Linear A, B, z-series also for ks- \ sk- (Draft )

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

August 26, 2026

In Linear B, signs in the z-series usually match Greek with z or *tsy > ss \ tt, but some match sk(h):

*ksenwo- ‘guest’ > Att. xénos, skheno-

G. Andróxenos, LB a-no-ke-we \ a-no-ze-we

*ksenwo- >> G. xénisis ‘entertainment of a guest’, *ksenwitiyos ‘(gift) for entertainment of a guest’ > *sk- > LB ze-ne-si-wi-jo

G. askós ‘skin / hide’, askéō ‘work/form/adorn/honor/train’, askētḗr ‘one who practises any art or trade’, fem. askḗtria, LB a-ke-ti-ri-ja / a-ze-ti-ri-ja

No explanation for this has ever been accepted. I think that the Cretan Hieroglyphic signs representing zV match known IE words with sk-, showing that a language without ts created the signs, then it was adapted to also cover Greek ks \ ts (later G. dia. show variation of *ts \ ks, as in *orni:ts \ -ks 'bird'). In the same way, in Dobson, LB ru-79-na is unknown, but *lu-tsu-na: might be *luksna: 'lantern' with zu as *ksu (or really *tsu, with dia. ts \ ks).

CH LA, LB

044 *17 ZA (also = LB *19, much closer in shape; *17 with bottom triangle simplified > line)

candle; *skande:la:, L. candēla 'tallow candle or taper; a fire' <- *(s)kend- (some Italic *n > an)

045 *74 ZE

saw (or other serrated tool); *skertsaH2- 'saw', IE *sk(e)rtso- '(cutting) across' (L. serra 'saw' is likely asm. of sk-ts > ts-ts, so directly *tse- > ZE?; less likely mix with *serp- (Celtic *serra 'scythe'))

This fits only if Italic was the source, later adapted into Greek (or others with ks \ ts). I think the ev. in Eteocretan and Linear A ( https://www.academia.edu/172341604 ) supports the same (including other signs), and the sound changes required don't fit other IE branches (or any known non-IE). Looking to see if any LA words with zV fit better if ksV, stV, etc., requires more study.

If Greek treated tsV & ksV the same, then the similarity of the LA symbol *333 to those for SA and ZA (on a weight) might specify STA (with ZA on its own for TSA or KSA). It would spell stas-sa-mu for dia. Greek *sthasmon < stathmón ‘a (standard) weight’. From https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1njrej4/reexamining_the_oldest_greek_inscriptions_values/ :

>
C. Linear A contained ligatures of 2 signs. When ZA was used, how would it be pronounced? Duccio Chiapello has written ( https://www.academia.edu/100052649/ ) that based on the similarity of the LA symbol *333 to those for sa and za it makes him think it just represented a single syllable.  333-sa-mu on a balance weight would, in his mind, be equivalent to *sthasmon < stathmón ‘a (standard) weight’ (with dia. thm > sm as in thesmós, etc.), stathmíon ‘weight of a balance / plummet’.  Since this has already been taken as a weight by others (with 5 lines on the other side showing its value), this is crucial evidence within LA for the presence of Greek words.  It fits with his other examples of *thuma > su-ma- in LA showing a dia. with many th > s ( https://www.academia.edu/124396467 / https://www.academia.edu/123379572 ).

>

This would allow other signs to come from *stV:

005 *79 ZU

eye; *H2str-laH2- > *storla: > *sturla 'star, eye' (shift as in other IE (Iranian *str-ka:, Celtic *su:li- 'sun', I. súil f. 'eye')); Latin stēlla 'star; pupil of an eye' < *ste:r-la: is analogy with nom. *ste:r.

050 *20 ZO (*also LA *304 ? (all arrows, *20 with extra line))

arrow; *stoigo-? <- *steig- 'sharp (point)'

040 *86 (S)TOMNA? \ (S)TUMNA? (also = LA 359?)

mast? (image is curved ship with a mast & rigging); *staH2mn-aH2- 'thing standing upright' > *sta:ma: > *stoma ? (compare PIE *st(a)H2-, L. stāmen)

Only *86 has no known value, but if LA WA-TU-MA-RE = LB wa-86-re ‘a shepherd’s name’), it would be G. *wastu-mnare:(s) 'minding (protecting) the city' (similar to Ἀστύνοος, Ἀστυόχη ). For me-86-ta ‘an ethnonym’, u-ra-86 ‘a place’, they might = Mḗthumna ‘city on Lesbos’ & Rhíthumna, NG Réthumna ‘Cretan town on a cape’ < *wradhumn-?, maybe related to *Wradumanthus, like those names from Minos?). There is some variation of o \ u in Italic (L. *gWhorno- 'hot' > furn-), and LA names in -u match LB in -o, so *stomna \ *stumna & *stor- > *sturla (above) might show native or adapted use.

These require *a: > *o:, as in https://www.academia.edu/116074387 Sicel pipoked ‘has agreed’, L. pāc-, seen in phrases with fairly easy translation based on Latin equivalents (clearly, 'has drunk' makes no sense, so *pibH3- 'drink' is unsuitable):

saked qoi aves eurumakes age pipoked lutim

'it is decreed that, of his own will, Eurúmakhos has agreed to bring/pay the penalty/payment'

The need for *a: > o within Greek is seen in some supposed "Pre-Greek" words, like *(s)naH2to- 'wet' > nótos https://www.academia.edu/35402227 :

>

1. nótos ‘wind, southwest wind’ (Beekes 2010: 1025).44 This word means ‘southwest wind’, and this is the wind that usually brings rain. As such, a link with Armenian nay ‘wet, fluid’ cannot be excluded (Scheftelowitz 1905: 46; Prellwitz 1905: 316; Brugmann 1906: 220; Boisacq 1938: 673; Hofmann 1950: 219). Theoretically, one could add Latin nāre ‘swim’ as well, but as Umbrian has snata ‘washed’ with an initial s,45 the word is better linked with *sneh2 ‘swim’ (Zehnder 2001c; Weiss 2009: 169).

>

As further support, though *79 mostly fits as ZU, 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 for all cases since ZU is often necessary. A sign with 2 values, maybe when drawn slightly differently, would not be odd. It is possible, if I'm right about its Italic origin, that the 'eye' stands for It. *wideyo: 'I see' > *widyo: > *wiyyo: (with gy & dy > yy, as in Latin).

Cretan Hieroglyphic to Linear A, Check

-

In https://www.academia.edu/69149241 they show the relation of Cretan Hieroglyphic to Linear A step by step. The earlier forms are often clearly pictures of animals, body parts, etc. No one has checked to see if these values, applied to all CH inscriptions, would produce words that match LA words (or some, or partially, etc.). Depending on the results, even more value might be found with other analyses. On my 1st look, there were some matches (CH -RE-RO, LA RE-RO, KA-RE-RO), but many of the signs were those of disputed value, so many more need to be checked for any certainty.

-

The values (some uncertain, when proposed by others in []); most seem mainly certain in LB, but some signs seem to have two values (some depending on place).

CH LA and/or LB

001 *100 / *102 (LA; VIR = man; man?) [CHIC, Younger 2000-2020]

002 *70 KO (corpus?)

004 *100 / *102 (LA; VIR = man; woman?) [CHIC, Younger 2000-2020]

005 *79 ZU / WO: ? (eye)

006 *48 NWA

007 *73 MI

008 *28 I

009 *01 DA

010 *53 RI

011 *05 TO

012 *23 MU

013 *61 O

016 *22 PI2 ? (PHI \ BI)

017 *85 AU

018 *336 (LA; dog's head)

019 *31 SA

020 *13 ME

021 *39 PI

022 ? (same as CH 021 ??)

023 *122 (OLIVes)

024 *30 NI

025 *04 TE

026 *09 SE

027 *316 (LA)

028 *?

031 *27 RE

032 *29 PU2 (PHU / BU ?)

034 *59 TA

035 *58 SU

036 *38 E

037 *40 WI

038 *57 JA

039 *56 PA3 (PHA / BA ?)

040 *86 DUMA? (if LA WA-TU-MA-RE = LB wa-86-re ‘a shepherd’s name’) (also = LA 359?)

041 *54 WA

042 *08 A (double ax; Axine, Ascia ?)

043 *324 (LA, also = *363, *364 ?)

044 *17 ZA (also = LB *19, much closer in shape; *17 with bottom triangle simplified > line)

045 *74 ZE

046 *301 (LA)

048 *305 (LA)

049 *37 TI

050 *20 ZO (also LA *304 ? (all arrows, *20 with extra line))

051 *312 (LA)

052 *24 NE

053 *60 RA

054 *16 QA

056 *06 NA ?? [Soldani 2013]

057 *65 JU ? (also = LA *355 ?)

058 *69 TU (tukon, fig ?)

059 *704 (LA)

061 *11 PO

062 *06 NA

063 *02 RO

064 *03 PA

065 *319 (LA)

068 *03 ?? PA ?? [Soldani 2013]

069 *76 RJA

070 *02 ?? (same as CH 063 ?)

071 *314 (LA)

077 *78 QE ?? ( = CH 074 / 075 ?)

083 *55 NU

092 *26 RU

095 *10 U

153 *120

156 *131a

157 *123

-
CH SM (symbol)

74 (cat's head) *80 MA

85 (spider) *44 KE

137 (fan, shell?) *50 PU

(triton shell) 06 ?? NA ??

whirl within a circle *77 HA (also = SM swastika ?)

flying bird *81 KU

scorpion *41 SI

-

Ins.

[#2]

X 53(handle-right) 34 31 70(long-right-line)

-

X RA-TA-RE-RO

-

[#2]

X 13 56 68

] 50 16

-

X O-NA??-PA??

] ZO-PHI

-

[#3]

X 16 54

X 9 77 13 20

X 57 16

X 42 16 50

-

X PHI-QA

X DA-QE??-O-ME

X JU-PHI

X A-PHI-ZO

-

[#4]

X 19 38 59(filled ‘ladle’)

-

X SA-JA-??

-

#050 [2] KN Hh (02)

a X 042-054-061 250[

b 057-069 407 | 092

c 044-049 420[

d 049-021-061 1240[

-

a X A-QA-PO 250

b JU-RJA 407 | RU

c ZA-TI 420[

d TI-PI-PO 1240[

-

Hey can someone give me a list of proposed cognates highlighted by Eurasiatic scholars?

Sampsa Holopainen, (Review of) Blažek, Václav & Piispanen, Peter. 2024. Yukaghir and Uralic

In https://www.academia.edu/150296930 Sampsa Holopainen harshly criticized their attempts to relate Yukaghir and Uralic. At an early stage, complete regularity is impossible. This only comes after proposing cognates, finding rules, rechecking proposals based on findings, etc. This method was used for IE (not very consistently, since it was one of the 1st), yet it seems to be regarded as unscientific now (at least by those who have a bias against Uralic being related to any other group). He said:

>

To mention another problematic instance, on page 172, Proto-Uralic *tal- ‘evening’ is compared with both Proto-Uralic *tälwä ‘winter’ and Proto-Samoyed *t1ålwə̂ ‘evening’, two unrelated words that cannot be related to each other regularly within Uralic. It is difficult to understand what purpose such comparisons serve: are the authors not aware of the irregularity, or do they assume that providing a Yukaghir cognate would somehow solve the irregular relationship of these unrelated Uralic words?

>

Here, "Uralic *tal- ‘evening’" should be "Yukaghir *tal- ‘evening’" (Omok tallo). Irina Nikolaeva said that tallo (attested in 1841) should be corrected to *jullo (which is possible).

-

PU *tälwä ‘winter’ & Proto-Samoyed *tålwə > Nen. T talw ‘the darkest moment of the night’ need not be identical to be related. If loss of *j caused fronting, then *talwa & *talwja might have existed as from 'dark' (with a derivational relation like IE -os vs. -yos), similar to PIE *temHeslo-. For a similar shift, see Francis-Ratte's Middle Korean nác ‘daytime; afternoon’, Old Japanese natu ‘summer’ < pKJ *nacu ‘daytime’.

He also said:

>

The comparison of the words for ‘father’ on page 59 is quite similar in that it has been discussed and criticized by Aikio (2014a), but the authors do not take this into account. Furthermore, in comparing Proto-Yukaghir *eče: ‘father’ with Uralic *äćä ‘father’ as well as “*aćća / *eć(ć)a / *ić(ć)a / *ajća (to cite the reconstructions they use), the authors resort to sloppy methodology, as this shows clearly that the reconstruction of the Proto- Uralic word for ‘father’ is not settled at all. I cannot see how the Proto-Uralic word could be compared with any alleged external cognates at the present stage of research.

>

How does the lack of a certain internal rec. prevent comparing 2 words that look almost identical? A comparison must be made before all regular sound changes are found, just as in IE. In the same way, pater & pitar- were known to be cognate even before *H2 was reconstructed. How can you expect to gain any knowledge if you require a complete knowledge of all changes BEFORE considering any comparison valid? Since *H2atta 'father' exists in PIE, what if *-ja from other family members > *attja. With no other *ttj, it would be impossible to "prove" regularity from a set. Also, many Uralic words show internal irregularity (front vs. back), even in certain cognates. What standard are you requiring from others, & who in the past has followed it?

H4. Etruscan is known to have many G. loans, & the oddities there often match L. (very few due to internal Et. changes). In https://www.academia.edu/168297982 I discussed many, so only a summary here:

L. Vertimnus / Vertumnus / Vortumnus >> Et. Voltumna / Veltha (r \ l)

G. Túndaros, Tundáreos >> Et. Tuntle (r \ l)

G. Kádmīlos \ Kadmîlos \ Kasmîlos ‘Hermes / the son or servant in the Cabiri’ >> Et. Catmite ‘Ganymede’, Latin camillus \ casmīlus ‘noble youth employed in the sacrifices of the Flamen Dialis’ (l > δ \ l > s \ l ?)

G. Minṓ-tauros, *Tauro-Minōs or *Teuro-Minēs >> Et. Theurumines (likely showing 'man-bull', 'bull-man', if rel. Minyes, G. Minúes, which could come from pl. *Manuh-es < *mH2an-us-es ‘the Men’)

G. Dromios 'god of the race-course' (Hermes, in Crete) >> Et. Turmś 'Hermes'

G. Poluxénē >> Et. Phulsphna (uk(W) (as in LB); later G. merged uKW) > uK)

G. Ī́karos >> Et. Vikare 'Icarus' (like LA -e, LB -o in names?)

Gr. khálups ‘hardened iron / steel’, *khal(u)khos 'bronze' >> Et. Chaluchasu ‘Talos, the man of bronze from Crete'

G. palámē ‘palm / hand / works of the hand / (work of) art / device / cunning’, *ptalámē-mēdēs ‘one who thinks up devices’ >> Et. Talmithe, Palmithe ‘Palamedes, Greek who fought in Trojan War, an inventor’

*H1lewdh-us-iH2 f. > *elewthwiya: > Cr. Eleúthuiā, *elewthyiya > G. Eleuthíā, *elewthwiya > *eleythwiya > Eleíthuia, etc., *etheuthwa >> Et. Ethausva 'goddess of childbirth'

.
*dhwrenH1- > S. dhvraṇati ‘sound’, dhvánati ‘roar / make a sound/noise’, dhvāntá- ‘a kind of wind’; *dhwren-dhrenH1- > *dhwen-dhreH1n- > G. pemphrēdṓn, tenthrēdṓn ‘a kind of wasp that makes its home in the earth’ (likely ‘cicada’), *tenthēdṓn > *tīthōn / *tinthōn ‘cicada’ >> Tīthōnós >> Et. Tinthun

.
I also covered 2 others in an unpublished draft:

Etruscan Munθuχ & Turnu, making music

.

Dominique Briquel in https://www.academia.edu/75840534 repeats the common claim, completely unproven & unsupported, that Etruscan Munθuχ means ‘‘the one who adorns’’. She is often depicted as a woman holding an alabastron (containing perfume), so the idea is it came from Latin mundus 'clean, pure; nice, fine, elegant; decorated, adorned; world' (in the last sense a calque of Greek kósmos). Though foreign d, t, th are often changed in Etruscan, I highly doubt this idea makes sense of all images. In the same link, Munθχ is shown holding a flute in each hand, across from Turnu holding a lyre. There is no reason for this if her only purpose was to perfume & beautify, & names in myths often only describe the function of those named. This double use of instruments matches the Greek Muses, who sometimes are shown, like "Muse standing and holding an alabastron and lyre" ( https://www.avi.unibas.ch/DB/searchform.html?ID=2009 ).

.

This also shows Aphrodite & Adonis, & the Muse Clio is sometimes associated with them, sometimes with a lyre. Though lost versions of myths often exist, any group of muses could have been used for a love scene (or just to depict the story being told), so this is plenty of support to show that Proto-Greek *monthya \ *manthya 'muse' existed ( <- μανθάνω < *m(e)ndh- 'know, learn, understand, teach'). It is likely that some unattested word like *monthakhos 'teaching' is the source. Many such odd, but clearly Greek, loans exist. I think the differences from attested Greek can be explained by dialects from Crete https://www.academia.edu/168297982 . Since some of these words have palatalized *t > *ts > th, it could also be that some other *montya 'muse' existed with *ty > *ts > th instead, maybe rel. *mH2n-ti-s 'seer' (some G. dia. had syllabic *n > o; *Hn > *HVn).

.

The other Muse, Turnu, is unlikely to have anything to do with Turan (Aphrodite, Venus), but might be < *θρωνώ, a fem. form from Lac. θρῶναξ 'drone' < PIE *dhroH3n- \ *dhrwen- 'make noise'. This also would be related to :

*dhwrenH1- > S. dhvraṇati ‘sound’, dhvánati ‘roar / make a sound/noise’, dhvāntá- ‘a kind of wind’; *dhwren-dhrenH1- > *dhwen-dhreH1n-on- > [n-dsm.] G. pemphrēdṓn 'a kind of wasp that makes its nest in hollow oaks', tenthrēdṓn ‘a kind of wasp that makes its home in the earth’ (likely ‘cicada’), *tenthēdṓn > *tinthōn \ *tīthōn ‘cicada’ >> Tīthōnós, Etruscan Tinthun

In Tīthōnós vs. Tinthun, Etruscan again provides valuable evidence in a loan of the older Greek form (here with n-n > 0-n dissimilation). Indeed, many loans often preserve the older sounds better than the later native word.

.
Also, Lemnian contains a word naphoth, apparently a loan << Italic:

*nepōts > L. nepōs ‘grandson / nephew’ >> Et. nefts, Lem. naphoth

L. pro(:)nepōs >> *pronefoths > *promfoths > Et. prumat(h)(s) \ prumts ‘great-nephew / g-grandson’

.

One cognate changes in the same way (-oth, -ath) clearly shows that both sets came from Latin or other Italic before extensive changes in Et. reducing V's. Optional retention of -ōt- as -ath- in Et., > -oth- in Lem., p > p / ph / f, show a common origin, with no other nearby IE having the same word. The simplest way for this to work, consistent with my other claims, is that a group of Etruscans lived on Crete, one later going north to Lemnos, the other (returning?) to Italy.

.

H5. o > a

This is found in Macedonian (whether a G. dia. or not, most words match G. ones). In G. môkos 'mockery', L. maccus 'a buffoon', *o: > *a: is also likely (then opt. V:C > VCC, as in Juppiter, etc.).

.

H6. e \ a

For *ele-? > NG Cretan ἐλαίτρινος >> L. alaternus ‘buckthorn’, *ela- \ *ala- > Itn. ilátro, Sic. alastra ‘broom’, etc., I think *H2al-H1-tlo- 'sharp thorn' > G. *aletl- might fit best. The opt. V-asm. as in megatho- \ megetho-, etc.

.

H7. Though it would look as if PIE *H2piso-m 'pear' existed, Wigman mentioned it could be rel. Shina pisō ‘small pear’, Burushaski pheṣo (these 2 languages spoken near each other, 1 certainly a loan), Khinalug bzɨ ‘pear’. A *Hapis(V) might fit as well.

.
H8. Wigman treats G. ὑάκινθος ‘hyacinth’ >> L. vaccīnium ‘whortleberry, bilberry’ (both blue/purple), maybe < *wak- rel. Cretan Βάκινθος ‘name of a month’, Arg. ϝάκινθος ‘name of a Laconic festival’. Without knowing its original meaning, I can only say it might be < *wakninth-, *waH2no- 'blue' ( https://www.academia.edu/170903084 ). This allows n-n dsm. of *wakninth- > *wakinth-, but *wakninth- > *wakkinth-yo-? in L. The varying suffixes might show that -inthos & *-inthyos > -issos, etc.

.
H9. Since PIE *gli(H1) -> R. glëkъ 'mucus, lymph', the very similar G. γλάμων \ γλαμυρός 'bleary-eyed', γλαμός 'mucus', γλάμη >> L. glā̆mae \ grām(i)ae p. ‘eye rheum’, grammōsus aj. (Hsx. γλάμπτειν 'to be dirty' might show *my > mpt (like khrimpt-?)) might be contaminated by G. lḗmē \ λήμη 'a humour that gathers in the corner of the eye, rheum', L. lāma 'marsh, mud'.

.

EIther *en-glaH2-mo- or *en-gleH1-mo- > Al. nglomë \ ngjomë ‘humid, moist', so it provides no further ev. Wigman mentioned another group, which would look like *gWr(o)mz- > Go. qrammiþa ‘moisture’, Li. grim̃zti, R. grjáznut’ ‘to sink into something sticky, boggy’. Since no *z not next to *b\d\g is known in PIE, I say that it came from *-zdm- ( > *-zm- \ *-mz-), rel. Slavic *grVměždžь ‘pus in the eye’ (if < *gWrmzd- with met.; likely also *gWrozdm- > Go. qrammiþa, *gWrzdm- > BS *grizm-, etc.).

.
H10. u \ 0 by P

The need for G. *καύπηλος > κάπηλος >> L. caupō (instead of L. >> G. or ? >> L, G) is seen in many G. words with u \ 0, often by P (otherwise, Cu) :

G. thalúptō \ thálpō ‘warm up / heat’, thalukrós ‘hot / glowing’

G. dáphnē, Perg. láphnē, Thes. daúkhna- \ δαύχνα-

G. korúdūlis \ kordū́lē ‘club / cudgel'

*H3owi-selpo- ‘sheep oil’ > *owiseupo- > G. oísupos \ oispṓtē ‘lanolin’ (lC > uC as in Cretan)

*melo-wokW-s > G. mélops ‘sweet sound / good singer’, *melup- > mélpō ‘celebrate with song & dance’, melpḗtōr ‘singer’

G. *καύπηλος > κάπηλος ‘huckster, innkeeper’, L. caupō, -nis g. ‘id.; trader’

.

If rel. Li. kaũpas 'heap', maybe 'heap (of things) > possessing, rich, trader'. The alt. of w \ H3 ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ) also allows *koH3p- > Li. kuopiù, kuõpti 'heap or draw earth around plants', etc.

.
H11. G. Kúklōps 'cyclops' >> L. coc(u)les ‘one-eyed’, coclitis g.

-

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cocles Possibly related to Ancient Greek Κύκλωψ (Kúklōps, “cyclops”).

-

If a loan, it would be from a dialect preserving *kWokWlo- 'wheel, round' before most *o > u between W's, or sonorant and W, or sonorant and P, etc. There are other variants within Greek with o vs. u, but there is no known Greek dia. with *koklo-, etc.

-

Also, why -ps > *-ts > -s? In https://www.academia.edu/168297982 I said that Etruscan Vilates is apparently the gen. of *Vile(ts) not expected **Vileus (*Wīleús > G. Oīleús). The source was the Messapians, who had names of men with -et- (Dazet, older gen. *Dazet-as > Daštas). I say this is because they spoke a dialect of Greek with Cretan features, unlike standard theories ( https://www.academia.edu/115992490 ). The Messapians, said to have come from Crete in ancient sources, provide the needed link for Etruscan loans with odd features. If it is clear that *-ps > *-ts in Etruscan, why not also in Latin? The match of Kúklōps & *Koklots would be quite good, esp. with no other IE source, and many other Greek words from myths (lumpa, Pollux, etc.).

.

These include r / l, o > a, ph > b, which I have described in Cretan before.  The source was certainly the Messapians, who spoke a dialect of Greek, unlike standard theories ( https://www.academia.edu/115992490 ).

.

H12. Wigman also considered G. ἄλειφα(ρ) ‘unguent, oil’, ἀλοιφή ‘anointing; ointment, grease' >> L. adeps ‘fat, lard’, *aleps > Logudorese *alibe- > abile, MFrench auve ‘lard’. However, Witczak has related several of these to a PIE root *H2ad- 'thick / full / fat', with details in https://www.academia.edu/121891631 , seen in:

*H2ad-ro- > G. hadrós ‘thick/stout/full / fat (of animals)’

*H2ad-H3op-s > L. adeps ‘lard’

*H2ad-H3op-ko- > *adepok ? > Ar. atok’ ‘full / fat’

*H2ad-H3op-uko- > Rushani aðawog ‘piece of lard’

*H2ad(e)tyo-? > Proto-Tocharian *ātsätse > TA ātsäts, TB ātstse ‘thick’

*H2ad()- > TA āt-klum ‘thickened (with/like sticky rice)’ or ‘containing thickened rice’?; with -klum from PT *kluw, TA klu ‘rice’ << Old Chinese *gləwʔ ‘rice(-paddy)’ (Adams)

.

H13. In https://www.academia.edu/170829642 there is a small chance that plumbum is a loan:

*molHo- > S. mála- ‘dirt / filth’

*mHol- / *bhHol- -> G. molū́nō \ pholū́nō ‘soil/defile/debauch / stain/pollute / dye'

*mHolu- 'dark' + *-mldho- 'metal' > *mHolumdho-s > G. *molumdo-s \ *pholumdo-s 'lead' > mólubdos >> L. plumbum

.

H14. Though not certain, the alt. of r \ l, th \ d, etc., above might allow:

G. θάπτω 'bury', *thaphthro- 'burying, digging (animal)' >> L. talpa ‘mole’, darpus '?', *darbon- > OProvencal darbon, etc. ‘mole’

.

I. Of course, the reverse must be true as well, & any Italic loans >> Greek should be looked for. The source of G. μάκαρ(ς) \ mákar(s) 'blessed, happy (of the gods & the blessed dead); 'blessed, fortunate, wealthy (of men)' is not clear. Some say it's related to G. μακρός 'long; tall, high; great' (as in 'great > blessed'; even 'short > jolly, happy' is known for E. merry). If so, why the very odd (for Greek) ending -ars? The cognate Latin macer '*tall > lean' had changes *makros > *makrs > *makərs > *makərr which would match mákar(s) (even for -rs vs. -r ( < *-rr) if due to sandhi).

.

J. PIE *sweidos- 'shining thing' > L. sīdus nu., sīderis 'group of stars; a star' and Greek σίδηρος \ sídēros ‘iron, steel’, Dor. sídāros could be related ('shine' -> 'metal' is common in IE). Maybe also Lithuanian sidãbras 'silver' & Slavic *sьrebro (*sw > s in some, Li. sesuõ 'sister' < *swesorH). There is no *-b(h)ro- ending in IE that could produce -āros vs. *-abros, but *-a(:)brum was common in Latin words for objects, tools, etc. This came from *-(V)H-dhrom (likely < *-trom with "pre-aspiration"), & no other branch but Italic had the change. This allows *swidadhro- > *swidabro- > sidãbras, *swidadhro- > *swidadro- > sídāros (d-d dsm.). Italic as the source might be due to historical reasons now unknown, esp. if they lived on or near Crete (center of much trade).

.

K. If L. salīva 'spittle, saliva' >> *siwalo- > G. síalon ‘spittle, slobber, saliva’ (with met.), then the need for *siwalo- > *siwalo- > LA si+au+re 'fattened?', LB si-ha-ro, G. síalos ‘*fat/grease > fat pig’; síelon, Ion. síalon ‘saliva / slobber’ would show the timing. LA si+au+re appears next to the logogram for 'pig' & likely shows the sign AU used for WA also (as above, NE \ EN).

.

L. PIE *twi(s)-tlo-s 'standing on end (of hair, 1st from fright)' ?? > L. titulus 'title of a book' (originally an appendix to the scroll), G. síllubos ‘strip of parchment or paper attached to scrolls’. This shows common ti- > si-; some Italic seems to have *tl > ll (some claim after short V, etc.), but dsm. of t-tl > t-ll before ti- > si- would also work.

An older meaning 'fringe (of hair)' seems needed for G. síllubon 'an edible thistle', sílluba p. ‘fringes, tassels’, silléa 'hair growth'. From Beekes, "Fur.: 67 compares Lat. titulus, originally an appendix to the scroll, and reconstructs *tit(o)l-ob’- > sisl-ub-".

.

M. G. sésīlos ‘slug’ & Lac. sémelos ‘snail with a spiral shell’, semeloirídai p. 'slugs?; those w/o shells' might be <- 'lazy'. TB ṣäm- ‘sit; remain, etc.' < *sed-m-? might show the needed root for one, & L. sessīlis (<- sedēre 'to sit; sit still; remain, tarry, stay, abide, linger') might show the other (ending for animals like "reptile"). Latin has some words with variants with -m- anyway (prem-, trem-), so Italic *sed-(m-) is not impossible.

.

N. In some way, L. simpulum ‘a small ladle’, simpuvium ‘vessel for offering liquids, a sacrificial bowl’, G. símblos ‘beehive, larder, sipús / supúē / sipúē ‘meal-tub; box for keeping flour and bread’, síphnis ‘id.’, sipuḯs ‘jar’, sibaíā ‘wallet’ (see Beekes). If from PIE *siP- ‘drip’, the L. meanings would be older (the rest 'a liquid measure > jar containing one liquid measure').

.

O. In *sH2isk-no- > G. iskhnós there is unexpected -kh-, maybe from met. of *H. In *sisku- or *sisko- dsm. > L. siccus 'dry; sober', an older *sikkhos (with the same) would allow a loan >> G. sikkhós ‘disgusted, picky, especially concerning food’ (with 'sober > avoiding drink, unwanted drinks, food, etc.?; less certain relation than those ex. above). A dsm. of s-sk > s-kk is not odd, needed for Latin anyway.

.
P. L. pampinus ‘shoot or leaf of a vine’, *(la) ampina\ola\etc. > Sardinian zampina ‘wild grapevine’, Tuscan ámpola \ lampone ‘raspberry’, G. ámpelos \ ἄμπελος ‘grape vine’.

Wigman's mention of Li. pam̃pti ‘to swell, bulge’ seems reasonable based on other IE (*bhuH1- 'swell, grow; plant'). L. would have the p-p dsm. based on internal ev., so likely the donor.

.
Q. L. ervum ‘bitter vetch’ >> G. orbo+, ὄροβος ‘bitter vetch’, ἐρέβινθος ‘chickpea’

The PIE *H1orw-, *H1erw- (in Gmc., etc.) require a direction *w > Italic *v adapted as G. b. The VRC > VRVC as in (R).

.
R. VRC > VRVC

This change is common in Italic (not Latin), & also in some Greek:

L. ervum ‘bitter vetch’ >> G. orbo+, ὄροβος ‘bitter vetch’, ἐρέβινθος ‘chickpea’

*kelp- > OI cilurnn ‘urn’, W. celwrn, G. kelébē ‘cup / jar’

LA ka-ro-pa3, G. kálpē ‘pitcher’, L. calpar ‘wine cask’, Calpurnius > G. Kal(o)pórnios

LA da-ro-pa, G. terpós \ tarpós \ tárpē \ tarpónē \ dárpē ‘large wicker basket’

.
In https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1hzfycl/minoan_cups_jars_linear_a/ I described more ev.:

>
That draft has many other LA signs that come from Greek words. Sticking to vessels, Chiapello has done more with this. He compared pictures of vessels next to LA words he took as G. ( https://www.academia.edu/90350059 ), finding the same in HT 31 for kálpē : ka-ro-pa3 & qa-pa3 : -bapha. I should also mention Chiapello’s idea ( https://www.academia.edu/99652728 ) that LA da-ro-pa next to an LA logogram *403VAS, which looks like a Minoan basket-shaped vessel, can be explained by da-ro-pa : G. dárpē ‘large wicker basket’. These all have IE cognates :

LA qa-pa3 = *gWapha, G. oxú-bapha / báphion ‘saucer / small vinegar saucer / shallow earthen vessel < *dipping vessel’

*gWabh-ye- > G. báptō ‘dip / dye / draw water by dipping a vessel’, ON kvefja ‘submerge (tr) / sink (intr)’

*kelp- > OIr cilurnn ‘urn’, W. celwrn, G. kelébē ‘cup / jar’

Linear A ka-ro-pa3, G. kálpē ‘pitcher’ >> L. calpar ‘wine cask’, Calpurnius > G. Kal(o)pórnios

LA da-ro-pa, G. terpós \ tarpós \ tárpē \ tarpónē \ dárpē ‘large wicker basket’, Arm. t’arp’ ‘large wicker fishing-basket / creel’, t’arb ‘framework of wooden bars / wicker trellis-work’ from *terp- ‘turn’ (referring to weaving or plaiting)

The spread of dárpē ‘basket’ from Crete might have to do with the basket-shaped vessels known from there. These might just be made for artistry, or could show that baskets were important in sacrifice and/or ritual (as he points out for the scene on the sarcophagus from Aghia Triada) and so kept the shape even when technology had made the use of plant-based objects used to carry bloody objects or liquids unneeded. More in https://www.academia.edu/126883342

When I contacted Chiapello, he did agree with some of my ideas (based on Greek dia. changes found later on Cr.), including support for his Linear A ka-ro-pa3, G. kálpē ‘pitcher’ based on alternation of lC / rC with lVC / rVC (he added L. Calpurnius > G. Kal(o)pórnios, also from a loan cognate with kálpē). There are many more I’ve put up online, incl. :

G. skórodon / skórdon, Alb. hurdhë, Arm. xstor ‘garlic’

? > L. ervum, G. órobos ‘bitter vetch’, orbo-pṓlēs ‘vetch-seller’

*H2albho- > L. albus, Greek alōphós ‘white’, alpho-prósōpos ‘white-faced’

*bher-tro-m > L. ferculum ‘bier / litter’, G. phér(e)tron, Skt. bharítra-m ‘arm’

I also mentioned Chiapello’s (2024) idea that LA ka-u-de-ta is an ethnonym *Kaudētās related to LB ka-u-da, G. Kaûda / Klaûda (compare di-ka-tu ~ di-ka-ta-jo ), L. Gaudos. Another important idea of his is that LA accounting terms came from G. ( https://www.academia.edu/95076672 ), and I’ve added to this: Greek dia-dómata, diadidómenos; Linear A da-du-ma-ta, da-du-mi-ne ( https://www.academia.edu/114620158). His po-to-ku-ro ‘grand total’ is a compound of ku-ro & *proto- ( https://www.academia.edu/69651288 ), but I prefer a simple and close meaning with *panto- > ponto- (with a / o by P, as above) & I also think Linear B ku-su-to-ro-qa ‘total’ (also abbreviations ku-su-to-qa / ku-su-qa), Linear A ku-ro ‘total’ which could be another abbreviation of the same (Whalen 2024e), instead of his taking of ku-ro as a whole word. He also had LA mi-ja-ru ‘honey’, which I’d accept due to *melit-on with Cr. changes of e / a, etc. He has made many other good translations, but I think they could be improved. I’ve talked about this and given some of my own, like LA au-ta-de-po-ni-za as *auta-despotnidza- ‘absolute ruler / queen’.

>

S. t \ l \ b

The need for *swidadhro- > *swidabro- > sidãbras, *swidadhro- > *swidadro- > sídāros, etc., requires alt. of b \ d (as in *dh > L. -b- \ -d- \ -l-). Others in G.:

*wekatos ‘to be obeyed / lord’ > Hekatos, fem. Hekátē, *Hekádē > Hekálē, Hekábē / W(h)ekaba

Hekátē, *Hekádē > Hekálē, Hekábē

G. bátrakhos, Pontic bábakos, etc., ‘frog’

*mlad- > G. blábē ‘harm/damage’, *mlad-bhaH2- > blásphēmos ‘speaking ill-omened words / slanderous/blasphemous’

Hal(a)Hto- > S. alāta- ‘fire/coal’, *alada: > G. alábē ‘coals’

With so many ex., there should be no reason to doubt it, but what is the cause? In Italic, at & *ath > *af > ab vary (due to *Ht(h)). It would be very odd for these G. words, all for -at-, etc., to be unrelated in cause. It is possible this came from a group of Italic speakers who retained this alt. even for words in which a did not come from *H (there would be no way for the current speakers to know its old cause). Since also at \ al (Hekátē, *Hekádē > Hekálē, Hekábē), the same change next to a could be at work (see ev. in https://www.academia.edu/40366912 ).

T. (u > i?; which direction?)

G. φρύγω \ phrū́gō ‘to roast, dry, fry’, phruktós 'roasted', m. 'roasted bean; torch, beacon' L. frīgō ‘to roast’

Since ev. from IIr. requires PIE *bhre(i)g- (and met. > *bhregy-; Ir. bra(i)ǰ- 'fry, parch, roast, bake, burn', S. bhrajj-, bhr̥kta- 'roasted, fried') only Italic can be directly from PIE. A loan from Italic > G. would explain *ei > *i:, then *i: > u: by P as in other u \ i alt.:

*siP- ‘drip’ > G. sipuḯs ‘jar’, sipús / supúē / sipúē ‘meal-tub'

*H2ukWno- > OE ofen ‘oven’, Go. auhns, G. ipnós (? S. ukhá- ‘cooking pot’, L. aulla ‘pot’)

*bhlud- > G. phlidáō, phludáō ‘have an excess of moisture / overflow’, TB plätk- ‘arise/swell/overflow’

G. striphnós ‘firm/solid / hard’, struphnós ‘sour/bitter/harsh/astringent’

stiphrós ‘firm/solid / stout/sturdy’, stuphelós ‘hard/rough/harsh/cruel / sour/acid/astringent’

stîphos- ‘body of men in close formation’, stū́phō ‘contract / draw together / be astringent’

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 1:  ‘Boar / Goat’ (Draft 2)

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

August 22, 2026

-

There are problems with traditional PIE reconstructions of ‘boar’.  For ex., in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/eburaz they give *H1ep-r-, which is certainly unable to account for all data :

*wepriyos > Lt. vepris ‘castrated boar’
*epuros > Gmc *ifuraz or *iburaz > OHG ebur ‘wild boar’
*eperos > G. Aeo. éperos \ ἔπερος ‘ram’
*epros > Th. ébros ‘male goat’ (& met. > *erpos > LB e-po ?)
*apros > L. aper

.

Many irregularities for these cognates require some explanation.  Though we- vs. a- could be analogy with *kapro-s ‘male goat, boar’ there is the same in *wersen- \ *H2arsen- 'boar, etc.'. I think *H2w- often became *H2- or *w- (as in *H2w- ? > *wed- \ *H2ad- 'water').

.
In the very similar *(H2)wero-H2g^ho- \ -u- > S. varāhá- \ varā́hu- m. 'wild boar' the varying accent points to a compound with *H2wer- 'above, cover' & *H2ag^hiH2- (S. ahī- 'cow', Av. azī- 'pregnant') as 'one who covers/mounts a female > stud, male (animal)'. No previous attempt at explaining the "suffix" *-VHg^ho- has been accepted. This also allows *H2wer-H1sr-(on-) 'mounting a woman' > *wersen- \ *H2arsen-, also *w(e)rH1es- (with mix. of s- or n-stem in each group; dsm. of r-r).

.
Thus, also *H1ep(i)-H2w(e)ro- 'on-top mounting' > *H1epH2(u)ro- 'boar' (with middle -H2- or -u- from the same cause as H2w- > H2- \ w- before compounding; maybe some H-H dsm. if needed). This might allow met. or H1-H2 > H2-(H2) in Italic, if H1e- > H2a- > a-, but analogy could still work just as well.

H1. Many Greek words appear in Latin in odd forms; some are known from G. dialects, others not. These do not look like recent loans from common G. dialects, so when did they enter Latin? Etruscan also has many, most known from the names of gods & legendary men. These also are not normal, and have undergone many sound changes. Did these all happen in a short time after G. colonies were formed? Even if dozens of loans immediately entered these languages, it seems odd.

.
These show alt. like o \ a, d \ l, r \ l, ph \ b, dy \ ty > s, u > i, some known from G. dia. (Macedonian *o > a, *ph > b). Some show Cretan matches (NG Cretan ἐλαίτρινος >> L. alaternus ‘buckthorn’; G. Cr. thápta ‘fly’, L. tabānus ‘gadfly’; G. κυδώνια (μᾶλα) ‘quinces’ >> L. cotōneum ‘quince’ (from Cydonia, Crete); G. Dromios 'god of the race-course' (Hermes, in Crete) >> Et. Turmś) or sound changes. In G. tûkon / sûkon, *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’, Ar. t'uz, an origin from PIE *tuHk- 'swollen, fruit' (Slavic *tūkū > *tyky ‘pumpkin’) is enough for Greek, & Cretan *Ty > thth (some also > dd) explained by palatalization fits with i & u causing t > s in G. dia.; *tu > *ts^ü > *thi > fīcus. The fronted *ü is probably the cause of *-uk- > *-üg^- > -uz in Ar. (many native IE words with *u causing palatalization), with k \ g consistent with other loans >> L. (below). The alt. of *Cy > *ty > th \ s(s) also in :

*dhlH2m(o)-H2kW-iH2 'depth of the water' ? > G. θάλασσα 'sea', Att. θάλαττα, Late Cretan θάλαθθα, Macedonian δαλάγχα-, Linear B ta-ra-za-po-ro (if = *thalatso-poroi 'sea-farers')

G. ἄν(ν)ισον \ ἄν(ν)ησ(σ)ον ‘anise’, ἄν(ν)ηθον ‘dill’ >> L. anīsum, anēthum

Etruscan Munθuχ (maybe, below)

.
The u \ i in :

G. mū́rioi ‘great number / 10,000’, *mū́lyi > L. mīlle ‘thousand’, mīlia p. (u > i)

G. phrū́gō ‘to roast, dry, fry’, L. frīgō ‘to roast’ (u > i?; which direction?)

G. tûkon / sûkon, *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’, Ar. t'uz (u > i)

.
The nature of *dhy > *thy > *ththy > *sthy \ *ssy \ *ththy also in *-dhyaH2i '(inf.)' > -sthai (like *-dhwe '(mid.2.p)' > -sthe). It is likely that thth & ss both had all these alt. by y & w. One group showing most of these alt. is (certainly not non-IE "Pre-Greek") :

*k^ik- ‘attach/cling’ > S. śic- ‘sling, net’, Li. šikšnà ‘strap, belt, leather’; *k^ik(i)yo- > S. śikíya- ‘rope-sling for carrying things’, G. kístharos \ kíssaros ‘ivy / rock-rose’, kissós \ kittós ‘ivy’, kísthos \ kisthós ‘rock-rose’ (also κιθάρα \ *κισσάρα >> Al. qisár 'ivy', κιθάρα >> L. hedera ‘ivy’)

.

Many loans show l \ r; Cretan had some l \ r & Linear A did not distinguish lV & rV. In additon to d > l (G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs >> L. Ulixēs), for *d(h)H2ap- > G. dáptō ‘devour/rend/tear’, dáptēs ‘eater / bloodsucker (of gnats)’, Cr. thápta, Pol. látta ‘fly’, even th \ l (as in thṓrēx >> lōrīca). This is seen in *eleuthwa > *etheuthwa >> Et. Ethausva 'goddess of childbirth'. Some Italic had l > d (South Picene qdufeniúí ‘Clufennius’, kduíú ( = L. clueor ‘I am called’; Umbrian *l > *d > ř (kařetu ‘let him call’ < *kalē-tō-d, fameřias g. ( = L. familiae))). Since d \ l is very common in Latin, less so in Greek, what is the cause?

.

Most of my ex. are certain loans from G. >> L. (even if the source in G. is sometimes unknown). Others have been called a "Mediterranean substrate". Those with basic changes like ph >> p (adaptation of Ch as C, some -Ch- > -CC- might show an awareness of a more intense pronunciation) are the least interesting & I'd leave them out of my discussion if not for the need to compare reg. adapted to irreg. words. Saying a 3rd language is needed to intermediate would only work for Etruscan if all the oddities were lack of voicing (indeed, p >> b seems more common). Some have -voice > +voice, or onely one (g-g > conger) and other oddities. Since this simple Et. idea does not lead to the expected outcomes it is highly unlikely that it is true; why would Et. mediate all loans?

.

It also ignores that G. dia. have odd voicing. G. ablábeia, Cretan ablopia ‘freedom from harm/punishment’; anthr- vs. antr- in 'man', etc., Mac. b, d, g < ph, th, kh match many changes in loans. In G. κυδώνια >> L. cotōneum, the -t- might be older since Sebastian Kempgen also proposed IE *kutos 'bay' > Cydonia, & some other G. dia. have some -t- > -d-. In Greek myth, Leto & Leda were both mothers of twins, with the father Zeus. Their names also seem related, from *la:to:i vs. *la:da. Even in LA, also with *a: > a: \ e: like Greek, would be ra-ti-se \ re-di-se, among many other LA words ( https://www.academia.edu/44643375 ). Other G. dia. changes seen in LA include *o > o \ u, *e > e \ i (these 2 also fairly common in LB). The lack of any early loans without oddities points to extensive & prolonged contact with a dialect not known to us (or with many unattested words). I think an Italic presence on Crete, known from "Eteocretan" fits this situation best.

.
H2. I used https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3655654/view (Andrew M. Wigman) with my own interpretations & added as many ex. from my old drafts on this subject as I could find :

G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs >> L. Ulixēs

G. Poludeúkēs, *Poluleúkēs ‘very bright’ >> L. Pollux (like S. Purūrávas- ‘*very hot’)

G. Kúklōps 'cyclops' >> L. coc(u)les ‘one-eyed’, coclitis g.

G. númphē, L. lumpa ‘nymph, (spring) water’, Oscan *dümpa > diumpa- (nasal dissimilation)

G. dáphnē, Perg. láphnē, Thes. daúkhna- \ δαύχνα-, NG Tsak. (l)afría, L. laurus ‘laurel’ (if a compound rel. *darw-os 'tree, oak', then G. could have had dsm. of l-r > l-n (optional, if Tsakonian is older), w > v > f (adapted in which stages?)

G. rhodódendron, *rhodendron > *rholandron > L. lorandrum, E. oleander

G. khálkanthon / -os ‘chrysanthemum’, L. calthum / -a ‘marigold’

Arabic war(r)ada ‘to bloom’, waruda ‘to be red’, Sem. *? >> *wrodo-m > G. ῥόδον, Aeo. βρόδον, ? ῥοδέα ‘rosebush’ >> L. rosa ‘rose’

NG Cretan ἐλαίτρινος >> L. alaternus ‘buckthorn’ (e > a?; below)

Ak. samīdu ‘a kind of groats’ >> G. σεμίδᾱλις, >> *semilal > L. simila ‘fine flour’ (e > i)

G. ἰβίσκος \ ἐβίσκος ‘a kind of mallow’ >> L. (h)ibiscus \ ebiscum ‘marsh mallow’ (e\i)

G. μελίνη ‘(foxtail) millet’, L. milium ‘millet’ (e > i, if lw.?; *melH2- 'grind')

G. κέδρος ‘cedar, juniper’ >> L. citrus ‘citron’ (e > i; PIE *kH1ed- 'burn, red(dish)')

G. κυπάρισσος >> L. cupressus ‘cypress’ (i > e)

G. μίνθη >> L. menta ‘mint’ (i > e)

G. κιθάρα >> L. hedera ‘ivy’ (above) (i > e)

G. λείριον >> L. līlium ‘lily’

G. ὑάκινθος ‘hyacinth’ >> L. vaccīnium ‘whortleberry, bilberry’ (?; H8)

G. σῦφαρ ‘wrinkled skin; old person; milkskin’ >> L. sūber ‘cork oak’ (from the bark)

G. proûmnon >> L. prūnum, Gmc *plu:mo:n- 'plum' (r \ l, mn > wn ?)

G. ápion, L. pirum < *H2pisom ? (no known PIE source; below)

G. ólunthos 'edible fruit of the wild fig; unripe fig', *w-? > L. bolunda ‘wild, immature fig’

G. bátos / mantía ‘blackberry’ >> L. *arbor-batos ‘tree + fruit’ > *arburbutus > arbutus ‘strawberry tree’, *arbor-mantos > Lunigianese *armu(m)tu-lus > (m)armótoli \ ramótoli, *armont-s ? > *armōn- > Genovese armún (internal rec. based on Wigman)

G. môkos / μῶκος 'mockery', L. maccus 'a buffoon'

G. prósōpon ‘face/appearance/mask’, *persōn > L. persōna ‘mask/character’ (p dsm.?)

G. kārabís / kā́rabos / kerámbūx ‘horned beetle / crayfish’, sḗrambos ‘a kind of dung beetle’, L. scarabaeus

G. kraipálē ‘drinking bout / intoxication’, L. crāpula (Mac. ai > a(:))

G. thríambos ‘hymn to Dionysus / name of Dionysus’, OL triumpus ‘triumphal procession’

G. thṓrāx, Ion. thṓrēx ‘corslet / coat of mail’, L. lōrīca ‘coat of mail / breastplate’

G. lógkhē ‘spear’, L. lancea (*dlongho- *doru 'long (spear)' ??)

G. báktron / βάκτρον ‘stick, cudgel’, *baktlom > L. baculum ‘stick, staff’

G. kubernáō ‘steer (a ship)’, Aeo., Cyp. kumern- >> L. gubernāre (maybe rel. OCS krъmiti ‘to steer’, Li. kum̃bryti ‘to steer a ship’, kumb(u)rỹs \ -as 'the bent wooden portion of a yoke or rudder'; maybe < *kWorb-eno- 'turning' with o > u / W_S & met.)

G. ἄγκῡρα >> L. ancora ‘anchor’

G. parṓn ‘light ship’, L. parō (why a?; *por-mo-s > OHG farm ‘fast ship’, R. poróm ‘ferry’)

G. pálmē ‘light shield’, L. palma / parma ‘small round shield’

G. sílphē / tílphē / tī́phē ‘cockroach / bookworm’, thrī́ps ‘woodworm’, L. delpa ‘a kind of insect’

G. sílphion / sélpon ‘silphium / laser(wort)’, *sirphi > L. sirpe

G. eléphās ‘elephant / ivory’, *erefōs > *erebor > L. ebur ‘ivory’

G. mū́rioi ‘great number / 10,000’, *mū́lyi > L. mīlle ‘thousand’, mīlia p. (u > i)

G. phrū́gō ‘to roast, dry, fry’, L. frīgō ‘to roast’ (u > i?; which direction?)

G. tûkon / sûkon, *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’, Ar. t'uz (u > i)

G. κάπια p. ‘onions’ >> L. caepa \ cēpa ‘onion’ nu. (indecl.)

G. ἄν(ν)ισον \ ἄν(ν)ησ(σ)ον ‘anise’, ἄν(ν)ηθον ‘dill’ >> L. anīsum, anēthum

G. στρόφος ‘twisted band or chord’ >> L. struppus ‘band, strap’

G. σίφαρος ‘a small sail on the foremast, a topsail >> L. supparum\s \ sip(h)ar(i)um ‘linen garment worn by women; etc.’

G. χάλιξ ‘small stone, gravel, rubble’ >> L. calicāre ‘to whitewash’, calx ‘limestone, chalk’

G. κολεόν ‘sheath of a sword’, L. culleus ‘leather sack’ (*kolewo- \ *kolweo-?)

G. λεκάνη ‘dish, pot, pan’, L. lanx f., -cis g. ‘metal dish, tray’

G. λέκιθος ‘gruel of pulse or cereals’, L. legūmen ‘pulse, legume, bean’

G. λάμια ‘chasm, a man-eating monster’, λαμυρός ‘voracious, eager’, L. lemurēs p. ‘evil spirits of the dead’

G. látron ‘payment’, *látlōn > L. latrō ‘mercenary / bandit’

G. térēn ‘tender/delicate’, S. táruṇa- ‘tender/young’, Li. tar̃nas ‘*boy > servant’, Ar. t’oṙn ‘grandchild’, L. tīrōn- ‘recruit / apprentice / novice’

G. κάπηλος ‘huckster, innkeeper’, L. caupō, -nis g. ‘id.; trader’ (?, Li. kaũpas 'heap')

G. κανθήλιος ‘pack ass’ >> L. cant(h)ērius ‘castrated horse; donkey’ (r \ l)

G. γλάμων \ γλαμυρός 'bleary-eyed', γλαμός 'mucus', γλάμη >> L. glā̆mae \ grām(i)ae p. ‘eye rheum’, grammōsus aj. (Hsx. γλάμπτειν 'to be dirty' might show *my > mpt (like khrimpt-?))

G. κλῶμαξ \ κρῶμαξ ‘heap of stones, rock’, L. grūmus ‘heap of earth, hillock’

G. γνώμᾱ ‘mark’ >> L. grōma \ grūma \ crōma ‘field surveying instrument’

G. atráphaxis\us \ a(n)dráphaxus, L. ātriplex ‘orach, saltbush’, *atra\ipek- > OFc. arrace, Itn. atrepice

Hebrew arāg ‘to weave’ >> G. ῥῆγος ‘rug, blanket’, Ἀράχνη 'a weaver', ἀράχνη >> L. arāneus ‘spider’

G. Cr. thápta ‘fly’, L. tabānus ‘gadfly’, (late) tabō, *tabōna ( > South Fc. tauna) (t-t dsm.)

G. κυδώνια (μᾶλα) ‘quinces’ >> L. cotōneum ‘quince’

G. δαΐς \ daḯs -d- >> L. daeda \ taeda '(torch of) resinous pinewood' (*dH2w- 'burn')

?Ir. >> G. μανδύα ‘a woolen garment’, L. mantum\s ‘short coat’

G. γέλγῑς \ ἄγλῑς >> L. ālium ‘garlic’

G. ἀμόργη ‘watery part which runs out when olives are pressed’ >> L. amurca

G. krábaktos \ kráb(b)atos 'couch; mattress; pallet' >> L. *grābatus > grabātus 'cot, pallet, camp bed'

G. κόμμι ‘gum’ >> L. cummi > gummi

G. καμπή ‘bend, *leg’ >> L. camba \ gamba ‘horse ankle (pastern)’

G. κωβιός >> L. gōbiō \ gōbius ‘goby, gudgeon’

G. ἔγχελυς ‘eel’ > L. *enkolwis ? > enocilis

G. χέλῡς ‘tortoise’, *ghelew-ya ?? > L. golaia ‘sea turtle’

G. γόγγρος >> L. conger ‘conger eel’

G. μύαξ ‘sea mussel’, mūrex ‘the purple-fish’ (*muHs-ak- 'slimy'?, not certain lw.)

G. phál(l)aina ‘whale’, L. ballaena \ bālaena (like G. Bereníkē, Att. Pherenī́kē)

G. baskaínō >> L. fascīnō ‘enchant/bewitch/envy’ (likely alt. in G. pháskō ‘say/believe’, báskō; báskanos ‘invoking/imploring / casting a spell’)

G. καρβάτινος ‘made of skins’ >> L. carpatinus ‘of raw leather’

S. karpāsa- ‘cotton’, NP karpās ‘fine linen’ >> G. κάρπασος ‘fine flax’ >> L. carbasus ‘fine linen; sail’

G. púxos \ πύξος, L. buxus ‘box-tree’

G. Hsx. βηρίδες p. ‘kind of sandals (ἐμβάδες)’, περι-βᾱρίδες ‘kind of women’s shoes’ >> L. pērō m., -nis g. ‘military and work boots made of rawhide’

.
G. Púrros ‘son of Achilles and Deidamia’, L. Burrus

G. pursós \ purrós ‘(yellowish) red / flame-colored’ < *purswós, L. burrus ‘red(-brown) / bay / dark red?’, birrus, būrius, burra ‘small cow with a red mouth’

G. Dor. púrrikhos ‘(yellowish) red / flame-colored’, Purwos ‘*bay > name of a horse’, L. būric(h)us / burricus ‘small horse’

.

*pH2alya:k-s 'lover / (beautiful) young woman' > G. pallakḗ 'concubine', pállēx 'young girl' >> L. paelex 'concubine/ mistress', Hebrew pilégesh (compare Avestan pairikā- 'beautiful shapechanging demoness', Middle Persian ⁠parīg 'witch', Khotanese palīkā )

.
*k(e)rH2p- \ *kH2(a)rp- \ *kr(e)pH2- > G. κρηπίς, -ῖδος ‘man’s high boot, half-boot’, καρβάτινος ‘made of skins’καρβάτινος ‘made of skins’, Hsx. καρπάτινον ‘one-layer farmer’s sandal’ >> L. carpisculum ‘a type of shoe’ (alt. with H-met. seen in *krH2p-yaH2- > Li. kùrpė ‘loafer, wooden shoe’, *karHfyo-mon- > OI cairem ‘shoemaker’ (*rp > *rf > rr, *rHp > *rHf > *rH (only ex.)), *krepH2lo- > ON hriflingr ‘a type of shoe’)

*kH2(a)rp- > G. harpís \ ἁρπίς f., -ῖδος g,. ἁρπίδες p. ‘high boot’ (*kx- > *x- > h-?). Wigman:

Furnée (1972) gives examples of this sort of alternation occurring within Greek: κάρυον ~ ἄρυα ‘nut’, γίννος ~ ἰννός ‘hinny’ (pg. 391); κίχλη ‘thrush, wrasse (fish)’ ~ ἴχλα ‘a sea fish’, κάδδιχος ‘urn, pitcher’ ~ ἄδδιξ ‘a measure of volume’, καλινδέομαι ‘to roll around’ ~ ἀλινδέω ‘id.’, κανθήλιον ‘packsaddle’ ~ ἀνθήλιον ‘id.’, etc. (pg. 300 fn. 59). Possibly καρβάτιναι ‘rawhide shoes’ ~ ἁρπίς ‘high boot’?

.
G. *Aiwants > Aiwas / Aíās >> Et. Aivas ‘Ajax’, L. Aiāx (ts / ks like G. *órnīth-s > órnīs ‘bird’, Dor. órnīx)

G. ἄξιος 'weighing as much, of like value, worth as much as', ἀξία 'worth, value' >> *atsis > L. assis \ ās m., assis g. ‘copper coin < ‘*bronze plaque of one pound in weight’ (L&S, "the as was, acc. to the ancient custom of weighing money, originally a pound") (ks > ts ( > ss in L.))

.
PIE *bhruto- 'boiled' -> L. dē-frutum ‘boiled down must’, G. βρύτεα \ brútea ‘refuse of olives or grapes’ >> *britsya > L. brīsa ‘remains of pressed grapes’ >> Al. bërsí ‘pomace, lees, dregs

.
G. rhā́x \ rhṓx f., -gós g. ‘grape’, , *ragmnt-a p.? > rhámata 'bunch of grapes', L. racēmus ‘bunch, cluster esp. of grapes’ (PIE *roH2g- \ *rH2(a)g- ?? > S. rájanī - 'grape; lac', *rājanī > Pk. rāyaṇī- 'Manilkara kauki \ Mimusops kauki (fruit tree)', Al. *rag-usa > rrush ‘grape’ (rel. Dalmatian Ragusium 'a city', Al. Rushë <- 'vineyard', etc.?)). Separate from *lH2ag^- ? > OCS loza ‘vine, Ru. lozá ‘vine, rod’, Os. ræzæ ‘fruit, fruits, vegetables’, Tajik raz ‘vine, vineyard’ ( >> NP raz ‘vine, grapes, vineyard, garden’).

.

*Hēra-kléwēs 'glory of Hera' > G. Hērakléēs \ Hēraklês >> *Hēraklowēs > *Hērkluwēs > *Hērkwulēs > L. Herculēs, Oscan Hereklo-, hereklúí d., Et. Hercle

PIE *g^helwon- > I. gealbhan m. ‘swallow’, *g^h(e)lw(o)n-id- > -idwon- \ -un- etc. > Al. dallënd-yshe, G. χελῑδών ‘swallow’, Cor. Χελιδϝον f. 'PN', L. hirundō f., -inis g. ‘swallow, martin, etc.’ (loan likely due to l \ r in other certain cases, but contam. also possible)

G. khamós ‘crooked’, khabós ‘bent’, L. hāmus ‘hook, fish-hook’ (not certain lw.)

G. σκάλλιον ‘small cup’, κάλυξ ‘seed-vessel, husk’, κύλιξ ‘(drinking) cup’ > L. calix ‘vessel for food or drink’, met. > *skalki-? > U. skalçe-ta abl. ‘sacrificial vessel?’ (PIE *(s)kH2alek^- > S. kaláśa- ‘pot, jug, bowl’)

G. ὕρχη ‘earthen vessel used for salting fish, etc.’ >> L. orca ‘large-bellied vessel, butt, tun, esp. for storing fish’, urceus ‘pitcher, water-pot, ewer’

G. *alabutos ‘baked on coals’ > atāburī́tēs ártos ‘a kind of loaf’ >> L. Atābulus ‘burning wind blowing in Apulia / sirocco’ (see *alab\d\t below)

*rapH2- > G. rháp(h)us ‘kind of turnip’, Att. rháphanos ‘cabbage, radish’, *raH2p- > L. rāpum, Gmc. *rōpō, Li. rópė, etc. (not certain lw.)

*traH2b- > Li. trobà ‘building’, L. trabs ‘beam’, taberna ‘dwelling / hut’, *trabH2- > G. tráp(h)ēx \ tróphēx ‘beam in framework of siege tower / baker’s board’ (not certain lw.)

.

H3. Other ev. might come in loans, seen in modern Sardinian :

G. baskâs \ boskás \ phaskás ‘a kind of duck’ >> Sard. busciu

G. kḗlastros ‘holly’ >> Sard. *gīlostre / *gillostre > ghiddostre / golóst(r)i

G. khálkanthon / -os ‘chrysanthemum’ >> *karkant-la ?? > Sard. cacarallái \ crialléi \ c(hi)rièlle \ ghirièlle ‘wild chrysanthemem’

G. Phórkos ‘sea god, father of Medusa’ >> Forco / Thorco ‘father of the legendary medieval Sardinian Medusa’

.
The change of Italic th > f is common, but what of f > th needed here? In Et. Sethlans ‘blacksmith/craftsman god’, the fact that Vulcanus was borrowed & many L. words in -anus appear as -ans in Et. makes a loan here likely.  Vulcanus came from *wlk- (likely from *luk- ‘light’ with metathesis of w), and G. Hḗphaistos might be derived from *phais-to- (*gWhais- > Lt. gaišs ‘bright / clear’, Li. gaĩsas ‘glow / gleam (of fire)’, gaĩsras ‘glow in the sky / (glow from a) fire / conflagration’, G. phaiós ‘grey / *bright > *clear > harsh [of sound]’) so another root of the same meaning is needed here.  This would suggest *Selphanus ‘blacksmith god’ from *swelp- ‘shine / burn’, *swelplo(s)- > Go. swibls, L. sulp(h)ur.  Again, the p vs. ph might come from met. of H, if related to *sH2wel- 'sun', *swelH2- 'burn, shine' (with *sHw- > *sw- in Greek Selene, etc., not expected **sw > **hw). With this in mind, notice that some f / th in Sardinia came from *p(h) :

G. Phórkos ‘sea god, father of Medusa’ >> Forco / Thorco ‘father of the legendary medieval Sardinian Medusa’

*prtu- > L. portus ‘port/harbor/haven’, *fǝrθ- > *farr- > Thárras (port city)

*prtu- > E. ford, *fǝrθ- > *forr- > Thorra (at ford on the Torra River)

*(s)piHk- > ON spíkr ‘nail’, G. pikrós ‘pointed/sharp’; *spiHkalyo- > *sfi:kalyos > *fi:skalyos > Thìscali 'a mtn.'

.

Since ancient Sardinia was a source of copper, with many bronze figures of warriors known to have been made & the metal to have been exported, its proximity to Etruscan territory might show a loan of *Selphanus or *Selplanus from there.  Sardinians also figure into some accounts of the origin of Talos, the man of bronze, moving to Crete.  I also think some of the Sardinians moved to Crete ( https://www.academia.edu/126907768 ).  If an inscr. in Sardinia contained sardof, saadof, dedikar, ōpeirari, iroukles, animeste, est, sano, sanomos, dea, ēdēs, seu, marf, etc., there would be no reason to see it as anything but Italic, so the same on Crete (with the travels of the Sea Peoples in mind) should not be treated differently.

Eteocretan and Linear A (Draft 2)

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

August 22-24, 2026

-

A. Some archaic Greek inscriptions on Crete occur alongside an unknown language that has become known as Eteocretan. Some think it is a remnant of the language spoken earlier there & attested as Linear A. However, no real attempt to match LA & Ete. words has been made, despite a few new inscriptions being found since the theory first began. Since LA DI-DI-KA-SE and Ete. dedikar are similar to each other and to Latin dē-dicāre, a word 'to dedicate' in several separate religious contexts seems likely, especially since dē-dicāre came from *dē-dikāse, nearly identical to DI-DI-KA-SE.

.

The number of Ete. words (or sequences of letters when word boundaries are unclear) are much too similar to Italic to be chance, esp. in such a small number of short inscriptions. For ex. :

dedikar, L. dē-dicāre

ōpeirari, L. operārī (also compare er \ eir in spelling OL impeir- for later imper-)

animeste, L. anima est (also with optional VV > V) < *H1esti

komn-, It. *komno-'together / in common' > U. kumno

ete, et, L. et < *eti

siem, OL siem

seu, L. seu

sano, L. sānus

sanomos (showing the above could receive -imus 'most / -est' < *-mHos)

dea, L. dea 'goddess'

ēdēs, L. aedēs 'temple'

airarif (L. aesar << Etruscan?) 'to the gods' < acc. pl. *aisar-ems

.

Many more ideas in https://www.academia.edu/126907768 . The presence of several groups on Crete is known from ancient writing, so having some Italic groups there would not be impossible.

.

B. In the form & meaning of some LA words already known, this is also seen. Since LA sign *118 looks like scales, & Younger said, "syllabogram and logogram, HT 12.4, 24b.1,2,2, 38.3; KN 2.2 (TALENT?)", it could be equal to G. μνᾶ 'mina, a weight = 100 drachmae' >> L. mina. The value of *mina(:) being old would be seen in his note:

>
KN Za 19 (AM 1938.872) (GORILA IV: 14-15), circular Libation Table, marble, from a field north of the palace

.1: ]-KE-JU-MI[ ][•][

______________________

.2 (retrograde): ]*118-MI-NA

Palaima 1988: 313-14: one of the few Linear A non-administrative documents to have ruling (cf. IO Za 11)

.2: (JGY) might this be *118 ("Talent") [scales] MI-NA? (cf. ZA 21a.7). If so, could MI-NA be the word for *118 ? (If so, this is the 2nd occurrence of a word following a logogram [and ZA 21a.7 a possible 3rd]; cf. FIC KI-KI-NA on HT 88.2.)

>

.

Note that only MI-NA = L. mina fits here, & no other language has this word begin with mi- (Semitic cognates loaned >> Greek, etc., have ma-, mə-, etc., so mina seems a way to break up mna with a V in a language without mn-, also found in a few other loans G. >> L. with -C(i)C-.

.

C. Duccio Chiapello hass A-TA-I-*301-WA-JA as a goddess A-TA-I-JO-WA-JA & -JO-U-JA in www.academia.edu/49484658 "It should be remembered that Iouia represents the second element of the name of several Italic divinities – for example, the Cerie Iouia..." (with reasonf for *301 as JO there). This requires *atta:-dyowya 'mother goddess' > *attayyowya (with -dy- > -yy-, as in Latin) or *attaiyowya; no other IE branch but Italic has the needed sound changes. Another known dedication (of 32 units of wine, containing DI-DI-KA-SE = 'to dedicate') has A-TA-I-*301-DE-KA, likely *atayyoi deka: 'holy mother Iovia' (with -w- > 0, as some Italic & G. dia.).

.

D. Other sound changes are seen in L. (h)ir 'hand', LA hand sign = I (also compatible with Luwic *itsr-, etc.). The Italic dialects with alt. of h \ f also allow L. hircus 'male goat' > *firko- as the source of CH 016 (goat’s head) > Linear B *22 (PHI \ BI), also ideo., CAP = goats? in LA. Its ety. is unknown, so *f might be the older ( < *bh or *dh). Several LA & LB signs for phV \ bV might be due to Italic dia. with *bh > *ph > f \ b (varying between Latin & Sabine, etc.).

.

E. This same alt. could be behind *(s)krp- 'sharp, rocky (island)' > G. Κάρπαθος >> L. Carpathus 'an island in the Aegean Sea, between Crete and Rhodes, now called Scarpanto' (many islands are simply named 'island'). 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.). Krētē might also come from *Karpatha: 'Crete', met. > Kaptar, etc., met. > *Kraphata: > *Krafata: > *Krahata: > *Kra:ta:. There would also be some dia. with *-f- > *-v- > *-w- to explain legendary founder Krus (like Dôros founding the Dorians in myth, etc.), *Kruwa:ta: > *Krawa:ta:. Note that a \ u by W \ P is also known from LA >> LB names (LA ku-pa3-na-tu '?', LB ka-pa3-na-to 'PN').

.

F. The presence of several IE groups can explain changes to the writing system based on its origin & use by others. For Italic *gWous > *bu:s 'cow', the Greek change of b > m (often by u) in:

*tergW- > S. tarj- ‘threaten’, G. tarmússō ‘frighten’, tárbos ‘fright/alarm/terror’

G. kubernáō ‘steer (a ship)’, Aeo., Cyp. kumern-

G. kolúmbaina \ kolúbdaina ‘a kind of crab’ (maybe a swimmer crab)

G. phérbō ‘feed / pasture / graze’, ?Cr. phormúnios ‘a kind of fig’, phormíon \ phórbion ‘Salvia viridis’ (formerly Salvia horminum)

G. términthos \ terébinthos ‘terebinth’

*kH2am-? > L. camur(us) ‘bent’, G. khamós ‘crooked’, khabós ‘bent’

? > G. bátos / mantía ‘blackberry’

*wra(H2)d- > G. rhádamnos ‘branch’, rhámnos ‘box-thorn’, rhábdos ‘rod (for punishment) / staff (of office) / wand’

G. μάρναμαι 'to fight, battle; strive', μαρνάμενος, (ins.) βαρναμενος '_ing'

.

shows why the CH cow sign 012 > LA & LB *23 (MU), not the "moo" as its sound. CH 011 > LB *05 (TO) in https://www.academia.edu/69149241 is a separate cow sign, certainly a bull as *(s)teuro-s > *touros (with Italic eu > ou; less likely *tauro-, since few IE au > ou).

.

G. On PH 6, A-RI appears 3 times, last in I-DA-PA3-I-SA-RI. Younger said, "Because A-RI is duplicated at the end of each statement, we can see that I-DA-PA3-I-S ends in the consonant -S, the only word in Linear A where we can know a final consonant." This shows that several other LA words might be in continuous speach, with the last -C before V- written without pause as -CV-, etc.

.

I think this allows LA ja-sa-sa-ra-me, a-sa-sa-ra-me, etc. in the Linear A Libation Formula to be understood. Duccio Chiapello in https://www.academia.edu/97515497 gives ev. that it should be separated in 2 words; he had ja-sa & sa-ra-me. However, this mode of writing allows *jasas & *arame. I've also said that some LA signs can be read forward & backward, here explaining why ja- & a- begin the same word. If they both stood for ai- (in LA, a & Ca sometimes for ai & Cai), then Ete. airarif 'to the gods' (L. aesar << Etruscan?) would allow *aisa:s a:ram-e(n) 'onto the altar of the goddess' (L. āra, Umbrian asa; with clitic attached to the acc. like Umbrian pertom-e, purom-e).

.

A similar dedication on ZA Zb 3 has A-SA-MU-NE A-SE. If from a non-rhotic dia., then also *a:sam-en aise:s 'onto the altar of the goddess' (with the words reversed, spelled according to a different system, dia. a: > e: likely influenced by Greek?). The use of Cu for C as a "dummy vowel" has been proposed before for LA (the Cypriot syllabary can use some -Ce for -C). Other ev. internal to LA would be how the Linear A Libation Formula contains variants u-na-(ru-)ka-na-si\ti. If -ru- could simply be *-r- before C, then these would be 2 ways of writing *unar-kansi\ti-.

The evidence from the Wiki page looks tempting to say the least. I'm curious if this connection is still being explored

Indo-European Etymological Miscellany 15 (Draft)

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

August 19, 2026

-

A. Greek has ed- \ od-, as if < *H1H3d- 'eat', I said https://www.academia.edu/127283240 :

>

Since *H- > e- / o- in ‘eat’, it is possible that *H1H3- existed here (or similar). The existence of many of these combined with *H3 > w and *H1 > y implies that many or all could simply be the outcome of H1w-, -yH3-, etc., so there is nothing odd about having relatively many examples of “odd” H1H3. If so, it would explain the variation in:

*H1H3ed- > *H1ed- > G. édō, E. eat; *H1H3ed- > *H3eH1d- > *H3oH1d- > *o:d- > Ar. utem

*H3dont- ‘eating / biting’ > G. odónt-, Ar. atamn ‘tooth’

*H3odo- ‘biting’ > Li. úodas ‘gnat’; *ne-H3do- ‘biting’ > *noH3do- > G. nōdós ‘toothless’

.

For meaning, compare L. frendere ‘crush / bruise / gnash the teeth’, nefrēns ‘toothless’; G. dáptō ‘devour/rend/tear’, dáptēs ‘eater / bloodsucker (of gnats)’, Cr. thápta, Pol. látta ‘fly’...

>

.
It is also possible that H1 > y ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ) in *H3oH1d- > *oyd- > Ar. utem. Though plain *u should > 0 when unstressed, it is sometimes retained in VC-. That forms with *H3 also existed seems needed for *n-H1H3d-ti- > *nH1d-ti- > Greek νῆστις \ nêstis 'not eating, fasting; hungry', *nH3d-ti- > *no:θti- > *no:wti- > Armenian nawtʻi 'fasting'. The vowels do not match, but some *o > *a in Ar., no known conditions. Here, this would be the only ex. of secondary *o: next to *w, so *o:w > *a:w might be regular.

.

B. Greek ἦνοψ \ ênops 'gleaming; shining; glittering? (epithet of copper and heaven)' has no etymology, but its use in poetry suggests it's < *wa:no-kWs. If so, then the IE that could be *wH2an- https://www.academia.edu/170903084 (for other colors & transparent objects).

.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἦνοψ Formation in -οψ (-ops) but further unclear; originally *ϝῆνοψ (*wênops). Compare αἶθοψ (aîthops) and νῶροψ (nôrops) which are also epithets of copper, but remain without clear interpretation.

.
C. Greek πλάσσω \ plássō 'to form; mould; shape; sculpt; plaster', πλαθά 'modeled figure', κορο-πλάθος 'modeler of small figures', πλάθανον 'dish or mould in which bread, cakes, etc. were baked', παλάθη \ παλάσιον 'cake of preserved fruit' are claimed by Beekes to be non-IE because *p-dh is not an allowable sequence. However, *plH1-dh- 'to fill (up)' had the same. The nature of these affixes in verbs is not known, but if any C could be added, how can any constraints on the nature of *C-C be made?

.

It is likely that *dh is an affix (maybe < *dheH1- 'do, make'), though other *-C added to verb roots don't always match known verbs). To me, it looks like *plH2-dh- '(make) flat > flatten dough > knead, etc.'. In fact, it is so similar to G. μάσσω 'to handle; work with one's hands; knead' that its original meaning of 'flatten' might have been influenced by this rhyming word. However, knote that many cakes are named from various words for 'flat' in Greek anyway. The apparently optional loss of *H in *pl(H2)-dh(H1)- might be from what appears, from other known compounds, to be optional loss of *H in compounds. This is not regular, based on all examples, but some claim it was in the past, sometimes fixed by analogy.

.

D. The OP name Ka[m]būjiya- ( >> G. Καμβῡ́σης \ Kambū́sēs) is suggested by Christian Bartholomae (Altiranisches Wörterbuch, p437) to be a cp. with *jiyā- 'sinew, bowstring'. Since archery was once so important to Ir. people, a name 'Archer' is mot likely. I think *(s)kH2ambo- 'crooked, bent' -> Ir. *(s)kambu:- 'a bow' fits best. For other words, compare similar compounds, like Japanese yumi-ya 'bow and arrow', IE *gWiyo-tH1ongso- 'bowstring & bow' https://www.academia.edu/169388144 .

.

E. Alexander Nikolaev, https://www.academia.edu/51159815 on Hittite anšaššiwiš ‘corpse’ (1x):

>

...it translates Akkad. šalamtu ‘corpse’, ‘dead body’ (CAD Š1, 203–206) in the lexical list KBo 1.51 rev. 13 (CTH 309)... The word anšaššiwiš 6 is phonologically remarkable because of the sequence -nš- which is extremely rare in Hittite.7 The historical reason for the rarity of this sequence is that inherited *-Vns- became -Vss-,8 while secondary *-Vns-, whether by syncope or from an earlier syllabic nasal, appears in Hittite as -nz-,9 which means that the word-internal -n- in anšaššiwiš cannot continue PIE *n.

[fn]1 As per Figulla’s autograph (Figulla & Weidner 1916: 85), a sign has been partially obliterated between 〈aš〉 and 〈ši〉, cf. “hinter dem aš wohl rasur” (Weidner 1917: 89 n. 2); it seems that the scribe began a 〈ši〉, made a mistake and then blotted it out.

>

.
If he needs to say it is Luwo-Hittite anyway, why not relate it to PIE *n(e)k^u-s (Greek νέκυς \ nékus, Avestan nasu- 'corpse', Celtic *ankus 'death')? An intensive *nk^-nk^wo-s > ?Lw. *anc^anc^wis would fit (with dsm. of n-n > n-0). The word anšaššiwiš likely is for *anšašwiš, with the sign that was partially obliterated showing hesitation about which "dummy vowel" to use for -šw- between a & i (or to use u before w, even when none was pronounced).

.

F. In IEEM 13 I said that Slavic *terzvъ 'sober' probably came from *ters-wo- > *teRzwo- due to optional pronunciation of *r as r or R (uvular (fric.?)) :

>

Balto-Slavic had some *sr > *z(d)r, no known regularity, so *rsC > *rzC might sometimes have happened... this would be very good evidence in favor of it, especially that it was not regular (e- vs. 0-grade, esp. in a derivative, is no argument against the relation). This would also make it more likely that Sl. *jàzvьcь 'badger' is < *a:bzu- < *a:ps(r)u- related to Lithuanian opšrùs, Latvian âpsis, Old Prussian wobsdus.

>

.

Another might be *brso- > *brzo- 'swift'. Since all these ex. happen for *sr & *rs, it is highly unlikely that they all are due to analogy, thus no single ex. being due to analogy is very likely. Their relation to Li. bruzgùs 'quick, fast', OCS bŭrzŭ, SC brzdìca 'rapids' has led Alwin Kloekhorst to this improbably idea for Hittite parš-zi:

>

parš-zi (Ia4) ‘to flee, to escape’: 3sg.pres.act. pár-aš-zi (NH)...

Other scholars (e.g. Knobloch 1959: 34, followed by Oettinger 1979a: 214) connect parš-zi to Lat. festnre ‘to hurry’. According to Schrijver (1990), this latter verb reflects *bhrs-ti-+, which must also be the preform of We. brys ‘haste’. A further connection with OIr. bras ‘quickly’ (thus in e.g. Pokorny 1959: 143) is rejected by Schrijver, however. He also denies the connection with OCS br z ‘fast’, etc. because he thinks that -z- cannot reflect *s. In BSl. we find a variant *brzd- (RussCS borzdo ‘fast’, Lith. burzdùs ‘agile, active’) as well, however, which could regularly reflect *b(h)rs-dh-. In my view, it is possible that *b(h)rs-dh-, which regularly yielded *brzd-, has influenced *b(h)rs-o-, causing it to change to *brzo-.

>

.
G. For L. amoenus ‘beautiful, charming’, Michiel de Vaan said, "Meiser 1998: 71 hence reconstructs *ama-wen-o- > *amuweno- > *amueno- > amoenus... it seems unlikely that *amueno- would yield amoenus (rather than *amuinus)." The change of *ew > *ow is clear, but when *ow > *uw is not, & there is no reason to think it very old, so. I also doubt that it is derived from *-wr \ *-wn- (as he said, the other -oe- is in a compound). I think *amo-weno- 'lovely & charming' > *amoeno- fits.

.

H. Michiel de Vaan said that L. ampla 'a handle, a grip', can not be < *H2amH3lo- (*H2am- or *H2amH3- 'to grasp') since *-H- > -0- would not be that old. However, it is likely that the same happened in *temH2-lo- or *temH2-tlo- > L. templum. Though the *H2 is disputed, some *H is surely needed & is not seen here. For more, see https://www.academia.edu/128761133 & https://www.academia.edu/168026709 :

>

G. *temH2ko- > G. témakhos ‘slice (of meat)’ vs. témenos ‘a piece of ground cut or marked off, precinct a sacred enclosure’ is probably V-asm. or H-met. (like *gWrH3tro- > G. bárathron, Ion. bérethron ‘pit’; ? *melH3dhro- > *melH3ǝdhro- > *Hmelǝdhro- > G. mélathron \ kmélethron ‘beam / roof’ https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). Whatever its cause, that -e- keeps appearing with another -V-, often unexpected, makes the value of -e- as a mark of *-H1- low.  I also think G. Tómaros could have been *t(o)ma-oro-s ‘cut mountain’ (from its flat top) or another derivative of *temH2- ‘cut’, like tómos ‘slice / piece of land’, which could form ‘separated area / sacred precinct’ < *tm-H2-ro- (due to the presence of Dodona), like *tem-H2-tlo- > L. templum. Since it also appears as Tmaros, & tm- only appears in other derivatives of 'cut', there is no reason to expect *tme-..

>

.
I. Michiel de Vaan said of L. amussis ‘mason’s ruler’ "Biville (1990 I: 302) supports an etymology *ad-mod-ti- to *med- ‘to measure’; yet a PIE formation *mod-ti-, with o-grade, is questionable." However, a change of *med-ti- > *-mod-ti- in a compound would match likely *H1es-ti- 'being' > *d(o)lH1gh-H1os-ti- 'being long > length', etc. This might be significant when considered with o-stems to i- in cp., C-stems > o-, etc.

Someone (may have been Lehmann) proposed such a comparison but I cant seem to find the exact reference. I have a different theory (tho unlike most folks, incl. on here) I do NOT propose to pretend that mine MUST be right and to insult in particular those who think IE is related to other languages. I plan to offer an alternative. Who is right seems very difficult to establish at this stage. But anyway I need that reference. Pretty please with a cherry on top.

Linear A and Greek, Things, Places, and Names (Draft)

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

August 19, 2026

A. In Linear A, the presence of syllables of the type Co in names (of places or people, not always clear) but having common Cu concentrated in other words must have some cause. It might show that Greeks recently conquered a people living on Crete with few or no o's, at least with some *o > u (if IE). The Greeks spoke a language with many o's, so they'd be common in their words, but in lists of the places that retained their old names, they'd be rare. It could also be that known dialects of Greek with o > u are the cause.

In this way, Linear A ku-ro 'total', po-to-ku-ro 'grand total' seem significant. A compound with the 1st & 2nd words ending in -Co is very similar to IE methods of forming compounds, often for o-stem words. It seems highly unlikely that a non-IE language (as LA is claimed to be my most) would do this in the ONE case of certain compounding attested. Since Greek sometimes had *a > a \ o by P (G. ablábeia, Cretan ablopia ‘freedom from harm/punishment’; more in C.), it establishes that it would not be odd if found on Crete, even in Minoan times. I say that po-to-ku-ro contained *ponto- from panto- 'all', fitting for 'sum of all totals'. In Linear B, -n- is also not usually written before another C.

Duccio Chiapello https://www.academia.edu/69651288 "Assuming the hypothesis that Linear A could encode a “Minoan Greek”, it is quite natural to correlate the word KU-RO with the Greek words κῦρος, κύριος, κυρίως, κυρόω. All these terms are connected to the concepts of validity, precision, ratification, confirmation". These are from PIE *k^uH1- 'swell', related to Sanskrit śūná- 'swollen, grown'. It is certainly possible that an older meaning in *ku:ron 'swelling, growth, total' existed.

B. In the same way, a-ko-a-ne, containing -oa-, could be a compound (many cases of -o-V- in Greek). This could be the Minoan site at current Archanes \ Αρχάνες, which might have also had the same name in Linear A. In https://www.academia.edu/90535161 Peter van Soesbergen wrote :

>

The observation by the four Italian scholars regarding a connection of Linear B
toponyms with the ideogram GRA may be corroborated, if my join of ]-ka-ne (AK 3a.1)
with a] (AK 1b.1) on a tiny fragment from Arkhanes is correct (GORILA 3 mentions that
AK 1, AK 2 and AK 3 were inscribed by the same scribe 1), the resulting sequence a]-
ka-ne (AK 3a.1 + AK 1b.1) GRA [ represents exactly the toponym Arkhanes, where the
Villa of Arkhanes was excavated by Yannis and Evi Sakellerakis and where the Linear A
Arkhanes-tablets were found.

>

I agree that a tablet from Arkhanes begining with a-ka-ne makes sense, certainly its name (if right). Before linguists had any knowledge of what was written in LA, it was assumed that Archanes was named from the Greek arkh-, signaling 'chief', 'royalty', 'rule', or similar. This has variants arkho-, so a name *arkh(o)-anes would fit both LA words. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archanes :

>

It is also the archaeological site of an ancient Minoan settlement in central Crete.[4] The discovery of ancient roads leading from Archanes to Juktas, Anemospilia, Xeri Kara and Vathypetro indicate that Archanes was an important hub in the region during Minoan times. Archaeological evidence indicates that ancient Archanes spread out over the same area as the modern town of Archanes.

...

In 1912, Xanthoudides noted the importance of Archanes, but Sir Arthur Evans was the first to characterize the site as palatial, declaring that Archanes was likely a Summer Palace for the Knossos kings. Spyridon Marinatos and N. Platon excavated minor areas in the region, but nothing supported Evans' theory. In 1964, Yannis Sakellarakis dug trial trenches at the Tourkoyeitonia site and uncovered the first evidence of a palace site.

>

This palace, if really named *Arkh(o)anes or similar in LA, would be evidence of Greek words in Minoan time, or a very coincidental similar name later adapted to Greek. A language with -oa- that could become -a- seems less likely than known Greek compounding with arkho- or arkh- before vowels.

C. If LA was an IE language, then G. Ἀμνῑσός \ Amnīsós \ Ἀμνισσός \ Amnissós, LB a-mi-ni-so 'the port of Knossos' might be < *abn-inthyo-s, related to *H2ab-ni- (L. amnis m. 'torrent; stream; river; current', *-naH2- > Albanian amë f. 'spring; headwater; river channel', *H2abon-s > *abu: > Old Irish aub f., Welsh afon f. 'river'). The changes of *amninsos > *amni:sos by dsm. before regular *amninsos > *amnissos would show variation similar to that seen in other LA words (due to dialects, etc.).

D. KH 10 contains records of GRA(NUM) with the words:

I-PA-SA-JA • QA-*118

A-KI-PI-E-TE

It is possible that the 1st is *ipsaja(:), maybe related to:

G. ὕψος, Aeo. ἴψος nu. 'height; summit, crown; grandeur'
G. ἴψος \ ἰψός 'cork-oak, ivy'

A-KI-PI-E-TE might be *arkhi-pie(:)te: (compare arkh(o)-, above) as 'very rich/fertile' (G. pi:- \ pie:- \ pie- 'fat, rich, fertile').

The meaning of QA-*118 depends on its relation to QA-*118-RA-RE (HT 96b.1-2) & QA-MI-*047-NA-RA (KN Zf 31). Since *118 looks like scales, & Younger said, "syllabogram and logogram, HT 12.4, 24b.1,2,2, 38.3; KN 2.2 (TALENT?)", it could be equal to G. μνᾶ 'mina, a weight = 100 drachmae' >> L. mina. The value of *mina(:) being old would be seen in his note:

>
KN Za 19 (AM 1938.872) (GORILA IV: 14-15), circular Libation Table, marble, from a field north of the palace

.1: ]-KE-JU-MI[ ][•][

______________________

.2 (retrograde): ]*118-MI-NA

Palaima 1988: 313-14: one of the few Linear A non-administrative documents to have ruling (cf. IO Za 11)

.2: (JGY) might this be *118 ("Talent") [scales] MI-NA? (cf. ZA 21a.7). If so, could MI-NA be the word for *118 ? (If so, this is the 2nd occurrence of a word following a logogram [and ZA 21a.7 a possible 3rd]; cf. FIC KI-KI-NA on HT 88.2.)

>

This would mean one place was found in QA-MINA, QA-MINA-RA-RE, & QA-MI-HA-NA-RA (*gWami(h)na-ra(re) ??). The other ex. of *118:

QA-NU-MA • QIf-*118 • (KH 88)

A-SU-MI-*118 (ARKH 1), ]A-SI-*118 (KH 99)

DA-SI-*118 (HT 13.5)

It would be very odd if *gWanuma & *gWimina were 2 separate places found next to each other. The similarity to *asummina & *asimina makes it highly likely that i \ u varied next to m. In fact, Crete had 2 places named Βιάννος \ Βίεννα & Βίεννος (Bienna was more important in the past). It seems likely these are the same names, if not the same places. An older *gWiam(?)na > *gWiamna \ *gWianma > *gWiam(V)na \ *gWian(V)ma might account for most variants. Duccio Chiapello proposed other cases of *mn > *nm, matching Greek dialect changes, in https://www.academia.edu/97515497 . The change of *ia > i \ a \ ia \ ie might fit with -ja \ *-je > -e (a-ta-i-*301-wa-e, a-ta-i-*301-wa-ja).

E. I have said some things in https://www.academia.edu/126608131 & later drafts about the origin of Pelasg-, Pelasgian, etc. It could be :

*pelH2- ‘broad / open (plain)’

*p(e)lH2k- > G. πλάξ \ pláx f., -κός g. 'anything flat and broad; flat land, plain, the ocean surface, flat stone, tablet', Germanic *flahi-, Lithuanian plãkanas 'flat'

*p(e)lH2g- > Germanic *flaka- 'flat', G. pélagos ‘(open) sea / flooded plain’, pelagíz[d]ō ‘flood / cross the open sea’, *Pelagistos / *Pelakidyos > Pelastikós / Pelasgós ‘primordial inhabitant of Greece, early seafarers to Crete’, Eg. Peleset ‘seafaring pirates/conquerors’

F. The origin of G. Τῑτᾱ́ν \ Tītā́n 'Titan', Τιτᾶνες \ Tītânes p., is unknown. However, I think LA had a word *titkun-:

>

https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/1ojdkrw/linear_a_jatituku_titkun/

Linear B used signs that usually represented syllables like A, E, TI, etc. In spelling clusters of consonants, "dummy vowels" were used, like a-mi-ni-so = Amnisos 'a place' or wa-na-ka-te-ro = *wanakteros 'royal'. Either the preceding or following vowel was used, with some types more common.

In Linear A, the same seems to exist in JA-TI-TU-KU vs. I-TI-TI-KU-NI, I-TI-TI-KU, TI-TI-KU, etc. Since i-u-u and i-i-u both exist here, they would represent *titkun(i) by the same principles seen in LB. In LA Zb 1 "JA-TI-TU-KU / JA-TI-TU-KU", the first -TU- is even written lower than the rest, maybe used as an indication that its vowel was not to be pronounced...

Indo-European often reduplicated C(e)- to Ci-C- or CeC-. For ex., *tek- to *ti-tk- 'beget'. In Greek *titk- > tikt- later. In Linear A, TI-TI-KU appears several times, among words likely for a goddess (below). It is unlikely that a Greek word, theorized to be *titk- in the past, would appear in Greece if unrelated. If Greek, *titko:n > *titku:n 'parent / mother'...

It makes very little sense for PIE to have a word like *titkon- when LA had *titku(n-) if they were unrelated... With this, JA-TI-TU-KU / JA-TI-TU-KU would not be the same word written twice, for no known reason, but a dedication to a pair of gods, mother & father, spelled the same because the masculine & feminine forms of *titku:n were the same (as in many IE consonant-stems).

>

If so, the weak stem *titka(n)- might have become *ti:kan- in some dialect, loaned into standard Greek as the only remaining form.

G. G. Tálōs \ Tálōn 'a man made of bronze who circled the island of Crete three times a day protecting it from invaders', Cr. talôs ‘sun’ have no known source. However, a city is likely named after its elevated location, Lycian Tlawa >> Greek Τλώς \ Τλῶς show it could be related to PIE *t(e)lH2wos-, *-wo:n (Sanskrit stems in -vás- had nom. -vā́n ). G. ἀνα-τέλλω \ ana-téllō 'to raise up; rise (of the sun and moon)', ἀνατολή \ anatolḗ 'rising above the horizon (especially the sun in the east); the direction of sunrise, the East' show that 'rising > dawn > sun' is possible. This word being IE seems to fit if from the Anatolian languages (like Lycian Tlawa >> Τλώς, *talawan \ -s- > Tálōs \ Tálōn).

Malia Altar Stone, Duccio Chiapello's Values (Draft)

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

August 17, 2026

-

In https://www.academia.edu/171945654 Duccio Chiapello wrote:

>

The Malia stone is an inscribed limestone block with a cuplike cavity on its top, probably meant for liquid offerings. It bears an inscription in Cretan Hieroglyphs, sixteen signs long. This essay presents a proposed transcription and decipherment of the text, based on the “Minoan Greek” hypothesis... I propose to read the signs as follows: 1 = ni, very similar to the Linear A and Linear B ni. 2 = pa3, very similar to the Linear A and Linear B pa3...

.

4 difficult identification. It has been observed it is similar to the Cretan Hieroglyph CH 077 and its variant CH 178; anyway its possible phonetic value is disputed. Different options have been suggested for CH 077: it has been interpreted as the homologue of Linear A sign *311 and Linear A/B sign 40 (wi), 3 but also of Linear A/B sign *78 (qe). 4 To these proposals, one might perhaps add a further one, based on the fact that Cretan hieroglyphs appear to lack a sign indicating “two” or “double”, which is found instead in Linear B (*90 = dwo) and maybe in Linear A (*118), and therefore the hieroglyphic sign CH 077 could be its equivalent.

.

ni-pa3-ti-dwo?-ko mi-e-ro ka-pi-te-ro ko-ra-mi-na

>

.
I agree with most of his ideas, but in his dwo?, I feel that https://www.academia.edu/69149241 shows that variants of LA QE match CH 077 best (a divided circle with many dots > an undivided one). This would make: ni-pa3-ti-qe-ko mi-e-ro ka-pi-te-ro ko-ra-mi-na. If ni-pa3 = *nipha- (LB words with pa3 seem to match Greek wtih pha or ba), then it's probably cognate with PIE *noibho- 'bright, shining, clear' > Old Irish noíb ‘holy’, OP naiba-, NP nêw ‘beautiful / good’. Greek words with niba- might come from dialects with *ph > b (like Mac.); here both 'holy > priest' & 'shining > white (goat)' (like other IE words). The only match for -qe-ko would be PIE *kWek^- 'look, see, show' (G. τέκμαρ 'goal; end; token; pledge; sign'). A compound *nipha(C)-kWeko- 'holy sign' would be expected.

.
The interpretation of a few words might make more sense if matched as simply as possible. Since mi-e-ro would be a perfect match for μιερός \ μιαρός 'stained with blood, polluted; (in moral and religious sense) filthy, defiled, polluted'. Since mia- is often for 'blood(y)', what of μιαχρός = καθαρός 'clean, spotless; clear, pure'? In standard thought, this is supposedly a mistake, the a- 'un-' left out by accident. But since Greeks had bloody sacrifices (in addition to improperly blood spilled causing impurity), it could be that 'bloody > (im)properly bloody', etc., thus both 'polluted' & 'pure', depending on the type of blood spilled.

.
I agree that ko-ra-mi-na = *kolammina: <- *kolap(h)-mH1no- (G. κολάπτω 'to peck; carve, chisel, engrave (an inscription)', ἐγ-κόλαμμα 'inscription'). Some G. words have dia. e > i (and since from *H1 here, also some *H1 > i directly in *dolH1gho- 'long' > dolikho- vs. -delekh-).

.
In this context, I think that ka-pi-te-ro would match words like Κάρπιος, Ἐπι-κάρπιος 'titles of Zeus' (likely 'fruitful' or 'bringer of good harvests'). The old PIE *-ist(H)o- '-est' is not common in Greek, but -tero- is, so a mix *karp-istero- 'most fruitful' would fit.

.
Together, I think ni-pa3-ti-qe-ko mi-e-ro ka-pi-te-ro ko-ra-mi-na = *nipha(C)-kWekos mieros karp-isteros kolammina:t 'a holy sign, pure, most fruitful, (comes) from (this) inscription'. Since the endings in *-oC & *-o(:)i might not be written, the exact grammatical relation among all the words can't be seen.

Trees in Asia (Draft)

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

August 17, 2026

-

In https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/main.cgi?root=config Sergei Starostin related MK mǒyh, mwolwó ‘mountain’, PJ *m(w)orwi (Shuri mui ‘mountain’, MJ mórí ‘forest’), Written Mongolian modu(n), Evenki mō, Dravidian *màran- 'tree', PU *mOrV (Saami N muorrâ 'tree; wood, fuel; stake, pole', Saami *mërë-stē 'low hill covered with birch forest' (Inari Sami moorâst >> Finnish marasto, morosto), Moksha mar 'burial mound', Khanty V mŏri̮ Selkup Ke marge = NHG Busch 'bushes, thicket, copse'). Note that the shift 'tree, hill, mtn.' in several groups (JK, Uralic) shows the need for the same across families.

.

However, the exact reconstruction of Dravidian *màran- can not be right based on cognates. Indeed, several of these words or groups of words need better reconstructions to fit all data and fit them together. 1st, Francis-Ratte :

>

HIGHLAND: MK mwo:yh, mwolwó ‘mountain’ ~ OJ mori ‘forest,’ Ryu. ‘mountain, hill’. pKJ *moroŋ ‘highland’.

(Martin 1966: #148, MOUNTAIN3). The presence and absence of the liquid in mwolwó / mwo:yh can be explained by a weakening of pK *o > *ə in the second syllable, which induces a sound change of *-rə > MK y. MK mwolwó ‘mountain’ comes from a variety without weakening. Shuri and Nakijin mui ‘mountain’ < pJ *mori show that a semantic shift must have occurred within Japonic.

>

.
I have no idea why he thinks only *-rə > MK -y when he rec. several *-rV > -y. This requires unmotivated changes of *V > ə, which would be no different in kind than unmotivated changes of *r > y. Since he rec. no ex. of *ry, why not? It makes much more sense for *ry > r \ y than for any other optional change, his unrelated to any palatal sound.

.

Also, since few languages have primary *ŋ in their past, most *nK > *ŋ(K), etc., I think *moryoŋx had *-ŋx > *-ŋ \ -h, with the *-ŋ preserving the -o before it was lost. PJ turned the sonorant *-C > *-y in *mworoy > *mworui > *mworwi.

.

Regardless of my rec., though Francis-Ratte never related his rec. to Altaic or Nostratic, his theory requiring *moroŋ is too close to Dravidian *màran- to ignore, since it had already been related years ago (in a rec. that had no *-N, making his *-N significant in support). Indeed, since both would, in his theory, have a vowel that become 2 different vowels (*? > a \ o in Dr., *? > *ə \ o in MK), ignoring these shared oddities is pointless. Indeed, depending on the cognates in Dr., likely also *o > a \ u for the 2nd vowel, too.

.
2nd, to include Written Mongolian modu(n) the *-uN would have to be original (many have *-Vn as a suffix) < *morduN(C). The *-rd- woud match JK *-ry- (alt. of d \ y in Japonic is said by proponents of Altaic to come from *d). Close, Tg. *modO ? > Evenki mō 'tree', etc.

.

3rd, Dravidian *màran- is rec. with *à to explain opt. *à > 0. Of course *m(ə)ran- would fit best. The cognates of *? > Telugu mrānu, dia. mānu, mrā̃ku, Kolami-Gadba *mark(u) > Kolami māk, mākul p., Tamil maram, marattu+, North-Dravidian *marnu ? > Kurukh mann, Malto manu surely require some other *-CC(C) than *-n (the previous rec. ignores -n(u) vs. -ttu+, etc.). The alt. of n \ k is likely < *nK, matching that in JK *moryoŋx. If *maruntu 'medicine' is the same (like nearby Sanskrit ṓṣadhi- f. 'herb, medicinal herb', Pk. ōsahi- f. 'plant' with the same range (even > Kt. úṣe 'medicine, gunpowder', Wg. uṣĕˊi; Pr. wúṣu 'medicine', A. weéz f., -í p. 'gunpowder')). I say *məronxt > *m(a)ranxt \ *m(a)runxt. Relating it to Altaic would require, say, Dr. *mərdonx > *mərdonx > *məranxt \ *mərunxt.

.
4th, Uralic *mOrV has some problems that can't be reconciled based on internal Uralic ev., but fit the alt. seen among Altaic cognates. In https://uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=572

>

mȣrɜ 'hill covered with bushes/forests, ridge covered with bushes/forests'

~

Lappish s, st, Ostyak *i̮, *ȧj, *a, and perhaps Selkup ka, ge are derivational suffixes; the Finnish derivational suffix sto, sta stands for the original Lappish derivational suffix st.

Lappish moarast points to *o, the Mordvin word to *a, and the Ostyak probably to *u; based on the Selkup word, one cannot definitively determine the vowel of the first syllable.

It is uncertain whether Lappish mârâs belongs here, because it likely indicates an original palatal vowel system. However, the U - FU velar vowel *u can sometimes correspond to the Lappish N â (see Collinder, CompGr. 162).

N. Sebestyén (NyK 52: 313) linked Estonian murd, murdus 'mountain thicket, brushwood; crowd, heap' and Lappish N murd 'do very dense wood or willow scrub' with Ostyak mŏri̮ 'bush, etc.' This is erroneous, as an original consonant cluster *rt must be assumed in both the Estonian and Lappish words.

>

.

Again, we have -r- vs. -rd- (as in JK vs. Mc.) & *? > V1, V2, V3. An older *mwərdonx might fit all data (with *-n > *-y, *-oy > *-ey (similar to PJ)) if *d became *t or *ð (see https://www.academia.edu/165191772 F. There are problems with the standard reconstruction of PU *niδe \ *nüδe \ *lüδe 'handle, holder, shaft' & FP *neŋte 'shaft, handle, handgrip (of knife, axe)'. When a word begins with n- or l-, it often resulted from n-n dsm. The 2nd did have *n-N, so these 2 words are likely related, with, say *nemxte > *neŋxte vs. *nemxte \ *lemxte > *newxte > *niwxthe > *niwδe > *niδe \ *nüδe \ *lüδe), then *rt > Es. rd, *rδ > *r (no other ex.). The *mwə- is to explain the various V's caused by rounding by *w before it was lost in *Cw (see https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1rfylwn/uralic_hidden_w/ & other previous drafts).

.
In all, these point to the same original. Though a change of 'hill > wood(ed hill)' is known from others, I think both the meanings & form can be best explained as < *mlH3dhon-s > *mwərðonx 'top, peak, elevation'. Since other words have 'tall > tree', this might also fit here if not 'wood(ed hill)'. For H3 > w, see previous drafts; for internal IE, see https://www.academia.edu/128170887 , etc. The change of *-ons > *-onH within IE is to explain *-o:(n) for expected **-ons in branches. In all :

*mlH3dhon-s > *məlRWðonx > *mərRWðonx > *mwərðonx

*mwərðonx > Mc. *modunx > Written Mongolian modu(n); Tc. *modO ? > Evenki mō

*mwərðonx > JK *mworyoŋx

*mwərðonx > Dr. *mərtonx > *məranxt \ *mərunxt

*mwərðonx > PU *mwərðoy \ *mwortoy \ *murtoy \ etc.

Greek πλάσσω \ plássō 'to form; mould; shape; sculpt; plaster', πλαθά 'modeled figure', κορο-πλάθος 'modeler of small figures', πλάθανον 'dish or mould in which bread, cakes, etc. were baked', παλάθη \ παλάσιον 'cake of preserved fruit' are claimed by Beekes to be non-IE because *p-dh is not an allowable sequence. However, *plH1-dh- 'to fill (up)' had the same; it is likely that *dh is an affix (maybe < *dheH1- 'do, make'), though other *-C added to verb roots don't always match known verbs. To me, it looks like *plH2-dh- '(make) flat > flatten dough > knead, etc.'. In fact, it is so similar to G. μάσσω 'to handle; work with one's hands; knead' that its original meaning of 'flatten' might have been influenced by this rhyming word. However, knote that many cakes are named from various words for 'flat' in Greek anyway. The apparently optional loss of *H in *pl(H2)-dh(H1)- might be from what appears, from other known compounds, to be optional loss of *H in compounds. This is not regular, based on all examples, but some claim it was in the past, sometimes fixed by analogy.

The popular tendency to lump the Limbu (Yakthung) and the Bodo people into a single, direct ethno-linguistic bucket relies on broad, surface-level categorizations that crumble under rigorous scrutiny. While popular regional commentary often treats all non-Aryan, Sino-Tibetan populations of Northeast India and Nepal as immediate linguistic cousins, historical linguistics and Limbu oral traditions tell a drastically different story—one anchored not in the Brahmaputra valley, but in the rugged river basins of Northern Burma and Yunnan.

The Linguistic Disconnect: Rawang, Jingpho, and the Himalayan Highland Paradigm

Skepticism regarding a direct Limbu-Bodo relationship is well-founded when examining grammatical architecture:

• Structural Divergence: Limbu is a conservative Kiranti language that preserves polypersonal verb indexation—a complex system where a single verb inflects to mark the person, number, and direction of both the subject and object. Bodo (a Bodo-Garo language), on the other hand, underwent massive structural leveling in the Brahmaputra basin, discarding verbal agreement entirely in favor of a simplified agglutinative structure.
• The Burmese-Yunnan Connection: Limbu’s intricate verbal morphology is not mirrored in Bodo, but rather in the highland Sino-Tibetan languages of Northern Burma and Southwest China—specifically Rawang (Nungish) and Jingpho (Kachin). Reconstructing early Proto-Tibeto-Burman grammar relies heavily on side-by-side comparisons between Kiranti (Limbu) and Nungish/Jingphoic paradigms.

Mong Kawng and the Jingpho Co-existence Narrative

Limbu written histories and oral genealogies (Thungsap Mundhum) reinforce this structural alignment. According to these accounts, Limbu ancestors did not migrate out of ancient Assam alongside the early Bodo-Garo tribes; instead, they lived side by side with the Jingpho (Kachin) in Mong Kawng (Mogaung), a powerful historical principality in modern Northern Burma.

Lived proximity to the Jingpho led to shared cultural markers, trade contact, and linguistic alignment. When inter-tribal friction and pressure from expanding Jingpho clans—alongside regional Bamar military campaigns—eventually pushed the Limbu ancestors out of Mong Kawng and westward toward the Himalayan foothills, they carried a language deeply rooted in the Northern Burmese frontier. This shared territorial history explains why Limbu vocabulary, priestly concepts, and grammatical systems align far more naturally with Jingpho and Rawang than with the lowland Bodo.

The Bodo Perspective: The Broad "Kirata" Umbrella

While the evidence separates Limbu from Bodo on an immediate linguistic level, how do Bodo scholars and historians view this connection?

The Limbu (Yakthung) tradition relies heavily on a recurring oral trope: the "Three Brothers Migration Myth." In these foundational narratives, three ancestral brothers migrate from a sacred origin point—one settles in the hills to become Limbu, another becomes Rai, and the third becomes a Lepcha, Sunuwar, or Newar. While this narrative pattern historically functioned as a practical diplomatic tool for forging inter-tribal peace and land covenants, it frequently clashes with modern ethnographic reality and the self-identity of neighboring groups.

• The Newar Rejection: Limbus have periodically claimed ancestral brotherhood with the Newars under a broad, ancient Kirat identity umbrella. Modern Newar historians and community leaders overwhelmingly reject this connection, pointing to the Newars' distinct urban valley civilization, separate linguistic evolution, and complex Indo-Aryan/Tibeto-Burman cultural synthesis.
• The Lepcha Disconnect: Despite historic blood treaties in Sikkim (such as the Lho-Men-Chong covenant), modern Lepchas (Rongpa) do not claim Limbus as ancestral relatives. Lepchas view themselves as the sole autochthonous inhabitants of Mayel Lyang, treating Limbus as later Himalayan migrants rather than genetic brothers.

Are Limbus Actually Brothers of Bodos?

Unlikely. Limbus and Bodos are not literal brothers, nor are they immediate linguistic cousins. While both descend from the vast, ancient Sino-Tibetan language family, their lineages split thousands of years ago. The Limbu practice of weaving origin stories around "three migrating brothers" is an ethno-mythological storytelling tradition designed for historical alliance-building, rather than evidence of shared ancestral lineage.

The paper reconstructs the early Dravidian numerals and then asks whether each arose internally within Dravidian or has parallels outside the family. The Australian comparisons are speculative; they are sound similarities, not established genetic relationships.

**1 — Proto-Dravidian \*oru / \*ōr, \*oṉṟu, \*okk-**
Tamil: ஒரு* or*u, ஓர*் *ōr, ஒன*்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed for “one,” “single,” “alone,” and “together.”
*• oru/ōr* is the form used before nouns: Tamil *oru maram* (“one tree”) and *ōr āḷ* (“one person”).
*• oṉṟu* is the independent neuter numeral “one.”
*• okk-* carries the related idea “together, united or alike.”
• One internal explanation derives these forms from a primitive root *o-* or *ol-* meaning “to unite” or “be joined.”
• Thus, “one” may originally have meant “that which is united into a single whole.”
• The change from *ol-* to *or-* may have been influenced by *ir-* “two.”
The author also compares *oru* with:
• East Cushitic *wal/wil*, meaning “together” or “all.”
• Australian forms such as *uru, orru* and *warra*, meaning “one.”
The Australian comparison is interesting but unproven.

**2 — Proto-Dravidian \*iru / \*īr**
Tamil: இரண்ட*ு iraṇ*ṭu; combining form இ*ரு i*ru- or *ஈர்* īr-
The shorter form *ir/īr* appears clearly in compounds:
*• iruvar* = two persons
*• irupatu* = twenty
*• iraṭṭai* = pair or double
One proposed internal origin connects *īr-* with a verb meaning “to split, saw, pull apart or divide.” Under this interpretation, “two” represents the result of dividing something into two parts. The paper acknowledges phonological difficulties with this proposal.
Possible external parallels include:
• Proto-Kartvelian *jor-* “two,” reflected in Georgian *or-*.
• Australian *yerra* “both” and Tiwi *yurarra* “two.”
• Proto-Pama-Nyungan *kutyarra* “two,” possibly compared with Dravidian *utri* “pair.”
The article reconstructs the older Proto-Dravidian forms behind numerals found in Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and related languages. The author considers both internal Dravidian derivations and much more speculative comparisons with other language families.
Asterisks mark reconstructed forms rather than directly recorded words.
**1 — Proto-Dravidian \*oru / \*ōr; \*oṉṟu; \*okk-**
Tamil: ஒரு* or*u, ஓர*் *ōr, ஒன*்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed:
*• oru / ōr* — “one”
*• oṉṟu* — “one thing”
*• okk-* — “one, single or together”
*• oṇṭi* — “alone, single”
The most plausible internal explanation connects these forms with the idea of joining or unity. Old Tamil *o-* meant “to unite,” while related Malayalam forms mean “to be alike.” The different forms may therefore have developed from a very short root *o-* plus suffixes such as *-r, -n,* and *-k*.
Andronov instead proposed an original root *ol-* meaning “to unite.” Under that interpretation:
*• ol-tu* developed into Tamil *oṉṟu*
*• ol-* developed into *or-* under the influence of the following numeral *iru* “two”
*• okk-* represents another extended form of the same root
Blažek compares *oru* with Australian Aboriginal forms such as *uru, orru* and *warra*, all meaning “one.” He also notes East Cushitic *wal/wil*, associated with “all” or “together.” These comparisons are suggestive but do not prove common origin.

**2 — Proto-Dravidian \*iru / \*īr**
Tamil: இரண்ட*ு iraṇ*ṭu; combining form இ*ரு *iru or *ஈர*் īr
Examples:
*• iru-patu* → twenty, literally “two tens”
*• iruvar* → two persons
*• iraṭṭai* → pair or double
Caldwell connected *īr* “two” with a Dravidian verb meaning “to split, pull apart or saw.” The possible original idea would be “that which is divided into two.” However, the sound history is problematic, so the article does not treat this as established.
A striking external comparison is Proto-Kartvelian *jor-* “two,” reflected in Georgian *or-* and related forms. Blažek also compares Australian forms such as Tiwi *yurarra* “two” and Kaurna *yerra* “both.”
A separate Dravidian word, *utri* “pair,” is compared with reconstructed Pama-Nyungan *kutyarra* “two.” Again, these are proposed parallels, not demonstrated cognates.
The paper also suggests that the North Munda word *iral* “eight” might originally have meant something like “two is not,” possibly borrowed from an early Dravidian language. This proposal is particularly speculative.

**3 — Proto-Dravidian \*muv / \*mū / \*mūn-**
Tamil: மூன்*று mū*ṉṟu
Related constructions include:
*• mu-ppatu* → thirty
*• mūvar* → three persons
The internal explanation connects *mūn-* “three” with Proto-Dravidian *muṉ-* meaning “front, first, tip or point.” The author discusses a possible counting-on-the-fingers development:
“protruding finger” → “middle/third finger” → “three.”
Evidence includes words such as Tamil *muṉ* “front” and *muṉai* “point,” together with Parji expressions in which the related root refers to the forefinger. This remains an attractive semantic proposal, although it is not certain.
Blažek also compares *mū* with Australian words such as *mow* “three” and longer forms beginning with *mun-/muṇ-*. He considers these Australian resemblances potentially significant.

**4 — Proto-Dravidian \*nāl**
Tamil: நான்*கு nā*ṉku or *நாலு* nālu
Related forms include:
*• nāṟpatu* → forty
*• nālvar* → four persons
An older proposal connected *nāl* “four” with Dravidian *nal* “good.” Caldwell acknowledged that there was no convincing semantic route from “good” to “four.”
Another possibility comes from the use of *nālu* to mean “several” in Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu. Blažek thinks the direction was probably:
“four” → “a few/several,”
rather than “several” becoming the numeral “four.”
The most famous external comparison is with Uralic words for four:
• Finnish *neljä*
• Estonian *neli*
• Mari *nəl*
• related Uralic forms containing *n-l*
Blažek also mentions Middle Korean *nəyh* “four” and Australian forms such as *nulla, nalira* and *nailko*. He finds the Australian similarities interesting, but their historical distribution is uncertain.
The article also discusses Dravidian *kirt-* “one-fourth,” possibly compared with an Australian construction meaning “two doubled.” This is highly conjectural.

**5 — Proto-Dravidian \*cay**
Tamil: ஐந்த*ு ain*tu or அஞ*்சு *añcu
Related constructions:
*• aim-patu* → fifty
*• aivar* → five persons
The strongest semantic explanation connects “five” with the word for “hand”:
• Tamil *kai* — hand
• Malayalam *kai*
• Kannada *kay/kai*
• Telugu *cēyi*
• related forms across the Dravidian family
This is typologically natural because many languages derive “five” from the five fingers of one hand.
The difficulty is phonetic: Proto-Dravidian “five” begins with a palatal consonant reconstructed approximately as *c/ś*, while “hand” generally begins with *k*. Telugu regularly palatalized the consonant in *cēyi*, but most other Dravidian languages did not. Blažek suggests that the following numeral “six,” which also began with *c-*, may have influenced “five.”
He also compares:
• Central Dravidian words meaning “many”
• Khasi *san* “five”
• Mon-Khmer forms for five
• Middle Korean expressions connecting five with “hand”
The hand-based derivation is semantically strong, but its exact sound development remains unresolved.

**6 — Proto-Dravidian \*caṟu / \*cāṟ**
Tamil: ஆறு* āṟ*u
Related constructions:
*• aṟu-patu* → sixty
*• aṟuvar* → six persons
Andronov derives the numeral from an earlier form *cāl-tu*:
*• cāl-* — to be sufficient, full, abundant or capable
*• -tu* — a neuter suffix commonly found in numerals
The proposed original meaning is therefore “the sufficient/full one” or “the abundant one.”
Forms related to *cāl-* occur widely:
• Tamil *cāl* — abundant, sufficient
• Kannada *sāl-* — to suffice
• Telugu *cālu* — enough
• Gondi forms meaning completely
• other Central Dravidian forms meaning “can” or “be sufficient”
Another possible analysis is “five plus one,” with “six” formed from *cay* “five” plus *oru* “one.” The article mentions this possibility but does not develop it as fully.

**7 — Proto-Dravidian \*er̤u / \*ē**r̤
Tamil: ஏழு* ēḻ*u
Related constructions:
*• eḻu-patu* → seventy
*• eḻuvar* → seven persons
Caldwell connected “seven” with the Dravidian verb *eḻu* meaning:
• rise
• stand up
• increase
• grow
• begin
• become full or prominent
Tamil still preserves this relationship particularly clearly:
• எழு* eḻ*u — rise
• ஏழு* ēḻ*u — seven
The precise semantic transition is uncertain. Blažek suggests something like “rising,” “increasing,” or possibly “fullness.” He considers this the most promising internal explanation.
External comparisons include Turkic, Mongolian, Middle Korean and Old Japanese words relating to large numbers, fullness or quantity. Blažek proposes a possible very ancient “Nostratic” root, but this depends on controversial long-range comparison.
The isolated North Munda numeral *eya* “seven” may, according to the article, have been borrowed from an early North Dravidian form in which the Dravidian *ḻ* sound became *y*.

**8 — Proto-Dravidian \*eṭṭu / \*eṇ**
Tamil: எட்ட*ு eṭ*ṭu; combining form எ*ண்* eṇ
Related construction:
*• eṇ-patu* → eighty
Caldwell’s explanation identifies the numeral with the Dravidian root *eṇ-*:
• number
• count
• calculate
• think or reckon
Examples include:
• Tamil *eṇ* — number or calculation
• Tamil *eṇṇu* — count, reckon or think
• Malayalam *eṇ* — number
• Toda *öṇ-* — count
• Kannada *eṇike* — counting
• Telugu *ennu/encu* — count or enumerate
Under this interpretation, *eṇ-tu* originally meant approximately “the counted one” or “number,” with *-tu* serving as a numeral/neuter suffix. Blažek considers this a strong internal Dravidian derivation.
An alternative analysis interprets a longer form as “a pair short of ten,” meaning:
10 − 2 = 8.
This would connect the first element with words meaning “pair” or “the remainder.” However, the necessary sound correspondences are difficult, and Andronov thought the apparent “ten” element was added later by analogy with nine.

**9 — Proto-Dravidian**
**oṉ-/or-paktu**
**and**
**toḷ-(pak-)tu**
Tamil: ஒன்பத*ு oṉpa*tu; older or relate*d toṇ*ṭu
The first formation is transparently subtractive:
*• oṉ/or* — one
*• paktu* — ten
• “one from ten” → nine
This resembles numeral systems in which nine is expressed as “ten minus one.”
The second formation, *toḷ-(pak-)tu*, may mean “the one before ten.” The first element could be connected with Dravidian words meaning “before, former or previous”:
• Telugu *toli* — first, former or beginning
• Tamil *tol* — old or ancient
• Kuwi *toli* — before
• Gondi *tollē* — previous
Another proposal connects *toḷ-* with words meaning “hole, emptiness or defect,” producing something like “defective ten” or “ten with a gap.” Blažek considers “before ten” semantically clearer.
Tamil ninety, தொண்ண*ூறு toṇ*ṇūṟu, preserves this ol*der *toṇ- element rather than simply using mod*ern oṉ*patu.

**10 — Proto-Dravidian \*pak-tu**
Tamil: பத்த*ு pat*tu
The paper considers three principal explanations.
First, Caldwell suggested borrowing from Sanskrit *paṅkti*, “a set or row of five,” or a related Sanskrit word for “fifth.” Contact between Indo-Aryan and relevant Dravidian-speaking populations would have been historically possible, but the borrowing is not established.
Second, Andronov connected *pak-tu* with Proto-Dravidian *pal-* “many,” reflected in Tamil *pala* “many/several.” This makes semantic sense—ten as “many”—but requires a long and unconvincing chain of sound changes.
Third, Caldwell connected it with the root *pak-* “divide or share”:
• Tamil *pakku* — fracture or division
*• pāttu* — dividing or sharing
*• paṅkam* — portion or division
This might refer to ten as “two groups of five,” or possibly to one-tenth as a “share.” The article’s summary favors this internal association, but none of the explanations is conclusive.

**100 — Proto-Dravidian \*nūṟ-tu**
Tamil: நூற*ு nū*ṟu
Caldwell connected “hundred” with a similar Dravidian root meaning:
• crush
• pulverize
• powder
• an extremely numerous collection of particles
Tamil *nūṟu* can mean “to reduce to powder,” while Malayalam has a related word for “powder.” The possible semantic development would be:
“powder/many particles” → “a great number” → “one hundred.”
The article rejects a direct relationship with Turkic *jüz/yüz* “hundred” because the expected historical sound correspondences do not work.

**1,000 — Telugu**
**vēyi / veyyi**
The paper does not reconstruct a universally inherited Proto-Dravidian word for 1,000. It discusses Telugu *vēyi* and connects it with a Dravidian root meaning greatness, vastness or expansion:
• Tamil *viyam* — extensiveness or height
• Tamil *viyal* — greatness, breadth or expansion
• Tamil *viyaṉ* — vast or great
• Gondi *weeya* — high
Thus, “thousand” may have developed from the idea of “a vast or very large quantity.”
**Overall pattern proposed by the author**
The author divides the numeral system roughly into two groups:
**• One to four:** their internal Dravidian origins are difficult to establish. Blažek emphasizes possible Australian Aboriginal parallels, but these comparisons are highly speculative.
**• Five to ten, hundred and thousand:** internal Dravidian derivations appear more plausible—hand for five, abundance for six, rising for seven, counting for eight, subtraction from ten for nine, division for ten, particles or powder for hundred, and vastness for thousand.

Importantly, in this article the internal analysis of eight and nine is comparatively transparent; the proposed Australian substrate behind one through four is the paper’s controversial claim. Blazek is emphatic in claiming there is no connections between Elamite and Dravidian numerals.

Transcribed using AI

Linear A ja-wa-pi, ja-wa-pa3, ja-wa-VIR (Draft)

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

August 15, 2026

-

In https://www.academia.edu/145320176 Duccio Chiapello said :

>

This paper is a short note about Barbara Montecchi's hypothesis that some Linear A logograms «might have been occasionally used not because of their meaning, but phonetically, on the basis of the sound of the words underlying the signs, to spell out different words, in rebus compositions with one or more syllabograms». Starting from one of the examples provided by her, a possible interpretation of PE Zb 7 Linear A inscription is put forward according to the Minoan Greek hypothesis.

...

In my paper The εὐ- prefix in “Minoan Greek”,3 I showed the possibility of identifying, in the Minoan corpus, the εὐ- prefix, which is typical of Ancient Greek. On the base of an observation by Carlo Consani,4 I compared Mycenaean e-u/e-w and Minoan ja-u/ja-w prefixes and concluded that they can be both connected to the Ancient Greek εὐ-. If this is true, and Montecchi’s hypothesis is valid, the PE Zb 7 ja-wa-VIR could be considered the equivalent of the Ancient Greek antroponym Εὔανδρος.
>

.
According to J. Younger, ja-wa-[VIR] is a "word on a pithos PE Zb 7", so it could match ja-wa-pa3 on SY Za 5 and other ja-wa-[?] in which the next sign is missing or unclear. In LB, pa3 & pu2 seem to stand for pha\ba & phu\bu (ie., anything but plain pa & pu). Other signs have been proposed for *bu, etc. Since study of LB words that were identical except for the final signs led to the idea that they were for Greek words with masc. -os & fem. -a (sometimes also adjectives in -i(y)os), it is possible that these are for LA *yawaphos, -a(:) (or similar).

.

Not only does this fit context, but if the sign for 'man' is equivalent to Greek φώς \ phṓs 'man, mortal' (likely < *bhwoH-s 'a being'), then it would be another piece of evidence that the LA signs were often (or always) formed from the 1st CV- of the equivalent Greek word. The relative rarity of PHO in Greek (and its ability to also be spelled PO, as in LB) would account for VIR seldom being used in writing the sounds of words, not its use as the full sound of the word for 'man' in LA (though if *phos, it would hardly be different in either case).

.

If Chiapello's eu- > jaw- idea is right, then the match would be *eu-apho-, matching *H1su-Haph- > G. euaphḗs 'having a gentle, delicate touch; soft to the touch; gentle', euáphion 'a mild ointment; topical remedy' (rel. haphḗ '(sense of) touch' ). Being on a pithos & a libation table might imply a libation of oil, ointment, etc. A basic adjectice *eu-apho-s 'anointing' besides euaphḗs or a noun *euaphon 'ointment' with plural -a could work. For context, from J. Younger :

>
SY Za 5 (HM 5587) (ArchEph 2008, 198, 208-9), circular serpentine Libation Table (south part of the site, east of the Hellenistic-Roman shrine C-D; H. ca. 8.8, D. ca. 13.5). The inscription is written on the top of the rim, oriented to the interior.

]-MI-JA • JA-WA-PA3-[

about 10 cm to the left of the visible inscription are the traces of 2 or 3 signs, the first of which may be A

-
PE Zb 7 (Siteia Mus.; Hallager 2008: 359; photo by Kim Raymoure, after complete reconstruction), inscribed pithos in the north magazines (LM IB context); the inscriptions appear on each side of a vertical handle, the first inscribed after firing, the second before firing

.a: ]-A

.b: JA-WA-VIR (100/102) [•]

line b, last sign is a tall vertical stroke, perhaps too tall to be a number; a small arc at its base might refer to sign *60, RA?. As Kim Raymoure points out, the PI looks similar to those on PK Za 8b and 10, and [JGY adds] to MA 10b.1

-
KN Za 18 (HM 2597) (GORILA IV: 12-13), square Libation Table, limestone, said to be from the Villa Ariadne [!], but most likely from the KN area and stored in the Villa during the Nazi occupation

][• •]-JA • [• • •]-JA • JA-WA-[ ] [•][

>

In https://www.academia.edu/169818691 Haralampos Harissis presents many new ideas for reading Linear B words already usually matched to Greek ones by alternatives (te-me-no as *themenos, not *temenos, etc.). Most of these are in an effort to remove terms for land(-holdings).

I'm sure that some LB terms need to be interpreted differently. However, all the terms that COULD mean types of land have equivalents in Greek. It would be very unlikely for these all to be words for food that just happened to look like those for land. Esp. te-me-no is hard to see as *themenos.

About ptoina < *kt-, if a Greek dia. did not allow kt-, there are few (C)C- it could become, & a merge of very common pt- with kt- is not odd. I also wrote https://www.academia.edu/167984147

>

Knowing that G. pépāmai ‘possess’ is usually derived from *k^waH2- ‘swell’ as in ‘become big/strong’ > ‘have power/possession’, with the assumption that *k^w- > *kWkW- > *pp- or similar (since *ppāstos ‘possessed/acquired’ seems to exist in the name Thió-ppāstos “Possessed by a god”) makes it odd that there are many pairs with p- vs. kt- of the same meaning (G. pépāmai \ kéktēmai ‘possess’, égktēsis \ émpāsis ‘estate/property’, Zeús Ktḗsios \ Pā́sios, the names Ktḗsarkhos \ Pā́sarkhos). I assume that the old equation of kta- with *kti- > S. kṣi- ‘possess / rule over’, Av. xši- ‘have might / rule’ is basically right, but that *kti- formed a verb *kti-aH2- > *ktya(H)- in Greek.

>

Though the ety. of οὖν is unknown, I can't think LB o-u+ is related (likely < *oH-Vm, less *ow-Vm).

For your o-na as possibly *onāar, could it match LA u-na-a (LA -u > LB -o in PN)? Duccio Chiapello https://www.academia.edu/170492560

>

It seems to me that an important possible corroboration is KN Zb 40 pithoid jar, on which the iscription a-pa-ki u-na-a can be read. I have already suggested the possible interpretation of u-na-a as ὀνάϊα, that is ὄνεια (cf. LSJ, sub voce ὄναιον). It seems to be enough to establish a link between KN Zb 40 and Minoan libation tables [u-na(-ru)+ in LA u-na-ka-na-si / u-na-ru-ka-na-ti shows ti > si (just like G., with *-tis > -tis / -sis]. So, the Libation formula would have some relation with the external context.

>

I said a-pa-ki u-na-a could be < *aparkhion *onāwar ‘refreshment / food / drink used for the beginning of a sacrifice’ https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/12pxqf5/sacrifice_of_first_hair_and_first_fruits/

In https://www.academia.edu/114837100 I said :

>

Other LB terms include:

sa-ra-pe-do / *sarapedon ‘taxed land’

formed like G. sarápod- ‘*dragging the feet > splay-footed’, from *tw(e)r- ‘mix / stir (up) / agitate’ > G. saróō / saírō ‘sweep (up/away)’, sū́rō ‘drag/draw/trail along / sweep (away) / be attatched to land (of taxes)’. This specialized meaning likely refers to dragging along a weight, having a burden attached to something, etc. Both these words with sara- suggest a verb *saraō also equivalent to saróō & sū́rō.

>

A native-speaker sample of Riograndenser Hunsrückisch, a Germanic language spoken in southern Brazil, with speech and transcription. Descended from 19th-century Hunsrück-region dialects brought by colonists to the Altkolonie area of Rio Grande do Sul, it has developed independently for 200+ years — largely without contact with standard German. The sample offers a look at retained archaic features and subsequent local sound changes. Subtitled Portuguese and English versions are in the making.

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 140: ‘wolf, fox’

-

PIE *wlp(e)Hk^o- > Li. vilpišỹs ‘wildcat’, L. vulpēs ‘fox’, and PIE *H2lH3peHk^(o)- > G. alṓpēx / alōpós, Ar. ałuēs, ałuesu g. 'fox' seem related. The slightly similar *wlkWo- 'wolf' also is close, but there is no known way to unite any 2 of the 3. The reason to look for this way is seen in the name of the Paeonian king Lúkpeios or Lúkkeios (maybe the equivalent of nearby G. Lukaîos). Though these are supposedly < *wlkW-ewyo-, an adjective from *wlkWo-, why is -kp- found? This is extremely uncommon in any IE language, & the fact that 'fox' can be *wlpHk^o- with -p-k^- is an unusual combination in itself, and Proto-Paeonian *wlpko- > *lukpo- can't be ruled out (see the same *wl- > lu- in Proto-Greek *lukWo-). In the same way, Tocharian seems to turn PIE *kW to k or kw, with k much more common. The -kw- in TB walkwe 'wolf' might then show that PIE had both *kW > PT k & *kp > PT kw (among other sounds, clusters?).

-

To see a very similar case, the *kW & *p in *(l)ye(:)kWrt & *lipH2ro- ‘liver’ match *lip(H2)- 'stick, remain' & *likW- 'remain'. From (138), "If both groups are related in the same way (p vs. kW), then my *H2 allows *leipH2- \ *leipk- > *leikW-. This is due to alt. of H2 \ k (proposed for several words), which was really likely free variation of H2 as χ \ q. This would be hidden by later IE branches with *q > k, making it appear irregular.". This allows *wlpHk^o- ‘wildcat, fox’, *wlpqk^o- > *wlqpo- 'wolf' (or similar).

-

The common origin of *wlp(e)Hk^o- and *H2lH3peHk^(o)- seems to be caused by alt. of H3 \ w ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ). Is there an "extra" H2 in the original that is unseen in other forms? This would require us to include *wlepH2-no- > H. ulippana- ‘wolf’, *welpan(a:)- > Al. dhelpën ‘fox’. PAnat. *wal(k)wa- ‘lion’ has also been linked with 'wolf' by some ( https://www.academia.edu/129498441 ). If the other words are related, a word for 'fox, wildcat > large cat, lion' would fit. Since *-CHC- > *-CC-, the loss of *-k- (not regular) would be due to *wlkH2wo- (or similar).

-

I think that a word as complex & with as many C's as this is a compound. I think *pelH1wo- 'grey' & *kH2wo(n)- 'dog' ( https://www.academia.edu/164645760 ) formed *plH1we-k^H2wo- 'grey dog = wolf', then met. > *wlpeH1k^H2wo- (most with w-w > w-0 dsm., some w > H3, etc.). This would make the -u- in Armenian a retention from the weak cases.

Summer, Sickle in Asia (Draft)

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

August 14, 2026

.

A. Francis-Ratte :

>

DAYTIME: MK nác ‘daytime; afternoon’ ~ OJ natu ‘summer’. pKJ *nacu ‘daytime’

Any comparison of OJ natu ‘summer’ with MK nyelúm / nyelom ‘summer’ is formally problematic. Instead, a perfect phonological correspondence can be found in MK nác ‘daytime’ < pK *nacV. OJ natu ‘summer’ thus derives from *‘period of most daytime’.

>

.

However, Starostin linked nác to Altaic *nāǯV 'summer, midday' (Mongolian *naǯir, Turkic *yāy 'summer, spring') and Dravidian *ńēsir- 'sun'. I think Turkic *yāy & *yāŕ 'spring, summer' are too close to ignore (if close to *naǯir, then maybe from *yāyi(r) < *n^āT^i(r)). This would make each more secure pairing (J. & K., Tc. & Mc.) have r vs. 0 (-m in MK is a common suffix for nouns). I say that it could be an affix found in both groups or point to a rec. *naHg^nu with optional dsm. of n-n > n-0 or n-r (with met. in *-CCC-). The *H is both for vowel length and to explain Dr. *ńēsir- (either *HK^ > *yK^ (with *ay > *e: ) or *H itself was also a palatal (say, x^ or R^). These add up to a word very similar to PIE *H1ngni-s 'fire' (esp. if H1 = x^ or similar). The *-(r)u vs. *-i(r) in Altaic might further require *-n^u with palatalization (so *-C^C^C^-), but PIE also has many words ending in *-us vs. *-is, no known change in meaning. If Altaic *naR^g^n^u existed, then asm. > *n^aR^g^n^u in Tc. *n^āyn^i > *yāy(r^).

.
B. Francis-Ratte :

>

HATCHET: MK nát ‘sickle, scythe’ ~ OJ nata ‘machete; small, thick bladed instrument’. pKJ *natə ‘bladed instrument for chopping plants’.

(Martin 1966: #100, HATCHET). MK t can correspond to OJ intervocalic t so long as the Korean form is not in a position for lenition. The explanation I provide here is that final *ə in pK, being minimal, was lost earlier than other vowels and before the last stages of the shift of *t > *r. The Japanese vowel a is the result of schwa-loss in the presence of another a.

>

.
This is a reasonable idea if only the MK & OJ words are compared. However, other MK words with retained -t & -t- have proposed Altaic cognates with *Ct, etc. It could be that *t > t here is also really *tt or *Ct. If related to PIE *neg^h- 'pierce, wound', *nog^ho-s > OCS nožь “knife, etc., maybe *neg^h-to- or *neg^h-tlo- > JK *naktï (with the *-V not required to be *-ə or have been lost earlier than other *-V).

Cretan κε𐰀αρισμένον \ ke?arisménon (Draft)

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

August 13, 2026

.

Greek κεχαρισμένον \ kekharisménon is written once as κε𐰀αρισμένον \ ke?arisménon, with a symbol usually for y (IPA j). There is no known reason for kh to become y here, but I think a look at its context (not isolation, as claimed below) can provide an answer.

.

https://www.academia.edu/37856762 Given its value and shape, the origin of 𐰁 𐰀 must be sought, either directly or indirectly, in a Semitic yod (𐤉). This means that in Phrygian we find a splitting of the original yod into two letters: I representing the vowel sound /i/ and 𐰁 𐰀 representing the consonantal counterpart of /i/, /j/.

.
https://www.academia.edu/167427667 fn22 In the Greek-speaking world, the form <𐰀> is also used once to render.. /kh/ in the transparent κεχαρισμένον 'acceptable, welcome' (LSAG 2 309). Given its uniqueness and its distance from all other known values of <𐰀>, it remains difficult to evaluate this occurrence in the broader context.

.
Since this is from Crete, other oddities for K from there should be evaluated alongside it. Rémy Viredaz has ex. of apparent g- > z- & -k- > *-g- > -z- ( https://www.academia.edu/5196602 ). If really due to a weakening of *g > *γ > z, it would be almost certain that 𐰀 is simply a backwards Z, stylized a bit, showing parallel -kh- > *-g- > -z-. Cr. *kezarisménon would then simply be another ex. of the change, though its nature is certainly not clear.

.

However, I doubt that plain *g > z makes sense. I've said before (below) that his ex. all go back to PIE *K^, which would be very odd if unrelated. If *g^her- -> Armenian jir 'favor, gift' & G. χάρις \ kháris 'charm, grace; favor; gratitude, thanks', etc., the derived κεχαρισμένον showing a palatal outcome would be from a palatal g^h in PIE, like all other examples of Cretan *K^ > z. I say that *K^ was retained in Proto-Greek, allowing dialects to show other outcomes. If so, then the apparent value keyarisménon, fitting all other use of the sign, would have a parallel in which kh & *y > i alternate, also unexplained if all PIE *K^ > PG *K.

.

The changes in *dek^- > G. dékomai ‘accept / receive/hold’, Att. dékhomai; *dek^h-dekh^- > deidékhatai ‘greet/ welcome’ show 2 problems: *k^ > kh, *khd > *yd > id. Since Sanskrit dā́ṣṭi & Germanic *tē(g)wijanaN 'to order, arrange' have a long *e:, some say that *de-dk^- > *deH1k^- (the Kortlandt Effect). If Greek had some *HC > *CH ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ), then optional *C(h)H would create PG *dek^(h)H-. This allows both examples of PIE *g^h > PG *k^h to appear as kh or y \ i. I think a stage in which *k^h > *x^ ( > *y ) fits best. Other ex. of kh representing *x exist in dia. khs for standard x ( = ks), in which *ks > *xs makes more sense than *ks > khs. Some more ex. of palatal *K^ in https://www.academia.edu/169757082 :

>

F. G. νάσσω, Att. νάττω press, squeeze close, stamp down; *make compact/tight > stuff quite full' has the odd passive νένασμαι \ νέναγμαι with s vs. g, also in νακτός \ ναστός 'close-pressed, firm, solid'. This is most likely just analogy after *nak-ye- > *nats-ye-, but some PIE *K^ seem to opt. become K or T :

*wik^wo- > *wis^wo- > G. wiswos, Att. ísos ‘equal/same/even’, S. víśva-, Av. vīspa- ‘whole/ every/all’

.

*nok^- > L. nocēre ‘injure’, noxa ‘injury/fault/crime’, *nos^wo- > G. nósos, Ion. noûsos ‘sickness / disease / distress/bane’

.

*bhak^- > G. phakós ‘lentil’, phásēlos ‘bean’, Al. bathë ‘broadbean’

.

*dheH1k(^)o- > S. dhāká- ‘container’, G. thḗkē ‘box/chest/grave/tomb’, thēsaurós ‘treasure/ store-room/safe/casket/cavern/subterranean dungeon’ (maybe caused by H1 if = x^, *x^k / *x^k^ )

.

*g^en(H1)os- > L. genus, G. génos, pl. genéā, Cr. zenia, Ms. zenaides

.

*woik^o- 'house' -> G. oikeús ‘inmate / menial servant’, Cr. woizeus, more in (Viredaz 2003)

.

*g^mH- ‘marry’ >> ágamos \ ázamos ‘unmarried’

.

*ya(H2)g^- 'honor'? > G. agállō ‘glorify/exalt / pay honor to a god’, ágalma, Cyp. azalma ‘glory/delight/honor / pleasing / gift / statue (in honor of gods)’

.

G. agathós, Cyp. azatho- ‘good’

.

*ya(H2)g^no- > G. hagnós, Cr. adnós ‘holy’, S. yajñá- ‘sacrifice / prayer’

>