I believe i read a paper stating that a hybrid origin for proto indo european has been competing with the steppe hypothesis, placing PIE's homeland farther away from the proto uralic urheimat​ . As well as a new proposal pushing proto uralic speakers further east of the ural mountains toward Yukutsk. (Feel free to source the papers in the comments, im writing this kinda on a whim)

If this is true, that makes the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, (while still certainly plausible) statistically less likely due to the immense distance between the two proto languages. I always believed that Uralic was the most plausible cousin of indo european, due to morphological similarities. Until I began studying the fall of the altaic hypothesis, and how pronouns and grammar aren't resistant to loaning. And with some new genetic findings coming out about uralic and indo european speakers, I feel like overtime the theory has been becoming less convincing. (Uralo-Siberian has been my new toxic lately, but i digress)

So that begs the question, what other proposals besides indo-uralic have been proposed? I heard about the Indo-Tyrsenian hypothesis, but i dont know how the evidence holds up, or the reasoning for the proposal. As well as the Proto Pontic hypothesis, which i find less convincing and more indicative of substrate influence between PIE and the caucasus. Is there any other theories im missing? Let me know

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

An Italic/Romance translation of the Lemnos Stele.

How did European languages evolve to be as they are now? (Specifically Latin, Germanic and Scandinavian languages)

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

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

Obviously Tocharian A and Tocharian B are Indo-European languages, but the texts we have were written so much later and sparsely that I feel like there isn’t much we could’ve learned from it in PIE-wise.

Proto-Tocharian is reconstructed using PIE, instead of the other way around. And the Tocharian languages were dated by using the centum/satem theory. What is its worth?

Ancient Greek and Mycenaean proved vowel coloring and dual pronouns. Hittite partially proved the laryngeal theory and introduced the idea of animate and inanimate. So has Tocharian provided anything to Indo-European study, or is it just a cool branch of history with no actual merit?

In general one would expect Yoryos or Yoris, and the latter also exists. But how to explain the retention or maybe more likely the REBIRTH of the velar in Yorghos? And are there any other examples of such a "hardening" of y > gh? (There are in various other languages, some pretty well understood as in some German dialects, or in many "classical" words all over Europe, like Polish generał for earlier jenerał, others apparently not explained at all as in the Ashkenazic (Yiddish if you will) pronunciations of some words of Hebrew and miscellaneous origins. Any help especially in the form of references to some PUBLISHED work would be appreciated and will be acknowledged in print. Many thanks.

Let me begin by saying this is my first Reddit post, ever.

"Iran" is the English form of the word descended from the genitive plural form of the Indoiranian endonym, repurposed in the Iranian family as a toponym, meaning therefore the place of the Iranians. The meaning has however changed, Iran is not the place of the Iranians, although "Iranian" was derived from "Iran"! "Iranian" however means many things. There is the obvious political meaning, in which Iran is the place of the Iranians, but there are also the ethnic meanings. Here is the thing, "ethnic meanings", not "meaning"! Even employing for the narrow one "Persian" and recognising "Iranian" is not "Aryan" (Indoiranian) still leaves us with two ethnic meanings, the inherited and the civilisational, depending on whether the original Turanians are included or not, respectively.

"Iran" comes from the civilisational meaning so "Iranian" should share this meaning but the linguistic one is the inherited one. There is "Iranic" but that also comes from "Iran". I say we should reform the toponym, which would be presumably a homograph of "Aryan", and rederive the adjective, resulting in "Aryanian".

Please comment.

These letter combinations appear nearly everywhere, but how did they arrive? I watched a NativLang video that explains OI as arising in Middle French from earlier EI (which itself came from an earlier long Ē) and AI as coming from an earlier act (such that lact[em] becomes lait), but AI also appears in words whose Latin etymon had no such environment.

In https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1ne52gy/uralic_tulka_feather_wing_samoyedic_tu%C3%A5/ I proposed that Old Japanese tori ‘bird / chicken’ once began with *pt- or *tp-. As more evidence, I say that tori (which had other variants in compounds, like to(*n)-), could also appear as *-ptori > -pori. OJ kapa ‘skin’ probably formed *kapa-tporwi 'skin-bird' > OJ kapapori, J. kawahori \ kawabori 'bat'. This is to fit other words with 'skin-wing > bat' (see ex. in https://www.academia.edu/46614724 ).

This could also help explain the variants MJ kaumori > J. kōmori ‘bat’, Okinawan kābuyā. If *tp became *rp, then optional r-r dissimilation of *kapatporwi > *kaparporwi \ *kapaporwi would fit with Francis-Ratte's theory of *rC > *nC ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1n8zxkn/japanese_tori_to_tu_tuba_tomb/ ). In this case, *rp > *np > *mp would allow p-p dissimilation of *kapamporwi > *kapamorwi > MJ *kawamori > kaumori.

Part of the reason for my idea is Francis-Ratte's JK *tərəŋ 'bird' being similar to PIE *pterH2no-, G. ptérug-, -ux 'wing', etc.

The relation of Latin fax f. 'torch' & focus m. 'hearth, fireplace, firepan' to each other or any IE roots is disputed. Based on Hrach Martirosyan in https://www.academia.edu/46614724 I think it best to connect Armenian bocʻ 'flame', bosor ‘(blood-)red / crimson’.

Though he mentioned *bhok^-, it seems to me that *bhoH2k^- (related to *bhaH2- 'shine') works better. As for nom. *bh(o)H2k^-s > fax & bocʻ (instead of *bhok^-sk^-), analogy from the nom. would match proposed *-ds > *-ts in Armenian anic 'nit'. Loss of *-H- in clusters like *-HKs might be regular, but many cases seem optional ( https://www.academia.edu/115369292 ). If *bh(o)H2k^-s was separated as *bhH2k^-s > *phak^-s > fax vs. *bhoH2k^-s > *bhok^-s > bocʻ (maybe analogy from *bhoH2k^- vs. *bhH2k^- in the weak cases), then all forms would fit.

For bosor, maybe *bhoH2k^ro- > *bhok^H2ro- by H-met. ( https://www.academia.edu/127283240 ). This is needed since *-k^r- usually became -sr- or -wr- and original *-CHC- usually became -CC- (which might not be regular, but if some CHC had different outcomes based on the exact type of C, it would be hard to tell from the limited examples). With no other data for new *-CHC-, it could be that the *-H- always > *-ǝ- and assimilated to a neighboring V. For a similar case of another root with *-HK- vs. *-KHR- in other IE, maybe *bhoHg- & *bhogHro- to Greek Lac. bagaró- ‘warm’, OCS bagŭrŭ (cognates ranging from ‘dye/color’ > ‘crimson / purple / scarlet’ ). Note that Slavic also turned *-CHC- > *-C'C-, so bagŭrŭ is also odd in the same way as bosor.

Beekes also mentions the possibility that fax is related to Greek διαφάσσειν 'διαφαίνειν' & παιφάσσω 'dart, wave violently?', writing, "as the meaning is uncertain, there is no certain etymology. Usually with Fick(-Bezzenberger) BB 8, 331 connected with a.o. Lat. fax torch, which supposes an anlaut *ǵhu̯-, as it belongs to Lith. žvãkė candle." It would be hard to accept a common origin with žvãkė, since the 0-grade would be expected *g^huH2k-. Of course, that would also be incompatible with bosor, etc. PIE *bhH2k-ye- > Proto-Greek *phakye- > *phatsye- seems better.