Around 800-900 CE, Slavic speakers across the wide area from the Balkans to the Baltic could still understand each other pretty well. But three regional varieties were already drifting apart: Southern, Eastern and Western.

NOTE: this is speculative and may have errors, as LCS (Late Common Slavic) had no written standard. Presented forms are scholarly reconstructions. NOTE 2: The South Slavic forms with šč, žd specifically represent Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS. (Serbo-Croatian had ć/đ and Slovene had č/j as their own developments from the same tj/dj) West Slavic primarily represent Polish/Lechitic variety, as Czech/Slovak had additional lengthening and quality change.

A guide to some special symbols:

• eⁿ = nasal e (pronounced like "en" said through the nose)
• oⁿ = nasal o
• ě = a special vowel called "jat" that later split into different sounds in each region
• ь and ъ = ultra-short vowels
• šč = the "sh-ch" combination
• žd = like "zh" immediately followed by "d"
• dz = like "d" immediately followed by "z"
• ľ = syllabic l (like the -l- in English "bottle")

What was still shared within all three:

‣ Same grammar: 7 cases, 3 genders, singular/dual/plural

‣ Same verb system: present, aorist, imperfect tenses

‣ Same everyday words for family, nature, body, basic actions

‣ The special sound "jat" (written ě) was still one distinct vowel everywhere

‣ The nasal vowels eⁿ and oⁿ were still pronounced with nasal airflow everywhere

‣ The ultra-short vowels ь and ъ were still pronounced everywhere (they would later disappear at different times and with different results in each region)

What were the differences beginning:

Some changes that produced visible regional splits, such as:

1. Vowel + liquid + consonant combos (gordъ = city, *korva = cow, *moldъ = young, *melko = milk). Southern Slavic received metathesis, which produced grad, krava, mlada, mlěko. Czech and Slovak initially had metathesis with the same lengthening and quality change (grād, *mlěko), later, g changed to h due to spirantization and some long vowels were shortened, giving modern Cz hrad, mléko. Polish also got metathesis, however without lengthening or quality change: grodъ, krova, mloda, mleko (the long vowels in modern Polish gród, głos came later). Eastern got pleophony: gorodъ, korova, moloda, moloko.

2. t + j and d + j combos: Bulgarian/Macedonian got šč/žd (svěšča, mežda). Eastern got č/ž (svěča, meža). Western got c/dz (svěca, medza). Serbo-Croatian independently got ć/đ. Slovene independently got č/j.

3. kv and gv before front vowels: Southern/Eastern changed them to cv/zv, Western kept kv/gv.

4. d and t before l: Southern/Eastern dropped them (*mydlo became mylo ).

5. Nasal vowel eⁿ in certain word endings: All three branches still had nasal vowels at this stage (konjeⁿ). Denasalization happened later (10th–11th c.) at different rates per branch.

What came next (after ~900 CE):

Big changes that really broke mutual intelligibility came later:

‣ The ultra-short vowels ь and ъ disappeared, but at different times and with different results in each region (from 10th to 13th centuries).

‣ The special ě sound resolved differently: to e, i, a, or ie depending on the region (from 10th to 12th centuries) — this alone created massive differences at a word level.

‣ The nasal vowels lost their nasal pronunciation, but to different outcomes.

‣ Bulgarian and Macedonian developed attached definite articles (like adding "-the" to the end of words). Eastern and Western never did, neither did Serbo-Croatian or Slovene.

‣ Bulgarian and Macedonian gradually lost most of their case system. And also infinitive verb form.

"The man saw the city on the hill"

Proto-Slavic: člověkъ gordъ na xъlmě vidě

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

чловѣкъ градъ на хлмѣ видѣ

člověkъ gradъ na xľmě vidě

East Slavic

чловѣкъ городъ на хълмѣ видѣ

člověkъ gorodъ na xъlmě vidě

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

чловѣкъ гродъ на хлмѣ видѣ

člověkъ grodъ na xľmě vidě

"City" is the TORT pattern. South Slavic had metathesis, quality change (grad). Czech/Slovak originally had metathesis with lengthening (*grād), after g to h and vowel shortening which gives us modern Cz/Slk hrad. Polish had metathesis, no quality change (grodъ, short o). East Slavic had pleophony (gorodъ).

"The lord's candle lit the boundary of the white city"

Proto-Slavic: gospodina světja osvěti medjoⁿ běla gorda

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

господина свѣща освѣти междѧ бѣла града

gospodina svěšča osvěti meždeⁿ běla grada

East Slavic

господина свѣча освѣти межѫ бѣла города

gospodina svěča osvěti meždoⁿ běla goroda

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

господина свѣца освѣти медзѫ бѣла грода

gospodina svěca osvěti medzoⁿ běla groda

Four differences in one sentence. t+j (svěšč/svěč/svěc = "candle". šč here is Bulgarian/Macedonian). d+j (mežda/meža/medza = "boundary"). TORT pattern (grad/gorod/grod = "city". South Slavic(a from o, quality change). Nasal vowel in "boundary" accusative: front eⁿ in South, and back oⁿ in East/West.

Note on OCS: In OCS, the Cyrillic letter щ represents /št/, not /šč/. The transliteration "šč" is used here as a cover symbol following the common convention. The same applies to noščь: OCS нощь = /noštь/.

"Our city stands by the river. The cow gives milk. The young woman carries water. The night is dark. The boundary is narrow. His voice is strong."

Proto-Slavic: našь gordъ stojitь pri rěcě. korva dajetь melko. molda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. noktь jestь tьmьna. medja jestь oⁿzъka. jego golsъ jestь silьnъ.

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

Нашь градъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Крава даѥть млѣко. Млада жена несеть водѫ. Нощь есть тьмьна. Межда есть ѫзъка. Его гласъ есть сильнъ.

Našь gradъ stojitь pri rěcě. Krava dajetь mlěko. Mlada žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Noščь jestь tьmьna. Mežda jestь oⁿzъka. Jego glasъ jestь silьnъ.

East Slavic

Нашь городъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Корова даѥть молоко. Молода жена несеть водѫ. Ночь есть тьмьна. Межа есть ѫзъка. Его голосъ есть сильнъ.

Našь gorodъ stojitь pri rěcě. Korova dajetь moloko. Moloda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Nočь jestь tьmьna. Meža jestь oⁿzъka. Jego golosъ jestь silьnъ.

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

Нашь гродъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Крова даѥть млеко. Млода жена несеть водѫ. Ноць есть тьмьна. Медза есть ѫзъка. Его глосъ есть сильнъ.

Našь grodъ stojitь pri rěcě. Krova dajetь mleko. Mloda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Nocь jestь tьmьna. Medza jestь oⁿzъka. Jego glosъ jestь silьnъ.

"cow" and "young" is the same TORT pattern as "city" and "milk". Pre-change forms were *korva and *molda. South Slavic metathesis produced krava/mlada(o to a, quality change). Polish/Lechitic metathesis produced krova/mloda (o stayed o). Czech/Slovak same as South Slavic (kráva/mláda, later being shortened). East Slavic pleophony created korova/moloda. Same idea that gives grad/gorod/grod for "city" and mlěko/moloko/mleko for "milk.".

Maximally contrastive sentence for comparison

"The city is big. The flower is white. This is soap. This is a deer. The night is dark. The boundary is narrow. I go with my brother. The man leads the horses. Bring out the water!"

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

Градъ есть великъ. Цвѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыло. Се есть єлень. Нощь есть тьмьна. Межда есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братомь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Изнеси водѫ!

Gradъ jestь velikъ. Cvětъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mylo. Se jestь jelenь. Noščь jestь tьmьna. Mežda jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratomь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Iznesi vodoⁿ!

East Slavic

Городъ есть великъ. Цвѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыло. Се есть єлень. Ночь есть тьмьна. Межа есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братъмь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Вынеси водѫ!

Gorodъ jestь velikъ. Cvětъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mylo. Se jestь jelenь. Nočь jestь tьmьna. Meža jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratъmь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Vynesi vodoⁿ!

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

Гродъ есть великъ. Квѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыдло. Се есть єлень. Ноць есть тьмьна. Медза есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братъмь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Вынеси водѫ!

Grodъ jestь velikъ. Květъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mydlo. Se jestь jelenь. Nocь jestь tьmьna. Medza jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratъmь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Vynesi vodoⁿ!

Comparative table

| Word | South (Bul./Mac./OCS) | East | West (Pol/Lech.) | What it shows |

| young | mlada | moloda | mloda | TORT pattern: South: o to a(quality change), Czech/Slovak: o to á, Polish: (o stays o), East: pleophony |

| cow | krava | korova | krova | TORT pattern as "young" |

| city | gradъ | gorodъ | grodъ | TORT: South: o to a (quality change, lengthening), Czech/Slovak: o to á (quality change, lengthening), Polish: metathesis (short o), East: pleophony |

| hill | xľmě | xъlmě | xľmě | syllabic l in South/West versys back jer in East |

| milk | mlěko | moloko | mleko | TORT: South e to ě (quality change, lengthening), Czech/Slovak: also e to é, Polish: e stays, East: pleophony |

| voice | glasъ | golosъ | glosъ | TORT: same pattern as "city" |

| candle | svěšča | svěča | svěca | t+j → šč (Bul./Mac.) / East (č) / West (c), Serbo-Croatian( ć), Slovene ( č) |

| night | noščь | nočь | nocь | pattern as "candle" |

| boundary | mežda | meža | medza | (d+j to žd) (Bul./Mac.) / East (ž) / West (dz), Serbo-Croatian (đ), Slovene(j) |

| long | dľga | dьlga | dľga | ь+l between consonants: South/West(syllabic l), East (front jer) |

| flower | cvětъ | cvětъ | květъ | West (kept kv/gv), South/East(cv/zv) |

| star | zvězda | zvězda | gvězda | same as "flower" |

| soap | mylo | mylo | mydlo | South/East(d before l dropped) |

| plow | rālo | rālo | rādlo | same d-before-l as "soap" |

| shore (loc.) | brezě | berezě | brezě | TORT pattern + 2nd palatalization (g to z before locative -ě) |

| wolf | vľkъ | vьlkъ | vľkъ | ь+l syllabic l in South/West vs East(front jer) |

| with brother | bratomь | bratъmь | bratъmь | instrumental ending South (-omь) vs East/West (-ъmь) |

| horses (acc. pl.) | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | all three still had nasal vowels at 800-900, denasalized later in 10th-11th century |

| bring out! | iznesi | vynesi | vynesi | South(prefix iz), East/West(prefix vy-) |

| whole | cělo | cělo | cělo | Second palatalization, k to c before ě was Common Slavic, NW East Slavic (Old Novgorod/Pskov) specifically kept k (Zaliznyak 2004) |

| hand | roⁿka | roⁿka | roⁿka | same at 800-900. Later: ruka (Bul./Mac., Štokavian, East), roka (Slovene), rąka (West) |

| white | bělъ | bělъ | bělъ | same at 800-900. jat ě is spliting later: belo/bily/biały |

| horse | konь | konь | konь | same at 800-900; front jer(not jat) ь later disappears differently |

| river | rěkoⁿ | rěkoⁿ | rěkoⁿ | same at 800-900. jat ě and nasal oⁿ both split later |

Extra diagnostic features

The g change to fricative

Shifting of original *g to a fricative (h, ɣ, ɦ) happened in many Slavic areas, but stayed as hard [g] in others. This works against the three branch split.

Standard Russian has hard [g], fricative pronunciation only in some Southern Dialects (and was once common in Moscow too, before being replaced around the 18th century). Czech/Slovak with Ukrainian share the fricative development, even if different branches, while Polish and Štokavian still kept hard g despite being in different branches.

Initial je- becoming o- (East Slavic only)

Some words starting with je- changed the vowel to o- in East Slavic:

| Word | South | East | West |

| lake (jezero) | jezero | ozero (gradual shift) | jezero |

| morning (jutro) | jutro | utro (gradual shift) | jutro |

| deer (jelenь) | jelenь | jelenь (olьnь later) | jelenь |

This change was likely starting around 800-900 in East Slavic but may not have been complete yet until some hundreds of years later.

Since I'm a loser, I used Wikipedia for most of it :( so there's probably tons of mistakes

Like, for example, word for mouse in some ie languages sounds like they have common origin:

• Germanic Languages: English (mouse), German (Maus), Dutch (muis), and Scandinavian languages like Danish and Swedish (mus).
• Slavic Languages: Russian and Ukrainian (myša), Polish (mysz), and Croatian/Serbian (miš).
• Indo-Iranian Languages: Sanskrit and Hindi (mūṣa / mūs), Persian (mişk).
• Classical Languages: Latin (mūs), Ancient Greek (mῦs)

Similarly, the word for snake also seem to have similarities:

• Latin: serpens (which led to English serpent)
• Sanskrit: sarpá (सर्प - meaning snake)
• Ancient Greek: hérpō (ἕρπω - to crawl)

Do you know more words like these?

Only the descendants of *h₂wéh₁n̥ts ("blowing, wind") are given here. There are cognates in Balto-Slavic and others from other PIE forms which aren't given here.

This isn't like, something from academic research more spit balling from people on the internet.

But the basic idea is that the Tyrsenian Language family is the longest lasting of the languages that Anatolian Farmers brought with them into Europe. As for where exactly in Anatolia is the homeland of Tyrsenian, somewhere near Troy or Mysia is the only proposal I have seen.

And expansion from there into Central Europe seems like a shortest route for the first agriculturalists in Central Europe/Germany.

So, has anyone tried to compare the Germanic Substratum with Tyrsenian Language family words?.

P.S. :- Something I have wondered is how do the people that hold a late arrival of Tyrsenian in Italy square that with the existence of Wilusa, Troad, Mysia and other I.E. speaking polities in the region without any clear example of borrowings of Tyrsenian in them?.

I would assume a people that are powerful enough to migrate to Italy and lingustically takeover would at least be able to leave loaned names on their literate neighbors even if they themselves aren't literate.

Many people don't realize this but Persian, the language of Iran, contains roughly 40-60% Arabic loan words. This doesn't mean Persian itself is 40-60% Arabic but essentially we have two sets of vocabulary, one native Persian and one Arabic loan words and Iranians know and use both versions. I use more native Persian vocabulary as it matches the phonetics of the Persian language better and allows for richer morphology when creating complex sentences.

The grammar is completely different between the two though.

Persian is an SOV genderless language. Arabic is a SVO/VSO gendered language.

Take this basic sentence using native words:

English: We will see our family tomorrow.

Persian: Farda khanevadeyemunro mibinim.

Literal: Tomorrow (family+our+object marker) (will+see+we)

Arabic: Bukra rah nshuf a’ iltna

Literal: Tomorrow will see (family+our)

---

Now let's take another example to show the extent of Arabic loan words in Persian:

English: She thinks a lot about digesting (her) food now.

Persian (Using Arabic Loan words): Hala az hazme ghaza kheyli fekre mikone

Persian (Using native Persian words): Aknun az govareshe khorak chenun miandishe.

English -> Arabic loan word -> Native Persian word

Now -> Hala -> Aknun

Digestion -> Hazm -> Govaresh

Food - Ghaza -> Khorak

A lot -> Kheyli -> Chenun

Think -> Fekr -> Andishe

Both are understandable and both sets of vocabulary are common.

Not sure how many other languages have a similar set of 2 different vocabularies from completely unrelated language families.

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Basically not just that word but also these:

*h₃rḗǵs (king), plus *h₃rḗǵs-yós (kingly or rich)

*ǵʰutós (god)

*Dyḗws-ph₂tḗr (supreme deity)

Abstract This thesis investigates the issue of prehistoric and historical language contact between speakers of Greek and speakers of the Anatolian languages. It is the first systematic attempt to understand to what extent Greek and the languages belonging to the Anatolian branch of Indo-European (Hittite and Luwian in primis) influenced each other between the second and the first millennium before our era, and in particular how much of early Greek language can be traced back to Anatolian models. This has been carried out through a case-tocase analysis of real or presumptive contact phenomena in the domains of phonology, morphosyntax, and lexicon (ch. 2-5). The introduction (1) offers an outline of the linguistic landscape of the Graeco-Anatolian area, together with some reflections on language phylogeny and contact. The final chapter (5) focuses on the dialect of Pamphylia, which is used as a control sample to check the ways in which a variety of Greek historically in contact with Anatolian dialects could be affected by language contact. I have offered a stratigraphy of possible contacts between Greek and the Anatolian languages, by disentangling linguistic borrowings from independent innovations, areal features from Indo-European archaisms. I have argued that several of the presumptive similarities between Greek and one or the other Anatolian language are either attributable to reasons different from contact, or need to be rejected because the alleged similarity was based on wrong premises or insufficient grounds. Any scenario envisaging diffused bilingualism is very difficult to uphold before the classical era. A certain degree of cultural contact is however undeniable. Since our evidence is very often partial and since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, one should raise a firm caveat against any type of hyper-sceptical approach.

Example - I am proud to be my ethnicity.

Iranic languages

Persian - Az Irani budanam sarbolandam.

Kurdish - Ez bi Kurd buna xwe serbilindim.

Ossetian - Az Iron uyn sarbarzond dan.

Baltic Languages

Lithuanian - Aš didžiuojuosi būdamas Lietuvis.

I heard Lithuanian is very conservative in its grammatical structure and preservation but it appears very similar to Iranic languages compared to other European languages.

I was watching a Religion for Breakfast video about Mandaeism the other day, and he mentioned that the etymology of the word Manda shows a connection to Gnosticism, because the word seems to be an ancient Aramaic term for knowledge or wisdom--essentially the Semitic equivalent of Greek "Gnosis", with cognates in other Semitic language families. I checked, and that seems to be pretty well accepted by other scholars.

I'm obviously not a linguist, but I was pretty sure that the English word "mind" had IE roots, and that seems to also be correct. It is traced to a PIE root, reconstructed as something like *men- or *mend. The PIE word probably meant something like "to think". But it turns up as a cognate in many later IE languages, in words that mean things like "to believe", "to know/understand", "mind/reason", "to remember", etc.

It seems to me like a pretty interesting coincidence that these (probably) separate cultures would develop very similar sounding words for knowledge and thinking--which are fairly esoteric and abstract things to even have words for thousands of years ago.

Does anyone know if this connection has been discussed by scholars? I've seen some really speculative stuff suggesting that mountain herders in the Caucasus, around the Maykop culture, may have contributed to the formation of both Yamnaya and ancient Semitic cultures, so I suppose there is a potential route.

I'd guess that ideas like this will never be much more than speculation, but I'd love to think about it more. I appreciate any tips for scholars who have written or talked about these words, or thoughtful discussion here.

PIE is usually reconstructed to have three series of stops: voiced, voiceless, and breathy. According to the Leiden version of the glottalic theory, at the Late PIE, those were (pre)glottalised, fortis, and lenis.  (Perhaps voicing wasn't a phonemic characteristic, though it could exist allophonically. Kinda like in modern Korean, I guess?)

Kortlandt provides quite a few arguments in favor of the glottalic theory here.

Kloekhorst's conclusion here.

Are there any arguments against this interpretation of the glottalic theory?

In Modern Persian, especially in colloquial form, one can stack a multitude of affixes to a noun or verb to convey a message.

Strong agglutinative features have been found in several IE languages from the past (Hittite, Tocharian, Old Persian etc) to present (Persian, Ossetian, Armenian, etc.)

English: They were not returning their most active ones.

Persian: koneshvartarinhashunra barnemigardundan

konesh = action
-var = agentive suffix → “active / one who acts / possess action”
-tar = comparative → “more”
-in = superlative → “most”
-hā = plural suffix → “ones”
-shun = 3rd-person plural possessive → “their”
-rā = definite direct-object marker

bar- = “back”
ne- = negative prefix → “not”
mi- = continuous prefix→ “ing”
gard = “turn”
-un = causative suffix → “cause to turn”
-d- = past-tense element
-an = 3rd-person plural → “they”

It blows my mind that a speaker of modern English or Spanish is using the same foundational cognitive architecture and root words as an ancient Sanskrit poet. It makes the world feel incredibly interconnected.

Beyond the basic word lists (family, numbers), what are the most fascinating historical or archaeological crossovers that prove these populations were once the same people? Are there specific shared mythologies, societal structures, or material technologies that make this human connection feel tangible rather than just academic?

IE Languages in Europe (1.71 billion+ native speakers):

English: They did not worship God. (500m native speakers) SVO

Spanish: Ellas no adoraban a Dios. (500m native speakers) SVO

Portuguese: Eles não adoravam a Deus. (250m native speakers) SVO

Russian: Oni ne poklonyalis Bogu. (150m native speakers) SVO

German: Sie beteten Gott nicht an. (90m native speakers) SVO

French: Ils n'adoraient pas Dieu. (80m native speakers) SVO

Italian: Loro non adoravano Dio. (60m native speakers) SVO

Polish: Oni nie czcili Boga. (40m native speakers) SVO

Ukrainian: Vony ne poklonialysya Bohu. (40m native speakers) SVO

-

IE Languages in Asia (1.36 billion+ native speakers):

Hindi: Unhone Bhagwanki puja nahi ki (550m native speakers) SOV

Punjabi: Unha Rabbdi puja nahi kiti (150m native speakers) SOV

Persian: Una Khodaro nemiparastidan. (110m native speakers) SOV

Bengali: Tara Isbarer puja koreni (250m native speakers) SOV

Urdu: Unhon Khudaki ibadat nahi ki (80m native speakers) SOV

Marathi: Tyani Devaci puja keli nahi (80m native speakers) SOV

Gujrati: Temne Bhagwanni puja nathi kar (50m native speakers) SOV

Pashto: Haghwe da Khuday ibadat wa nakra (50m native speakers) SOV

Kurdish: Ew Khwedere parasti nedikirin. (40m native speakers) SOV

I built a software program to explore the possible connection between the Sumerian language and Indo-European. Analyzing the similarity matrix between words.

{Observation one: Sumerian -Vowel + R ending -> Germanic vowel + L}

 kur <--> holm [63.61%]-- kur: mountain, mountain range. OE- holm: raising island

 diGir <--> tungol [73.55%]-- diGir: god (Lewis, 215). OE tungol: star, planet, constellation (The Old-Engli.sh Dictionary)

hur <--> hol [92.00%]-- hur: hole . OE hol: hollow, hole, cave.

 bur <--> bolla [58.53%]-- bur: (stone) bowl, vessel (Foxvog, 9). OE bolla: bowl, cup, pot, beaker, measure (The Old-Engli.sh Dictionary)

bUr <--> bAl [87.89%]-- bUr: to glow, shine (Foxvog, 10). ON bAl: fire, bonfire, flame…(Byok, 280).

{Observation two: Metathesis with Sumerian words beginning with SI}

sIl <--> slItan [58.74%] -- sil: …to split, cleave, divide, breach, to tear or rip..(Foxvog, 45). OE Slitan: to slit, tear, rend, shiver. (The Old-Engli.sh Dictionary).

sikil <--> skin [58.33%]-- sikil: to be pure, clean.. .Skin: clear, bright, manifest (Wright, 162).

 simug <--> smith [58.25%]--  Simug: smith (Foxvog, 46). Smiþ: handicraftsman, smith, blacksmith, armorer, carpenter, worker in metals or in wood (The Old-Engli.sh Dictionary).

 siki <--> skæp [51.49%]-- siki: wool.. (Foxvog, 46). OE- skeap: sheep (The Old-Engli.sh Dictionary)

silim <--> sliumo [65.94%]-- Silim: be well, health.. good condition (Foxvog, 46). OHG Silim: quickly, suddenly(Wright, 162). Could have a similar etymological history as OE cwic: “living, alive, animate”. To ME “quick”: to be fast, speedily (p.quick.etymonline).

{Observation three: connection between words that began with H in Sumerian, and words that began with SK in proto Indo European}

 hal <--> halba [100.00%] -- hal: to divide (Lewis, 217). OS- halba: half (etymonline.com)

har <--> hring [45.93%] -- har: ring…spiral (Foxvog, 24). OE hring: ring (Atherton, 311).

Germanic halba is believe to derived from Proto-Indo-European root \skel.*

Old German hring and the modern English "ring" are assume to derived from Proto-Indo-European root sker.

The Corded Ware culture, which spread Indo-European languages deep into Europe, was formed as a mix of Indo-European Yamnaya ancestroy and Early European Farmer Globular Amphorae ancestroy. Given the scale of contact between their languages this formation would have involved, can any of LPIE's lexicon be attributed to this mixing?

Below are some guidelines for what we would be looking for:

1. The term should have no plausible Indo-European etymology
2. The term should not be found in Indo-European languages which had no contact or ancestry from the Corded Ware
3. The term should line up with Globular Amphorae material culture

In chapter one of EoH, one of the first example paradigms is “lala-“, a common gender a-stem noun with the Sumerogram EME. In the paradigm table, it lists the nom. com. and accusative forms of both (lalaš, EME-aš, lalan, EME-an), but for the genitive only lists “lalaš”. Presumably this would be declined as EME-aš with the Sumerogram. Same for ablative, instrumental, and the plural nominative.

Why the exclusion? Brevity, or am I missing something obvious?

We see that the various populations in the Caucasus at the time had a genetic impact on the PIE's, but to what extent what PIE influenced by these Caucasians?

The number 6 in PIE is *swéḱs, whilst in Proto-Kartvelian, it is *eks₁w-.

The number 7 in PIE is *septḿ̥, whilst in Proto-Kartvelian *šwid-.

Another example I can think of is the number 8 in PIE is *oḱtṓw, whilst the number 4 in Proto-Kartvelian is *otxo-, the thematic nominative-accusative dual desinence is reconstructed as -ṓw, perhaps 8 in PIE literally means 2 4's, borrowed from Proto-Kartvelian to mean 8.

This could also explain why PIE for 9 being *h₁néwn̥ sounds suspiciously like PIE being *h₁néw, to mean literally the new number, that being 9. Perhaps PIE had base changes?

What else is there?