘cut off, mutilate,’ Lw. kars- ‘cut,’ Greek korsóō ‘shear,’ (inscriptional) kouron ‘cut wood' (Adams))

PU *kiśka(w) ‘to rip, to tear’

-

Others with problems that might be solved by IE origin:

PIE *(s)keng- 'to tread, march; limp, hobble; tilt, skew', *skongon- 'shank; thigh'

PU *skong-to-s ? > *konkte > Finnic *kontti 'lower leg, foot; (leg) bone', *kontidak 'to walk; move clumsily, to crawl' (possibly regular, or dsm. k-kt > k-tt, or nkt > nxt (with only nxt > ntt in Fi.?)

-

PIE *k(H2)ant(H2)o-s > Celtic *kantos 'corner, rim (of a chariot wheel)', G. kanthós 'corner of the eye; rim or tire of a wheel', Slavic *kǫtъ 'corner' (1)

FU kanta 'edge, rim, bank'

-

Note 1.

An IE word with 2 H2's is odd. It could be that the common shift 'point > edge' allows an origin from *H2k(^)-H2anto- 'sharp in front, point' with H-met. (if H2 = x, then xk^x > xkx would not be odd).

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 177: *kH2ap(H1)u-(g^o-) ‘hawk, raptor’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 10, 2026

-

Latin capys 'a bird of prey' ( >> Etruscan capu), Germanic *habuka-z ( > English hawk), Slavic *kobuzъ \ *kobъzъ ( > Po. kobuz 'Falco subbuteo'), *kobьcь 'falcon, buzzard, sparrowhawk, etc.', Albanian gabë \ shkabë \ gabonjë 'griffon vulture, eagle, hawk' (opt. contm. shk- < shqipe \ shqiponjë)

-
Since capys is likely *kapu-s (imitation of Greek words with y), it could be from *kH2ap-u- 'grasping, seizing; raptor'. This would mean that the variation of voicing k, g(h) & p, b(h) would be the same as (https://www.academia.edu/175693920):

>
If *kH2ap- ‘take / seize / hold / have’, also ‘hold > enclose, cover, guard’ is the same as *gab- & *ghabh-:

*kap-ye- > L. capiō ‘seize / take’, Lt. kampt ‘seize / grasp’, G. káptō ‘gulp down’, Go. hafjan, OIc hefja ‘lift’

*gab- > Ar. kapem ‘bind’ (compare Latvian kampt ‘seize/grasp’)

*ghabh- > L. habeō ‘to have, hold; inhabit, etc.’, S. gábhasti- m. ‘hand/arm/fork ? / *forked > *lightning > shining RV / ray/sunbeam’

>

-
and maybe some other roots with mismatched k-b(h), etc. (origin & rec. often disputed). In *habuka-z & *kobuzъ \ *kobъzъ the *-(u)g^o- needs some explanation. The *u: > *u vs. *u > *ъ might show that Winter's Law in Balto-Slavic was optional (many exceptions; VD > V:D). I think the simplest idea is that *pug^- (L. pugnus 'fist') formed *kH2apu-pug^o- 'grasping fists/claws' with haplology. Since several of the verbs from *kH2ap- have *-eH1-, it could be that *kH2apH1u- existed here, with CH optionally voicing or aspirating (as *kH2apro-s 'male goat' > OI gabor, *pipH3- > S. pib- 'drink', etc.).

Uralic & IE cases, accusative *-m, instrumental-comitative *-ina / *-ino?

-

Whenever I see a table with the Uralic accusative *-m, I wonder how some linguists can refuse to relate PIE *-m. Some of the other cases also seem close, like ablative *-ta (PIE o-stem *-od or *-aH2d (or others, reconstructions vary)).

-

Now, like the Sanskrit instrumental case -ena ( < *-oino or *-eino, etc., in o-stems) which can show instrument, comitative, or agent meaning, Jussi Ylikoski has reconstructed a PU case *-jna (or *-jne or *-ini or others, depending on system & V-harmony) with the same range of meaning (https://www.academia.edu/178486467).

-

I even think it is likely that nom. *-s > *-j, creating *-os > *-öj > *-e (explaining why IE had many -os, PU many *-e), with evidence in (https://www.academia.edu/167984225) like:

>

Zhivlov’s statement that "…in Saami and Mordvin… The highly idiosyncratic nature of these sound laws, especially of the development *a-i >*o-a, makes it unlikely that the set of changes listed above occurred independently in two different languages." This is not just "highly idiosyncratic", it's nearly impossible. His *-i, as in *weti 'water' would be my *wete < *wodöj < PIE *wodorH. It would come from a stage like most *-C > *-j in my theory (similar to Japanese vs. Korean requiring *-r > PJ *-j ). It makes much more sense that standard *a-e > *o-a was really *a-öj > *ɔ-öj > *ɔ-ɔ > *ɔ- a > *o-a (or similar) in Saami and Mordvin.

>

I've seen many proposals for a proto indo european sister / cousin language. Uralic is one of the most notable ones. And some similarities with the Caucasian languages have been noted. (pre pie ergative system, laryngeals)

But I've never seen anyone consider a possible linguistic connection between the old european western hunter gatherers, and the indo european language. PIE speakers have western hunter gatherer admixture, and the finno ugric substrates may be remnants from the original western hunter gatherer languages.

If this is true it's probably impossible to even prove anyway, but it could explain why PIE was so isolated being so unique in its morphology and not sharing many similarities between other languages of eurasia. And I doubt the extinct paleo anatolian languages of anatolia were related to pie, because proto indo european in its earliest stage likely had no agricultural terms until much later. And anatolia likely would have had agriculture during the time period when proto indo european would have been spoken if the anatolian early homeland was true.

Which is why I believe pre pie, or mother tongue pie had to have been spoken far north of the Caspian sea, where agriculture hadn't spread yet. Making it possible that the western hunter gatherer / eastern hunter gatherer ghost languages could be distantly related.

A. The PU comparative *-mpV has sometimes been related to PIE *-m̥Ho- (or *-m̥mo-, depending on whose reconstruction is followed). However, its use within Uralic is not only for comparatives. Jussi Ylikoski (https://www.academia.edu/40666645):

>

The paper describes a previously little-known grammatical category in South Saami. Termed here as “relation forms”, the phenomenon in question is etymologically related to the comparative and superlative marking of adjectives, but synchronically quite distinct from it. The suffix -be/-åbpoe can be attached not only to adjectives (e.g., nuerebe ‘younger’, båarasåbpoe ‘older’), but also to nouns and kinship terms in particular (e.g., tjidtjebe ‘(the) mother’, vuanavåbpoe ‘(the) mother-in-law’), and the superlative marker -mes/-ommes can be used similarly, albeit to a lesser extent. The paper discusses the position of such forms in South Saami morphology, syntax and sentential semantics, especially in relation to markers of definiteness and possession. From a diachronic perspective, South Saami sheds new light on the origin of the Saami-Finnic (and Hungarian) comparative marker *-mpV, and from a typological point of view, it is proposed that the closest analogues to the Saami phenomenon can be found in Tungusic, which also adds to our understanding of the development of *-mpV comparatives – possibly from a more original contrastive function of the suffix.

...

To provide a concise and straightforward introduction to the subject matter of this study, it is instructive to reproduce the three examples of the phenomenon as presented in the best-known grammatical description of South Saami by Bergsland (1982: 107; 1994: 110), who briefly states that when speaking of two persons or things, it is possible to refer to their distinct identities by using a morpheme that is formally identical to the comarative degree marker -be/-åbpoe (cf. urre-be ‘new-er’ and båaras-åbpoe ‘old-er’) [Daktar-åbpoe darjoeji guktie tjidtje-be jeehti ‘The daughter[1-of-2] did as her mother[1-of-2] said’]

...

As mentioned at the very beginning of the present study, and in almost all studies on the subject, the Saami-Finnic comparative marker *-mpV (e.g., South Saami -be/-åbpoe and Finnish -mpi : -mpA-) seems to correspond to the Hungarian -bb, but the relations of the superlatives (South Saami -mes/-ommes, Finnish -in : -impA-, Hungarian leg-A-bb) are much less straightforward. Moreover, one of the oft-repeated truths is that there is little evidence of a pan-Uralic or pan-Finno-Ugric comparative in *-mpV; instead, the Saami-Finnic and Hungarian comparatives are usually regarded as results of the convergent development of an element that was originally a derivational suffix with other functions. Opinions – and interests of Eurocentric Finno-Ugricists – differ as to whether Tundra Nenets moderative adjectives (səwa ‘good’ →) səwa-mpoy° [good-moder] ‘rather good’ (cf. Finnish some-mpi [nice-cmpv] ‘nicer’) and (ŋarka ‘big’) → ŋarka-mpoy° [big-moder] ‘rather big’ ought to be considered cognates of the Finno-Ugric comparatives (see Bergsland 1946: 204; Hajdú 1976: 146; Korhonen 1981: 247; Janhunen 2018: 51–53; Aikio, forthcoming).

To mention but a few of the most comprehensive descriptions of Saami, Finnic and Uralic historical morphology, scholars like Hakulinen (1979: 116), Korhonen (1981: 247) and Janhunen (1982: 29) refer to originally contrastive and especially spatial functions of *-mpV, as evidenced by Saami pronominal adverbs such as South Saami daebpene ‘here’, debpene ‘there’, duebpene ‘there (further away)’ and dubpene ‘there (far way)’, as well as East Mari adjectives and adverbs like umbal ‘distant’, umbalne ‘at a distance; far away’ and ümbal ‘top; surface’, ümbalne ‘above, on the top’. The moderative functions of the Nenets suffix are often ignored in this context.

Some authors such as Itkonen (1966: 270), Häkkinen (1985: 91–92; 2002: 86–87) and Abondolo (1998: 18) give more attention to the contrastive or oppositive (and not necessarily spatial) functions of the suffix. The most commonly cited examples include the above-mentioned North Saami interrogative pronoun goabbá ‘which (of two)’ (~ South Saami gåabpa/gåabpetje id.) and its transparent Finnic cognates such as Finnish kumpi id. and Estonian kumb id. (< Pre-Proto-Saami, (Pre-)Proto-Finnic *ku-mpa [q-*mpV]). Another common example is North Saami nubbi ‘other; second’ (~ South Saami mubpie id.), going back to Pre-Proto-Saami *muu-mpa [other-*mpV] and paralleled by (Erzya) Mordvin ombo ‘other’ and omboće ‘second; following’, apparently based on another, pronominal stem. Example (35) also contains South Saami jeatjabidie [other.pl.ill] (nominative jeatjebe), in which the comparative cum relation form suffix -be is attached to the pronominal-adjectival stem jeatja- ‘other’, resulting in the pronominal meaning ‘other; else’ (cf. Bergsland 1946: 182).

It may also be added that in addition to the well-known interrogative pronoun kumpi ‘which (of two)’ and the partly reduplicative indefinite pronoun jompikumpi ‘either one (of two)’ in present-day Finnish (~ Estonian emb-kumb), earlier Finnish also had a corresponding demonstrative pronoun sempi ‘that; it (of two)’ and a relative pronoun jompi ‘that (of the two)’...
>

-

As for the origin of PU *-mpV 'more', I don't know if anyone has mentioned Finno-Permic *umpe 'shut, closed; whole, entire; rather (large)'. For its ety., (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/umpi):

>

Cognate with Proto-Sami *ompë, probably borrowed from Proto-Germanic *umbi... From Proto-Indo-European *h₂m̥bʰi (“by, around”)... Cognate with Old Latin am (“around”), Latin amb- (“around, about”), ambi- (“both”), Ancient Greek ἀμφί (amphí, “around, about”), Sanskrit (abhí, “against, about”).

>

-
A loan from Gmc would not fit the 'closed (off) > closed by snow, heavy snowfall' found even outside of Finnic. If also matching the IE range 'both > very, more (S. abhi+), one of 2' in PU *-mpV 'more, one of 2 (relatives/contrasting things)' then it surely could not be a loan to ALL the Uralic branches with it. Their *umpe might just as well be *umpi (if any contrast of e \ i existed in non-initial syllables), and since PIE *H2(a)nt-bhi and dual *(H2ant)-bhoH1 'both' often have the same range of meaning, the vowel of *-mpV is not assured even if this relation is true.

-

B. This could tie into why supposed PU *-mpV > F. -(e)-mpi ‘more, -er’, Hn. -bb contrasts with other Hn. outcomes of *mp.

*kumpë ‘rounded & swollen thing’ > F. kumpu ‘hummock / hillock / mound / high rounded wave’, X. xump ‘wave’, Hn. hab ‘foam / froth’

*tompë > Hn. domb ‘hill / mound / hump’, *towmb > Mi. tō̆mp ‘hill / island’, Es. tomp ‘clod’ (or *tump-?, V's not with uncontroversial outcomes; several with good reason for certainty in other branches seem to have 2 outcomes in Hn.)

-
Though *mp > mb, bb, b is completely irregular, the usual response of linguists that any irregularity must be "fixed" has not led to any new theory. However, each of these words would correspond to an IE one with *mb, *mbh, *mp (if the source of *umpi, *-mpV is accepted).

*mb > mb, PIE *tumbo- > G. túmbos ‘mound / cairn’, MI tomm, I. tom ‘hillock’; PU *tombë > Hn. domb ‘hill / mound / hump’, *towmb > Mi. tō̆mp ‘hill / island’, Es. tomp ‘clod’

*mbh > bb, PIE *H2nt-bhi, PU *-mbhV > F. -(e)-mpi ‘more, -er’, Hn. -bb

*mp > b, PIE *kump- > Lt. kùmpt 'become hunchbacked, crooked', Po. kępa 'river island covered with bush, shrubbery' (compare range of *tomp-), R. kupiná ‘shrubbery, mound, knoll'; PU *kumpë > F. kumpu ‘hummock / hillock / mound / high rounded wave’, X. xump ‘wave’, Hn. hab ‘foam / froth’

-
This simple scheme might need to be modified since PIE almost certainly had *mpH, etc., and the outcome of *mbr is not known in PU. Accent in IE also had many effects, so looking for some here would be the most cautious approach. Since other IE branches also contrast changes to *mp vs. *mb(h) that don't have to do with voice (Celtic had a number of these), I don't think my ideas for PU wouldn't fit.

-
The forms with *ë are intended to extend the contrast between PU *a & *ë in initials with *a1 & *a2 in finals (https://www.academia.edu/8196109).

-
C. I think there's more of an IE relation here than the paper could say. If Latin māter-tera 'maternal aunt' came from 'on the mother's side (of 2) > mother's relative', then there would be several IE parallels. In Skt. aśvatará-s 'mule' or 'better horse' the suffix -tara- is both 'more, better' and 'relative (of a horse); with a horse on one (of 2) sides of the family'. The same in Armenian *jio- 'horse', *jio-tero-s > ǰor 'mule' (Hrach Martirosyan). I also wrote (https://www.academia.edu/172639045):

>

IERR 144 ‘cross’

The need for PIE *terH2- 'cross, go beyond, overcome, conquer' to form *+t(e)r(H2)o- 'beyond, other, one of two; more, -er' is seen in variants with H-met. (143), like *H1wi-terH2o- > *witH2aro- > Slavic *vьtorъ 'other, 2nd', *wiH2tro- -> L. vītricus 'stepfather' ( < '2nd (father)'; likely used with *pater- at one time, alone when *witr- fell out of use as an independent word). Since compounds often lost *H, some IE branches might have *+tro-.

...
IERR 145 ‘thirst’

Though PIE *ters- ‘thirst’ is the standard rec., Baltic requires *terH2s- \ *traH2s- (*tra:-sk- > Li. troškulys 'thirsty', trókšti 'to be thirsty; thirst, hope, desire'). Since some cognates also mean 'desire', I think this is older, with the relation *terH2- 'cross, reach (for), seek, desire', *terH2-s- ‘desire, thirst’. Again, H-met. (143, 144) allows variants *H2ters-, *tersH2-, etc., which would hide the *H2 in some or all IE branches. This might also explain L. trem-; several IE languages seem to show n-infixed verbs, but with -m- not -n- when next to *H2 (*staH2- 'stand (upright)', *stamH2-).

>

-
Taking the ev. for PU *-mpV into account, it seems likely that all basic IE family members were named with *-terH2- > *-H2ter- (*ma-H2ter- 'mother', etc.).

-

D. In this vein, comparing Finnish ku-mpi ‘which (of two)’ with IE *kWu-tero- or *kWo-tero- not only shows the same suffix that can be applied to contrast, comparison, & family, but also the initial *ku- vs. *kWu- (or *kWo-, both found in the original paradigms). It would lead most undecided readers to a reconsideration of the common origin of PU *k- & PIE *kW- 'wh-' words. Veps kudamb 'which, what' might also point to PIE *kWi-d 'what' > *kWut (by sound change or analogy with *kWu- in other derivatives).

Is Ngani the Filipino word ancient???

I need to have reliable sources for the word Ngani only credible sources like factual journals, news articles, or anything based on actual research with reliable authors or websites. But it looks unexistent like only heard of in ancient text help please

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 174, 175, 176: *yegh- ‘grasp, clutch, embrace, catch, hunt), grip, squeeze, crush, grind’, *yeH1-d- ‘move forcefully’, *yaH2-d- ‘go, convey, save’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 8, 2026

-

IERR 174. Adams:

>

ṣparā-yäkre (n.) a kind of bird (‘sparrow-hawk’ [?])... A compound of /ṣpārā-/ and /yäkre/. B ṣpārā- is presumably an independent bird name and cognate with TchA ṣpār (pl. ṣpārāñ), on etymological grounds ‘± sparrow’ [: Old Icelandic spǫrr (Proto-Germanic *sparwa-)... B -yäkre (not discussed by VW) may be related to AB yäks- ‘embrace, entangle,’ q.v. The compound as a whole might then have meant ‘sparrow-clutcher’ or the like and designated a hawk or some other raptor (cf. Schleswig-Holstein duben-klemmer ‘(sparrow)-hawk’ [lit. ‘dove clamper, dove-clencher’] or Old Prussian pele-maygis ‘kestrel’ [lit.‘mouse-clencher’], Schmalstieg, 1976:273). Alternatively it might reflect a PIE *yegh-ro-, a derivative of *yegh- ‘hunt’ [: OHG jagōn ‘to hunt’ (< *yogh-eha-]. The compound as a whole would mean ‘sparrow-hunter.’

...

[TB] yäks- (vt.) ‘embrace, entangle’ Ps. VI /yäksnā-/ [MP -, -, yäksanatär//]; PP /yäkso-/...

The more abundant TchA attestations supplement those of B and make it clear that we have ‘embrace [of lovers]’ or, less frequently, ‘entangle’ (as lianas may entangle the feet). The obvious derivatives yäkṣīye and yakso ‘meal, flour’ suggest that it may have meant ‘squeeze, press (as by a millstone)’ as well. It may be, since deverbative nouns in -iye are typically formed to Class IV subjunctives (e.g. lalyiye, akalye, and yṣiye, qq.v.), that yäkṣiye is derived from a second, otherwise unattested yäks- ‘grind, mill’ that was synchronically distinct but etymologically related to attested yäks- ‘embrace, entangle.’

Etymology uncertain. AB yäks(n)ā- reflect PTch *yäks(n)ā- ‘± crush, squeeze.’ Extra-Tocharian connections are unknown. Sanskrit -yakṣati looks phonologically appealing but is disqualified on semantic grounds as it means ‘± appear’ (cf. Yaghnobi yaxš- ‘appear,’ Mayrhofer, 1976:1, with literature). No other Indo-European root of the requisite shape (*yeK- or possibly *yaK-) can be reconstructed with any meaning similar to that of yäks- either (superseded is Adams, 1989b:8-10). It is at least likely that -yäkre (s.v. ṣparā-yäkre) belongs here...

>

-
I see no problem with a root *yegh- ‘grasp, grip’ becoming both ‘clutch, embrace, catch ( > hunt)’ & ‘grip, squeeze, crush ( > grind meal)’. Like most PIE , crush ‘root extensions’, *yegh-s- seems to add no meaning (though the range of IE attestations doesn't need to reflect PIE meanings).

-
IERR 175. The Sanskrit root yād- and its derivatives have no certain meaning or origin. Since -d- is sometimes added to PIE roots with little or no change to meaning, both *yeH1-d- & *yaH2-d- would be possible. Indeed, some words make more sense from *yaH2-d-, others from *yeH1-d-. Since *e & *a (and all types of *H) merged, there is no reason for yād- to be one root when no single meaning makes sense of all words beginning with yād-. I separate them as yād-1 & yād-2.

-
Alexander Nikolaev (https://www.academia.edu/176369695) provides the attestations, with a wholly different theory (which I will argue against when relevant; look to this link for more details). Based on *yeH1- 'to exert force, act vigorously; rage; make, do, perform, act' I say *yeH1-d- > yād-1 > S. yā́duri- ‘having sexual intercourse?’, yā́das- ‘sexual union?’, *yādás-? > yādas- ‘crocodile?’. This fits with other IE words with 'move vigorously' > ‘have sex’. Slavic *jȃro- 'raging, furious, stern' might provide a path 'wild' for yādas- (if understood correctly).

-
Making sure of these meanings depends on context, and the hapax śābalyā́- has been poorly analyzed. "Since śābalyā́- is clearly derivable from śabála- ‘dappled, spotted’ (RV+), Weber’s translation ‘ein Weib von scheckiger Farbe’ (‘woman with a dappled skin’) appears at least possible...". No, it isn't possible. This is simply an example of a linguist examining things by means of roots alone with no common sense. Russian sóbolʹ 'sable' is a loan from Iranian *sabalya-, clearly related. Since weasels & other mustelids are elsewhere proverbally sexually lusting, a S. *śabalya- 'weasel' -> *śābalya- 'like a weasel, lustful' -> śābalyā́- 'lustful woman' (or maybe 'whore?' (as opposed to a courtesan or other trained prostitue?)) seems to fit.

-
IERR 176. The Sanskrit root yād- coming from *yaH2-d- is also discussed there, "Leonid Kulikov kindly draws my attention to the theoretically possible derivation from *i̯eh2-d-, an extended allomorph of the root *i̯eh2- ‘move, travel, ride (on a chariot or a horse)’ reflected in Ved. yā́ti, Lith. jóju, Toch. B iyaṃ (see Höfler 2023 where the root is reconstructed as *h1i̯eh2-). However, the semantic match is less than ideal, while the dental in the Slavic cognates of this root (OCS jadǫ, etc.) can also be taken from *dh of the imperative ending reanalyzed as part of the root (see LIV2 310: “Ipv. *jādi < *i̯eh2-dhi”)."

-
Though the whole meaning of yād- being 'go, move, etc.' would not work, there clearly is no reason for yād- to be a single root when sound changes allow many *e\o\a & *H1\2\3 to converge. I agree with *yaH2-d-, giving the words yād-2 > S. yā́damāna- 'conveying' (RV 7.69.3 ‘You two glorious ones possessing good horses — journey this way. O wondrous ones, you will drink the honeyed treasure. Your chariot, conveying the bride and groom, presses upon the boundaries of heaven with its tracks.’ The obscure part, vadhúvā yā́damāno (Brereton: ‘clasping the bride to itself’) makes no sense with any other translation. The ending of vadhúvā is a masculine dual acc., a dvandva for 'bride and groom' like other pairs named by one member in the dual. If the daughter of the sun is married to both the Ashvins, this use of a term for a couple applied to 3 people would come about due to their unusual marriage. This is the action occurring, and looking for other meanings requires quite a stretch (as in the chariot being what unites them in marriage).

-
Other instances of yā́damāna- also might be from *yaH2- 'go, move, travel, ride', like 'flowing (together?)' of rivers (just because other hymns mention rivers converging in the sea does not require this meaning for any description of a river). Also, in RV 3.36.1 ‘Set this offering here to be won, being ever newly yā́damāna- (Jamison: ‘united’; Geldner: ‘im Verein mit’; Witzel: ‘vereinend’) with help. At every pressing he is strengthened by strengthenings, he who has become well famed through great deeds.’ the 'ever newly' might imply 'passing (from one to another)' of prizes. This one is more obscure, since the intentions of the poet can't be seen clearly. In the same way, RV 7.76.5 might be 'traveling (with?)', but a list of characteristics is not a good context for identifying meaning, and any number of other translations could be made out of air & fit equally well. Some of these might be 'save, move to safety' (below), but I don't know how to choose.

-
There is also the question of whether Yádu- & Turváśa- / Turvá- (ancestor of the Ārya- people), likely the names of the Aśvins, usually not recognized; https://www.academia.edu/167016618) have any relation to either *yaHd-. If IIr. *aHDC > *aDC (https://www.academia.edu/428966) was matched by *aHDv > *aDv, then the sounds could work. If one is derived from turv- 'to overpower, excel; cause to overpower, help to victory, save', then it could be that Yádu- is of very similar meaning. The Ashvins often carried drowning people to safety, so *yaH2-d- '(make) go, convey, carry to safety' might fit. This is much more speculative, since using theoretical ideas in proper names is difficult.

Hello everyone,

I am a B.Tech student currently working on a research project to computationally analyze and decode the Indus Valley Script & TN Graffiti, specifically looking into its potential relationship with the Megalithic graffiti marks found in Tamil Nadu (such as Keezhadi and Kodumanal).

(To clarify upfront: I am not a PhD or an academic professor, just a highly motivated engineering student looking to apply modern technology to historical mysteries!)

🤖 What I Bring to the Table

My background is in Engineering, and I am highly proficient in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. I can handle the entire technical pipeline, including:

• Building and formatting the digital image/text datasets.
• Applying Computer Vision for sign recognition and clustering.
• Using Natural Language Processing (NLP) and statistical models to analyze sign frequencies, positional probabilities, and syntax patterns.

🧠 What I Need (Where You Come In)

While I can build the algorithms, I do not have a background in Linguistics or Epigraphy. I am looking for a fellow student, hobbyist, or academic researcher who can bridge this gap.

I need someone who can help with:

• Linguistic Context: Understanding Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, or general historical linguistics.
• Epigraphical Guidance: Helping interpret sign directions, variants, and historical scripts (like Tamil-Brahmi).
• Domain Validation: Ensuring the data inputs and AI outputs make historical and linguistic sense, and vetting our hypotheses against existing academic literature.

📅 Project Goals

This is currently a collaborative research project born out of passion, but the ultimate goal is to co-author a high-quality research paper, develop an open-source digital humanities tool, or present our findings at a conference.

If you have the linguistic knowledge and want to see how advanced AI can be used to unlock the secrets of the Indus Valley and ancient Tamil Nadu, please comment below or send me a Direct Message (DM)!

Let's combine data science and history to see what we can discover.

The Indo-European Dual and Tocharian (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 7, 2026

-

A. PIE *-yH1

The oldest Indo-European mark of the dual appears to be *-yH1 (or *-iH1 after C) since it appears in *d(u)wo(y)H1 'two', unlikely to be analogical. Loss of a glide before *H is common, no known regularity. Loss of *H in compounds, also no known regularity, produced *dwi-, occasionally *dwiH1- (Li. dvy-).

-
However, this simple idea would ignore that the root *yuH1- 'join' (Sanskrit yauti, yunāti, yavi-, etc.) is the best candidate to form a noun/adjective *y(e\o)uH1-s 'pair; joined'. When added to a word with *w, dsm. of *w-w > *w-0 could occur. I say something like *dewo-yewH1-s > *dewo-yeH1-s > *d(u)wo(y)H1-s ( > *dwo:H1 > IIr. *dva:(v), etc.). A stage with *dew- that produced *d(u)w- is needed for (https://www.academia.edu/168383095) "Greek deúteros ‘second’, deúomai ‘be inferior/wanting’, etc., suggest that [IE *dwoH1 \ *duwoH1] came from ‘small (number) / a few’. At a stage before standardized counting, referring to numbers as 'a few', 'several', 'many', etc., with no set values is more common."

-
B. PIE *-e

Many old pairs also contain *-iH1, some also with C-stem *-e (or sometimes spread to other stems, below). Since this contrasts with plural *-es, it is likely analogical. If a stage with early IE (in one or more branches) had o-stem dual *-o:, plural *-o:s, the creation of parallel *-e, *-es would be simple.

-
However, I think the analogy is older & of a slightly different type. The formation of acc. *-om -> plural *-om-s implies that nom. *-os -> plural *-os-s. Though there is no inherent reason why *-oss > *-o:s could not happen, I think that the stages here (and in the creation of *-or-s > *-o:r, etc.) involved alternation of *s with *H (https://www.academia.edu/128052798). Thus, *-or-s > *-or-H that then behaved just as neuter plural *-or-H2, etc. This would mean the plural of o-stems was really *-os-s > *-oHs (though most *-Cs > *-CH, in cases of 2 s's either could become H), with dual *-oH1. This makes the shift *-oHs : *-oH1 :: *-es : *-iH1 > *-oHs : *-oH1 :: *-es : *-e capable of being both older & reflective of a tighter bond in o-stems than previously thought.

-
C. TB duals

Krzysztof Witczak (https://www.academia.edu/6870301):

>

...a number of ne-less items refer to natural pairs, e.g.

(1) Toch. B mlyuweñc ‘two thighs’ (< Toch. B mlyuwe ‘thigh’);

(2) Toch. B eś beside eś(a)ne ‘two eyes’, also in the compound yneś ‘manifest, real’ (literally ‘in the two eyes’) < Toch. B ek sg. ‘eye’, A ak ‘id.’

(3) Toch. B pauke (sic!) beside pokaine ‘two arms’, cf. Toch. A poke ‘arm’.

(4) Toch. B kenī beside kenīne ‘two knees’ (= Toch. A kanweṁ du. ‘id.’).

Werner Winter concludes that, contrary to Krause ’s opinion, the contrast between two semantic groupings (natural pair vs. random twosome) is not neatly reflected in the contrast of two formal classes; -ne was found to occur in a few forms which could not readily be demonstrated to refer to natural pairs […], while -ne-less forms are attested for a considerable number of members of the natural-pair group: eś ‘eyes’, klauts ‘ears’, *pokai ‘arms’, maś ‘fists’, mlyuweñc ‘thighs’, kenī ‘knees’, pai ‘feet’. In most cases […], ne forms exist beside -ne-less ones (Winter 1962: §5 = 1984: 111). The Tocharian B ending -ne (= A -ṁ) seems to be recognized as a secondary addition, because the -ne-less forms can be safely analyzable as a complete dualic ones, cf. eg.

(5) Toch. B eś ‘two eyes’ < IE. *o(t)kWi-h1, cf. Lith. akì du. ‘two eyes’, OChSl. oči ‘id.’, Skt. akṣῑ´du. ‘two eyes’, Avest. aši ‘id.’. Also Gk. ὄσσε du. ‘two eyes’ and Alb. sy pl. ‘eyes’, derived from Balkan-IE. *o(t)kWyə1, seem to belong here.

(6) Toch. B pauke ‘two arms’ < IE. *bhāĝhuh1 or *bhāĝhuw-h1e, cf. Skt. bāhū́ du. ‘two arms’ (< IE. *bhāĝhu-h1). See also Gk. Homer. πήχεε du. ‘two arms’ (< Balkan IE. *bhāĝhew-ə1).

(7) Toch. B maś ‘two fists’ < IE. *musti-h1, cf. Skt. muṣṭῑ´ du. ‘two fists’.

(8) Toch. B kenī ‘two knees’ < IE. *ĝónu-h1, cf. Skt. jānū du. ‘two knees’.

(9) Toch. B. pai ‘two feet’ < IE. *pod-h1e.

>

-
There are many problems with the specifics. I think some of these are directly from PIE, but *-e & *-iH1 could mix, spreading from their original PIE distribution. This would create mismatches (ie., his TB vs. Sanskrit). The rec. pai < *pod-H1e has some kind of cross of *-e & *-iH1. It is supposed to explain *d > 0 as *dH > *H, but there is no regularity in *d > ts vs. t or *dC > C vs. tC; even *d > l seems to exist (https://www.academia.edu/129248319). Other words in which *dH have more reason to be rec. do not show *d > 0. I think that other ev. that *dy > yy is another case of dual outcomes: as *dC > tC, so *dy > yy; as *dC > C, so *dy > y. Here, *pod-iH1 > *pod-ye > *peyä > *pei > pai. It is also possible, though I think it very unlikely, that the timing of PIE *dy > yy vs. new PT *dy > y is at work (after *-iH1 > *-ye, as in Greek).

-
Other ev. shows that *-iH1 could contrast with *-H1 after V's. Proposed changes of PT *H1C- & *H3C- causing palatalization or rounding make it likely that H1 = x^ (sometimes > PT y), H3 = xW ( > w). Thus, *-C-iH1 could become *-C^äy. For the outcome of PT *-äy (or *-äi), Adams said, "TchA rake and B reki reflect PTch *rekä/e- + -äi (for the formation, see Adams, 1990a)", and several other pairs. From this, -i vs. -e almost matches TB kenī(-ne) ‘two knees’ vs. TA kanweṁ. I think the near-match requires PT *w > *w^ before front, > TA w, TB *y (there are no known conditions on *w^ > TB w, y in other words). Here, this would create a unique cluster, & -Vy & -yVy behaving slightly differently allow: *g^onw-iH1 > PT *gonwiy > *kenw^äy ( > PTB *kenyäy > kenī; *w^ > TB w prevents any alteration to normal -e).

-
TB mlyuwe ‘thigh’, dual mlyuweñc, TA perlative mulyuntā are related by Adams to Lithuanian mélmenys ‘fat around the kidneys,’ Sanskrit márman- ‘member, vulnerable part of the body’. The supposed need for *melewo- might not exist; if *melH1m- > mélmenys (*H for tone), *mH1elm- > márman- (like many roots with *CeC(H1), https://www.academia.edu/127283240), then *m-m > m-w is likely, & the presence of *H1 could palatalize *l (as *H1n- > *yn- > ñ-). Maybe *melH1mo(n)- > *m^äl^we(n)- \ *m^l^äwe(n)- (met. to keep pal. & round apart or C^C^- together). Other n-stems > nt (*muzgen- ‘brain / marrow’ > OPr musgeno, TA mäśśunt), maybe analogy < nom. *-n-s > *-nts.

-
PIE *H3okW-iH1 ? (if Greek is more original) > *H3okW-e > PT *Heś-ä(-ne) > TB eś \ eś(a)ne ‘two eyes’. His *otkW- is likely to explain G. óktallos \ optílos. However, there's no reason to think that -t- is original to the root here; they might be from *okWto- 'seen', *okW(e)to- 'seeing', or any similar derivative. Even -t- from drṓptō \ δρώπτω ‘look, examine, consider carefully’ is possible. A mix between this & ṓps ‘face’ ( < *H3o:kWs ‘eye’, maybe < *H3oHkWs if analogy < *H3oHkW < *H3okWs with *s > *H (above)) is probably the cause of -ṓ- in drṓptō (no *H seen in S. dárpaṇa-m ‘eye’). If *drōp-s, *drōpo-s, or *drōpto-s ‘eye’ existed at some stage of PG, analogy in either direction would be reasonable.

-
For TB pauke ‘two arms’, I don't think a misspelling of *pokai is the only explanation that makes sense. This would be rather extreme for 2 mistakes in one word when **-ai is not the expected ending. TB pokaine is the regular dual as pokai-ne. These words with -ai(-) are not original. The older dual being retained from a time when the u-stem still existed allow nom. *pa:ku-s, dual *pa:kw-e (itself certainly analogical, mix of *-iH1 & *-e across C- & V-stems). This would allow PT *pa:kw-e > *po:kw^ä > PTB *pokw > *powk (with *-kw > -wk seen in others of more clear path, *H1ogWhi-s > *Hekw > *ewk > TB auk ‘snake, serpent’). It would then be made clearly dual with analogical -e from o-stems (*-oH1 > *-eH > *-e (and most later > -ne due to the spread of -n- (from n-stems) as in other cases)).

Tocharian B sapule, watsālai, ankānmi (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 6, 2026

-

A. TB sapule ‘pot’

-

Václav Blažek & Michal Schwarz (https://www.academia.edu/38549136):

>7.2. Sims-Williams (1997, 3-15; 2007, 261, 325; cf. also Tremblay 2005, 436 and Adams 2013, 738-39) convincingly derived it from Bactrian sabolo ‘jar’ < *sapa-uda- ‘water-container’, following Isebaert (1991, 146-47) who connected Tocharian sapule with (in his time unknown) forms in the ‘l-dialect’, corresponding to Classical Persian sabūy ‘cup, jug’, New Persian sabo, sabū ‘cup, ewer, jar, glass, pitcher, pot’ (Steingas 1892, 650), while Armenian sap‘or ‘jug’ indicates a Parthian origin via unattested Aramaic *sappoð. The first component *sapa- is reconstructed on the basis of Khotanese sava ‘box, basket’ (*sapatā-), Persian sabad, sapad, Kurdic sabad ‘chest’, Shughni sipt ‘basket’ etc. (Bailey 1979, 422-23).

>

-
This makes sense, but where did Ir. *sapa- ‘container’ come from? I suggest that it is a compound from *k^(o)m- > Ir. *sa(m)- ‘with’, *H2ap ‘reach, grasp, hold > contain’. This would be one of the few pieces of uncertain ev. for *k^om over *kom.

-

B. TB watsālai a. ‘water-jar?’

-

Blažek & Schwarz:

>6. B watsālo ‘a type of pot or waterskin’

>6.1. Van Windekens (1988, 100-01) connected the term with Sanskrit vatsá- ‘calf’, assuming the semantic motivation ‘waterskin from calf-skin’ for this adaptation (cf. also Adams 1999, 585 & 2013, 635). This solution may be supported in perspective of Khotanese vas, pl. vasīya ‘vessel’ < *vats- (Bailey 1979, 380). Concerning the l-extension, Van Windekens added the Sanskrit derivative vatsalá-...

>6.2. Alternatively the starting point could be a hypothetical Sanskrit compound consisting of vatsá- ‘calf’ & ālu-/ālū-/āru- f. ‘small water-jar’ (Lex.), class. ālukā- ‘water-jar’ (EWAI III, 23, 25). The first component has promising cognates in Italic: Latin vās, gen. vāsis ‘vase, vessel, container’, Umbrian abl. pl. vasus, nom. pl. uasor, acc. pl. uaso ‘container’. The absence of rhotacism implies Italic *uāss- or *uāTs- (cf. de Vaan 2008, 655).

>

-
I see no reason for any relation to vatsá- ‘calf’ in any of these. In TB, a native *wāts (related to L. vās, Kho. vas) could easily form a cp. with borrowed ālu- (and ālo- in some cases, or from a Middle Indic word) with *wāts- > wats- when unstressed. If connected to any IE root, likely *(H1)waH2sto-s > Latin vāstus 'empty, desolate, deserted; devastated, destroyed; vast, enormous', *(H1)waH2st-s > *waHts (or any similar simplification) ‘an empty thing > container’. The sequence pronounced something like *-xsts remaining unchanged would have been the real problem, so -st- vs. -ts- is not odd. This would be similar to several other roots with a range ‘swell; empty; container’.

-

C. TB ankānmi ‘shared, common; in common?’

-

Adams: "Etymology uncertain. It would appear that the word contains the intensive prefix h1e(n)- (the initial ā- is regular by ā-umlaut). If the meaning of the word is as we have supposed the rest of the word might reflect a putative PIE *kōmniyom, a vṛddhied derivative of the *kom-no- seen in Oscan comono ‘comitia,’ and Umbrian super kumne ‘super comitio,’ kumnahkle ‘in conventu.’ PIE *kom-no- (the metathesis of *-mn- to -nm- in TchB is regular), of course, is an adjectival derivative of the adposition *kom ‘with.’"

-
Calling *en- an "intensive prefix" instead of 'in' (as in E. in common) seems unneeded. If this is < *k^om-m(e)i- 'exchange/share with' related to *k^om-moi-ni\no- ‘(in) common’ > Latin communis, NHG German gemein then there would be no reason for a-umlaut. However, words related to supposed *mei- often look as if < *H2mei-. There is no known reason for this discrepancy (I think it is likely H-metathesis, though not important here, https://www.academia.edu/127283240), but *H2mei- would provide an explanation. If really *k^om-H2m(e)i- > *kemami- > *kamami- > *kammi- it would show evidence for the stages in PIE *-CHC- > PT *-C(a)C-. There is no certain explanation for why some *H become *a vs. *0 in PT; if *H2mei- > *-(a)mi is needed, it would show that a stage with SHORT *a differed from the outcome of *a: ( < *aH2, etc.) in that it optionally was lost. The timing of *-a- > 0 vs. *a- > 0 might not be important, since the change seems fully optional (or due to now-unclear conditions), or this compound could have been (re-)formed or changed by analogy at any stage.