De Vanitate Etymologiae. On the origins of Suomi, Häme, Sápmi.

Unpublished. Early Draft. Cite at own risk.

Bochnakowa Anna (Kraków) Origines de quelques mots romans ou effets de l'agglutination et de la déglutination.-4 (1999): 41-46. L'anglais chat et les langues romanes.-10 (2005): 49-52. Brosch Cyril (Berlin) Zu den Wurzeln *se²h3-und *seh1p-im Anatolischen.-19 (2014): 35-41.

2007

The volume includes the most relevant studies published between approx. 1986 and 2006. Most of them are in English, some in French and Romanian. The studies cover problems related to the Pre-Indo-European heritage of Europe, substratum languages of southeast Europe, mainly in Romanian.

Extensive research has shown great interest in the origins and evolution of Turkic cultures and languages underlying the importance of history, language and religion in building the ethnicity of different nations in Eastern Europe. However, less attention was paid to semantic convergences, divergences and evolutions of lexical items in the conceptual metaphors and phrases recovered in Romanian culture through Turkish and other south slavic intermediaries. Accidentally encountered in etymological dictionaries and studies, the Turkic elements have not benefited yet from a multidisciplinary research meant to point out the lines of continuity between old Turkic (Pechenges, Cuman and Tatar), those of Ottoman Turkish and their reverberations in Romanian language. In fact, words almost exclusively labelled as Turkish or those with unknown and multiple etymology, preserved in Romanian as relics found in various stylistically registers (academic, archaic, colloquial, popular, regional) as well as in anthroponomy and toponymy, have been recovered in the folklore and literature of the 19th to the 21st centuries. These have been found disguised in metaphorical expressions and symbols considered relevant for the spirituality of this multicultural space. Integrated into an evolution perspective, the concepts and metaphors analysed and interpreted within this article belong to extended cultural areas, and use symbols common to extremely various linguistic groups. Accepting multiple origins and following their semantic evolution in etymological charts designed for interpreting meaning from basic to abstract and semantic deviation found at secondary level or in metaphors, this article constitutes an attempt to design a hermeneutical method based on archaeo-and historical linguistics, etymological confluences and stratigraphy and to use the analysed lexis in the content of classes taught for the students in Kazakhstan. However, the traditional principle of connection between the phonetic body and meaning as unified parts of conceptual-semantic matrix is sustained, combined with the modern one pointing out the role of etymology in underlining the ethnic features of both nations. Keywords -Etymology, Second Language, Multidisciplinary Science.

2026

A. Iberian substrate, *m(e)ilo:ka 'worm'-I think Iberian Romance languages had many loans from Celtic & other IE spoken there before Roman conquest. Marcos Obaya in https://www.academia.edu/35126885 has some interesting ideas. I say that *milo:ka is the source of Portuguese minhoca 'earthworm', which is (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minhoca) "Etymology Inherited from Old Galician-Portuguese miuca, of unknown origin. Cognate with Fala and Galician miñoca, Asturian milu and meruca."-John Koch has done a lot of work on classifying ancient Tartessian (in modern Spain) as a Celtic language. From my examination, the common Celtic affix *-a:kos > *-o:kos (musok-< *mussāk-, Ogam mosac 'son', https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/comments/14qkz3d/tartessian_as_a_celtic_language/). This would allow *milo:ka, *mi:lo:ka, or *meilo:ka to be Tartessian, or from any nearby language that also had *a: > *o:.-PIE *(s)ley-'wet, damp, slimy, slick, smooth' formed *sleimo-, *sleimaH2ko-, *sleimon-, *slimn-(Germanic *slīma-N 'slime, mucus', Slavic *slimakъ, Latin līmax 'snail', Greek λεῖμᾰξ \ leîmax f. 'meadow; snail', λειμών \ leimṓn 'moist place, (watery) meadow', λιμήν \ limḗn m. 'harbor', límnē 'sea; pool of standing water, mere, marsh, basin, sea', TA lyäm, TB lyam 'sea'). Since also metathesis in *sleimak-s > *smeilak-s (G. μεῖλαξ = λειμών), I say that Tartessian had *sleimaH2ko-> *smeilaH2ko- ,

Pūrvāparaprajñābhinandanam. East and West, Past and Present. Indological and Other Essays in Honour of Klaus Karttunen, 2010

My academic career in comparative Indo-European linguistics began with Classical Philology (Greek and Latin) and Indo-Iranian languages (Sanskrit and Avestan). In this regard I have much common in with Klaus Karttunen, my former teacher and a supervisor of my dissertation, now celebrating his 60th birthday. It is my utmost pleasure to contribute to this volume a paper on Indo-European etymologies, related in various ways to Italo-Greek and Indo-Iranian, and dedicate it to Klaus Karttunen. 1

Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology 18 (2014) 708–717.

This etymological digest contains new etymologies for several Greek words: ἀφυσγετός ‘debris’ (< *n̥-bʰugsk̑eto- ‘unusable’, Ved. bhunákti, Lat. fungor), ἕστωρ ‘yoke fastening’ (< *u̯edʰ-tor- ‘one that ties together’, Goth. gawidan, Welsh gwedd), κόπις ‘glib talker’ (< *ḱopi-, Ved. śap- ‘to curse’), κρημνός ‘steep incline’ (Slavic *stromъ / *strьmъ ‘steep’), πηρός ‘infirm, lame’ (Luw. paḫḫit ‘beater’), χρόνος ‘(period of) time’ (*g̑ʰron-o- ← *g̑ʰ(r̥)ron- ‘(early/past) time’, Hitt. karū, Luw. ruwan ‘formerly’, Slavic *zarja ‘dawn’, Old Norse grýjandi ‘dawn’) and some others.

2025

A. Turner has : S. cihna- nu. ‘mark / sign’, Pa. cinha- \ cihana-, Pk. ciṇha- \ ciṁdha- \ ceṁdha-, Sdh. cinhu m. ‘mark’, Np. cinu ‘mark / signal’, cinā p. ‘horoscope’, Or. cina ‘mark’, cinā ‘acquainted / acquaintance’, Mthl. cenh ‘mark’, OHi. cīnha, Hi. cinh m. ‘mark, spot, stain'; OGj ciṁdha nu. ‘sign', Gj. cin f. ‘knowledge / acquaintance’; T4833 These Indic words with -dh-, show that *cidhna-m had to be 1st. Many other *dh > dh / h in S. (Lubotsky 1995), so certainly *cidhna-m < *chidna-m < *skidno-m ‘a cut / carving / mark in wood/stone’; S. chídyate \ chidyáte ‘be cut / be split’. This is best explained as metathesis of aspiration, which is not especially common in S., but is in Dardic. Since many of the S. examples are to “fix” *jh > j or create *mh- (or both) (Whalen 2025a), the late attestation of the word and -dh- might be evidence that this was a loan from a non-Vedic Indic language. B. There is some dispute over whether PIE ‘squirrel’ (NP varvarah, Sl. *we:weri(:)ka: > OR wiewiórka, Sk. veverica, Li. voverìs \ vėverìs, Ct. *wi(:)wéro(n)- > W. gwiwer, OI íaru f., I. feoróg) is directly related to L. vīverra ‘ferret’, Li. vaiverìs ‘male marten’ and what the source is. If older *wer-wero- ‘covering’ with r-dsm. in most, it could be ‘coverer’ as ‘hiding nuts’. However, this does not explain why long *e: or *o: existed, and it could be that its use for ‘ferret’ would require a meaningful source for both. If related to ODn viver, Dn. væver ‘nimble / agile’ (likely from *wer- ‘turn / twist / bend / etc.’), these 2 kinds of nimble animals could easily be ‘nimble animal’ in name as well. I think this is supported by *leH1k- \ *lek(H1)- ‘run / spring / jump’, *lekuno- ‘nimble animal’ > S. nakulá- ‘mongoose’, Ir. *nakuðá- > Xw. nkδyk ‘weasel’ (The shift of Ir. *ul > *uð also in Ir. *kulāw(w)a- ‘nest’ > Kurdish kulāw, *kulāma- > Bal. kuδām, NP kunām (Whalen 2025b)). Since only Ir. had *varvara-, I question if older *wer-wero- would really lose *r in ALL other IE. Also, how common is *VrC > *V:C ? Instead, if older *weH1-wero-, it would would be an example of asm. of *H-r > *R-r > r-r (Whalen 2025c). This is not alone; though reduplicated roots in PIE are usually said to be just Ci-C & Ce-C, there are many that look odd, like *pV(R\H\y)-p(a\e)lH1-to(n)- ‘quail / moth / butterfly’, Latvian paîpala, Lithuanian píepela, Old Prussian penpalo, Latin pāpiliō, Old Italian parpaglione, *pul-pult(y)ika-? ‘butterfly’ > Kh. pulmunḍùk, Kv. prüšpúlik, *palpul > *pampul > Km. pȭpur \ pṏpur. These are certainly not innovations, & Lt. paî-, which resembles Li. vaiverìs, makes it look like *pelH1to- \ *palH1to- ‘grey’ > *palH1-palH1to(n)- ‘moth’, with opt. *H1 > *y (1). In these, both V & C vary. Other problems include Gmc perfects with *Ce(?)- > Go. Ce-, even when most *e > i there. If the oldest PIE had *CeH1- added, then later “loss” of *H in compounds & reduplicated roots was really intermediate *H > *glottal stop, it could still have affected the V in Gmc (*i’ > e’ is common in many languages around the world). For late retention of *H in Gmc, see also (Whalen 2025e). Though the details aren’t certain, these ex. allow something like *wer- ‘turn / twist / move back & forth’ > *weH1wero- \ *woH1wero- \ *wiH1wero- ‘nimble’. C. Many have been eager to see an extensive Indo-Iranian substratum, like (Lubotsky 2001). They include ex. that look fully IE, even if not widely attested : *g(e)ndh- > S. gandh- ‘smell / be fragrant’, su-gándhi- ‘fragrant’, jáṅgahe (in)tr. ‘smells’, YAv. gaṇti- f. ‘bad smell?’, MP gandag ‘stinking’, Bl. gandag ‘evil’, Ps. γandal ‘disgust’ For *-en- > -an- but *-n- > -a-, why would it be non-IE? The reason is supposed dh vs. t in YAv. gaṇti-. However, this is not playing very fair. Many IE words have nouns in -ti-, so why say *-dhi > -ti instead of *dh-ti > -ti ? Though *dht > IIr. *ddh is expected, Ir. had *dh > *d, which made it impossible to know if *d-ti “should” give *tt or *ddh in derivatives, leading to analogical restoration. In this way, few ex. of *dht > Ir. *ddh remain, opposed to many in Indic. I say that when Ir. *gand-ti- was formed, another sound change of *ndt > *nt took place, before *Tt > *tst > st. This supports a late date for IE *Tt > *tst, which I say was a late post-PIE areal change in many IE groups (with some having different outcomes, like *wid- ‘see’ >> *n-wid-ti- > S. aṃ-vitti- ‘not finding’, but Ar. an-giwt ‘not found’ with *tt > *θt > *ft > wt) (Whalen 2025f). These words have already been classified as IE according to ‘hit / push (away)’ > ‘stink’ or similar : *gWedh-(ne-) > S. gandh- ‘push / pierce / destroy’, MHG quetsen ‘hit / poke’, G. dénnos ‘reproach’, Li. gendù, gésti ‘spoil / decay’, Lt. ģint ‘go to destruction’ *gWodho- > Li. pã-gadas ‘loss / ruin’, TA kat, TB keta ‘destruction’ Though most S. uses are neutral, also : RV 1.126.6 yā́ kaśikéva jáṅgahe ‘she stinks like a weasel’ (with musk/perfume to attract men) In fairness, there is Ku. gǝndzi ‘smell / odor’. Though Kusunda is seen as non-IE, it is an unclassified language, & seems to show many words in common with other nearby IE. Some of these are much closer to Dardic than IE in general, suggesting loans, but others can’t be Dardic loans. Whatever the cause, seeking IE sources for these words, from genetic relation or any other, seems to require more study (2). D. H. (GIŠ)mariyawanna- must be an object of wood (with Su. giš sometimes added), and ‘wooden fence? / top part of a tower / balustrade’ seems to fit. However, its affix -wanna- seems to have nothing to do with anna-wanna- ‘step-mother’ (against Kloekhorst). I would say that other ev. for Anatolian *mr̥yé- ‘bind’ allows *mr̥yómH1no- ‘binding / encircling?’ > *mǝryómnH1o- > *mǝryównH1o-. This takes advantage of *nH1 > nn, *mn > *wn (with other m / w alternation in H.) to show why the common PIE *-mH1no- seemed to disappear. With *mn > *wn here, I also question whether PIE *-meN > Anat. *-weni might also be dsm., instead of spread of the dual. In part : *mer- ‘seize / get / bind’ > *mer-eH1- or *mer-eye- > L. merēre ‘deserve / earn / get / acquire / serve’ *mr̥yómH1no- ‘binding / encircling?’ > *mǝryómnH1o- > *mǝryównH1o- > H. (GIŠ)mariyawanna- ‘wooden fence? / top part of a tower / balustrade’ *mr̥yétaH2- > Ld. *mλatá-, mλata-lad ‘their service? / obligation? / oath?’, mλatañ av. ‘by oath? / as obligated?’ [not *meryétaH2-, since > **maλitá; Garnier] *moráH2- > Lc. mara- ‘law’, maraza- ‘arbiter’ *mortyo- ‘seizing / trap’ > OSw merði, OIc merð ‘fishnet’, *-tsy- > *Att. -tt- > G. mórotton ‘basket made of plaited bark’ *mertró- > Gmc *mirdra- > OSw miœrdher, Sw. mjärd(r)e ‘fish trap (with a funnel-shaped opening)’ E. Kloekhorst had H. marzāezzi ‘crumbles?’, “always of bread that has been broken”. If ‘breaks apart?’ might fit, what of *merdH2-? Though he rejects a connection to S. mṛdnāti, L. mordēre, then why not? The -z- here could be produced by the same *d(h)H > *dzH > (d)z as in other IE (3). This allows : *mordH2o- -> *mordH2óye- > *mordzHóye- > H. marzāezzi ‘crumbles? / breaks apart?’ *mrdH-ne- > *mrdneH- > S. mṛdnāti ‘make weak/soft’ *mordH-eye- > L. mordēre ‘bite / gnaw / eat / devour / erode’, morbus ‘sickness/disease/disorder’, S. mardáyati ‘press / crush / squeeze / destroy / kill / rub (off/away)’ *merdH- > *Hmerd- > G. amérdō ‘deprive / bereave / lose’, *mherd- > mérdei 3s. For *Hmerd- > G. amérdō, *mherd- > mérdei, see H-met. in (Whalen 2025h), which produced attested mh- < *mH- < *m-H- in mhegalo- ‘great’. For Latin morbus ‘sickness/disease/disorder’, since both *dh- > f- and *d- > f existed (maybe secondary, if *dng^hwaH2- > E. tongue, L. dingua, *dhng^waH2- > *ð- > lingua, Umbrian fangva-), it is possible for mordēre to be the source for *mordHus > *mordhus > *morðus > morbus. It is cognate with other words from *mer- like G. maraínō ‘quench / waste away’, ON morna ‘wither / shrivel’ which directly have to do with illness. Also, even in English, “a gnawing disease” used to be a common phrase. Since all this is optional, mord- vs. morb- only supports that PIE *CH had many outcomes.

2007

Cuvânt înainte Volumul de fa!" este al patrulea din seria ini!iat" în 2006 de Editura Funda!iei Evenimentul, cu sprijinul generos al Rosal Grup, f"r" de care nu ar fi putut vedea lumina tiparului în condi!ii grafice deosebite. Astfel, am reu#it s" adun"m, în patru volume succesive, ceea ce a# considera opera lingvistic" major": 1. Lexiconul etimologic al elementelor autohtone (traco!dace) ale limbii române, în contextul în care mo#tenirea arhaic" înc" nu #i!a g"sit locul cuvenit în lucr"rile dedicate istoriei limbii române; 2. $ influen!ele romane #i preromane (trace, ilire) asupra limbilor slave de sud; 3. aproape toate studiile majore de lingvistic" #i de antropologie, publicate-de!a lungul anilor-în diverse reviste de specialitate, din !ar" #i de peste hotare. Acest al patrulea volum cuprinde, în primul rând, lexiconul proto!boreal, elaborat pe baza materialului oferit de lingvistul rus Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, cu multe adnot"ri #i complet"ri, mai ales referitoare la mo#tenirea traco!dac" a limbii române. Acest lexicon completeaz", în fapt, primul volum al acestei serii. Ipoteza lui Andreev nu este nici nou", nici original": cândva, în preistorie, va fi fost un conglomerat etno!lingvistic, numit conven!ional proto!boreal, din care, ulterior, s!au dezvoltat limbile indo!europene, limbile uralice #i limbile altaice, probabil #i limba coreean". Bojan &op (Slovenia) #i Illi%-Svity% (Rusia, Uniunea Sovietic" pe atunci) luaser" în considera!ie o asemenea ipotez", ca s" nu mai amintesc de ipoteza lui Delitzch, avansat" pe la final de secol XIX, care sugera o înrudire primordial" dintre limbile indo!europene #i limbile semite (ipotez" neconfirmat", deocamdat" cel pu!in). Nimeni îns" nu a reu#it, în opinia noastr", s" adune un material a#a de vast #i a#a de conving"tor cum a f"cut Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8 N. D. Andreev. Consecin!ele pentru studierea preistoriei europene sunt extraordinare: înrudirea dintre limbile indo!europene face parte dintr!o "înrudire etno!lingvistic"" mult mai ampl" a majorit"!ii limbilor vorbite în spa!iul euro!asiatic. Am prezentat lucrarea, într!o form" abreviat", la Congresul Interna!ional al Slavi#tilor, Ljubljana, august 2003; aceast" form" final" a dedic"m viitorului congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor, ce urmeaz" a fi organizat de Universitatea din Skopje, Macedonia, în septembrie 2008. Al doilea lexicon al volumului de fa!" cuprinde o list" neexhaustiv", dar ampl", a elementelor autohtone ale limbii române care fac dovada existen!ei unei spirante velare (unii lingvi#ti prefer" s" o numeasc" laringal") în limba traco-dac". Odat" acceptat" existen!a acestui fonem specific, consecin!ele pentru studierea mo#tenirii autohtone se pot modifica radical. Al treilea lexicon cuprinde ceea ce noi consider"m a fi cele o sut! de r!d!cini de baz! ale limbii proto!slave. Este, desigur, o selec!ie subiectiv". Am dorit s" subliniem aici caracterul eterogen a ceea ce se nume#te adesea "limba proto!slav"" sau, mai degrab" incorect, "slava comun"". De fapt, nucleul slav arhaic este bazat, cum încearc" s" arate #i acest lexicon, pe elementele de tip sud!baltic, c"rora li s!au ad"ugat elemente vest iranice #i nord trace (a#a numitele idiomuri proto!slave A, B #i C, respectiv, conform categoriz"rii încercate recent de Aleksandar Loma, tot la amintitul congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor de la Ljubljana) precum #i, ulterior, elemente germanice #i vechi române#ti (protoromâne#ti). În fine, lexiconul minimal al divinit!"ilor lituaniene reia lista publicat", acum ceva ani, ca addendum la traducerea lucr"rii lui Algirdas Julien Greimas, Despre zei !i despre oameni. Fiind primul #i, deocamdat", singurul lexicon mitologic lituanian ap"rut în România, apreciem c" poate fi util unei largi categorii de cititori, fie #i "rupt" de corpul traducerii amintite. Sorin Paliga, iunie 2007 Cuvânt înainte / Foreword __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 Foreword This volume is the fourth in the series initiated in 2006 by Evenimentul Foundation Publishers, and with the generous support of Rosal Group, without which these books could not be published in such beautiful conditions. The four volumes gather together what I may label the major linguistic and anthropological works: 1. The Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, issued at a moment when the archaic heritage of Romanian has not yet found its proper place in the history of the Romanian language; 2. Romance and Pre!Romance (Thracian, Illyrian) influences on South Slavic; 3. Almost all the major studies in linguistics and anthropology, issued over years in various scientific journals, in Romania and abroad. This fourth volume includes, first of all, the Proto!Boreal lexicon, based on the works and analysis of the Russian linguist Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, with many adnotations and additions, especially referring to the Thracian heritage of Romanian. Thus, this volume complements the first of the series. Andreev's hypothesis is not perhaps new or original: some time in prehistory there must have been an ethno!linguistic group, conventionally labelled Proto!Boreal, out of which the Indo!European, Uralic and Altaic languages later emerged, probably Korean as well. Bojan &op (Slovenia) and Illi%!Svity% (Russia, or Soviet Union at that time) considered such a hypothesis, to say nothing of Delitzch's hypothesis, advanced in the 2 nd half of the 19 th century, which assumed a primordial relationship between the Indo!European and Semitic languages (unconfirmed, at least so far). In our opinion nobody else has succeeded in gathering together such a rich and Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10 convincing material as Andreev did; and the consequences for the study of European prehistory are outstanding: the Indo!European relationship is just a chapter in a vast and older relationhip of most Euro!Asianic languages.

Please note that the abbreviation of Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia is SEC. The contents and style of the articles remain the sole responsibility of the authors themselves. The editor declares the on-line version to be the original one. Unpublished non-commissioned works will not be returned.

In this article, I propose two new Indo-European etymologies, as well as comment on and revise one Nostratic etymology originally suggested by Václav Blažek.

AI

Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 2006

This paper is a sequel to New and Old Samoyed Etymologies published in FUF 56, offering etymological equations between Samoyed and Finno-Ugric languages, including both new etymologies and arguments supporting previous comparisons that have not been accepted in the strictest modern treatments of the Proto-Uralic lexicon. A total of fourteen Samoyed word families are analyzed as inherited from Proto-Uralic.

Plurilingualism in Traditional Eurasian Scholarship: Thinking in Many Tongues (Brill), 2023

The present chapter gathers under the heading “etymology” premodern texts from different ages and places that all had a tremendous and lasting impact on the intellectual life of the countless people who were brought up in the respective cultures. The common denominator of all those texts is that they deal with the subject of the origin and meaning of individual words. The scholarly practice of etymology seems to have been very widespread geographically and historically in earlier times, and it continues to remain an object of great interest for ordinary people throughout the world even today.1 The different kinds of spoken languages and writing systems that have been involved and the different roles and ambitions of scholars in their cultures have led to considerable variation in the nature of the practice. Moreover, in the past two centuries, as the historical study of language has developed into an academic discipline, at first in Europe but then also in those other parts of the world most influenced by European ideas, a new science of etymology has become established that differs radically in theory and method from all earlier practices.2 During the earlier period, plurilingualism played only sometimes, but not always, a decisive role in analyzing and understanding language diversity on the level of the individual word; but in later forms during that period plurilingualism tended to become much more prominent, and it has become an indispensable foundation of more recent scientific practice. The purpose of this introduction is to sketch out briefly a panoramic overview of the changing nature of etymology in the context of the reality of plurilingualism, considering its cultural and linguistic variations and its historical development, especially in premodern times, and thereby to set into a wider context the readings that are provided in this part …

Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 2002

The paper discusses etymological equations between Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric languages. The presentation includes both new etymologies and comments on previously presented comparisons that have been ignored or rejected in the strictest treatments of Uralic historical phonology. A total of 28 Samoyedic word families are subjected to etymological analysis, and several other etymologies are briefly commented upon. It is argued that even in a framework of relatively strict sound laws, the number of Proto-Uralic etymologies with Samoyedic cognates turns out to be higher than the most critical estimates presented earlier.

Linguistica Uralica, 2013

This paper is the first part in a series of studies that present additions to the corpus of etymological comparisons between the Uralic languages, drawing data from all the major branches of the language family. It includes both previously unnoticed cognates that can be added to already established Uralic cognate sets, as well as a few completely new reconstructions of Uralic word roots. In this first part new Uralic etymologies for the following Saami words are discussed: North Saami báhtarit ’flee, escape’ (< PU *pätäri-), cáhkit ’put (into), stick into’ (< PU *čäkä-), čoska ’block of wood’ (< PU *čučki), fađđut ’beat, lash, slap’ (< PU *widi-), guodja ’flower stalk or seed shell of a sedge’ (< PU *kaji), guolmmas ’soft, white inner bark of conifers’ (< PU *kolmis), vuođđu ’bottom, foundation’ (< PU *ad́i-), and South Saami muhtsies ’slovenly, untidy, messy’ (< PU *muča) and vïekedh ’grab, take hold of’ (< PU *wexi-), and Ter Saami cāx̜̄p̜ed ’make corner joints (in building logs)’ (< PU *či̮ppa-).

Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 15(2), 2024

This article discusses the etymology of four Mari words: Proto-Mari *čükte-'light, set fire to', *poδəla-'spoon, slurp', *pükte-'brood (eggs)', and *püəž-'sweat'. After examining the words structurally, an argument is put forth that the words represent historical derivatives. This analysis is the key to unlocking their phonological development, which then allows us to find suitable cognates elsewhere in Uralic. It is concluded that Proto-Mari *čükte-'light, set fire to' has a cognate in Saami, e.g. SaaN cahkat 'smolder', while *poδəla-'spoon, slurp' belongs to the well-established cognate set Proto-Uralic *pala-'eat up'. Proto-Mari *pükte-'brood (eggs)' is proposed as a cognate of Saami *pive̮ -'stay warm, withstand cold'. It is tentatively suggested in the article that *püəž-'sweat' belongs etymologically together with Proto-Mari *pükte-'brood' and Proto-Saami *pive̮ -'stay warm, withstand cold'. Whether these represent a separate Proto-Uralic etymon *pejwə-'stay warm' or whether they belong together with PU *päjwä 'sun, heat, warm(th)' is also explored. These findings, despite some of the uncertainties involved in their specific interpretation, highlight the importance of taking historical derivation into account in etymology.

Celtica, 2020

Review of new edition of "O'Mulconry's Glossary" by P. Moran = De Origine Scoticae Linguae (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis: Lexica Latina Medii Aevi VII). in Celtica 32(2020)272-4

2025

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

2025

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 34-39 (Draft) 34. *(s)pi(H)k- *(s)pi(H)no- > L. spīnus ‘briar’, spīna ‘thorn / spine / backbone’, R. spiná ‘back’, TA spin-, OHG spinela *(s)pei(H)no- > B. poinɔ ‘sharp’ *spiH(o)n- > L. spiō̆nia \ spīnea ‘a kind of grape-vine’, OI sían ‘foxglove’, MI síon, Gae. sian ‘pile of grass / beard of barley’, OW fionou p., MW ffion ‘rose / purple foxglove’ *pinH- > Gmc *finno: \ *fino:n- > OE finn, NHG Finne, Sw. fina \ fime ‘fin’, Nw. finn ‘grass bristles’, MHG vinne ‘nail’ *(s)piHk- > ON spíkr ‘nail’, L. spīca ‘ear (of grain)’, G. pikrós ‘pointed/sharp’ L. pīcus, *spikto- > NHG Specht ‘woodpecker’ *spiHkalyo- > *sfi:kalyos > Sc. *fi:skalyos > Sic. Thìscali ‘a mtn.’ *piHk-piHk- > TB piśpik ‘woman’s breasts?’, *piHk-tr(o-m) > piśtär ‘goiter / boil?’ *piHk-tos- > L. pectus nu., pectora p. ‘front of the chest’ Some with loss of *H could be simplification of *-x^k- > *-k(^)- if H1 = x^ or R^ (Whalen 2024b). *piHk-piHk- > TB piśpik ‘woman’s breasts?’, *piHk-tr(o-m) > piśtär ‘goiter / boil?’ seem needed. If from *piHki-piHki or similar (Adams), what kind of form would it be? Why not then ** piśpiś ? If the dual of body parts could be indicated by doubling, then *piHk-s would match *pup-s ‘breast’ as a C-stem. In standard *i: > T. *äy > TB ī, likely that *-ykC- > *-yk^C-. If also *piHk-tos- > L. pectus ‘front of the chest’, then *pi- > pe- by analogy with *pes- (35). In *pinH- > Gmc *finno:, *nH > *nn likely; other ex. (Whalen 2024a) : > 2. *nomH1o- > G. nómos, Dor. noûmmos ‘usage / custom / law’ Dor. noûmmos used -ou- to spell /u/ vs. /ü/ in other dialects & shows o > u/n_m (G. ónoma, Dor/ Aeo. ónuma ‘name’); retained *H is seen in *mH > m(m) also in *kmH2aro- > ON humarr, NHG Hummer ‘lobster’, G. kám(m)aros, *kmH2ar-to- > S. kamaṭha- ‘turtle / tortoise’ (the same for *h from *s in *k(^)e\o-mus- > Li. kermùšė, OHG ramusia, OE hramsa ‘wild garlic’, G. krómuon \ krém(m)uon ‘onion’). Lack of regularity also seen in *tomHo- > tomós ‘cutting/sharp’, tómos ‘slice’, all derivatives of *domH2- ‘house’, etc. Something like this might also be behind some variation in *-mHC- > -m- / -mm- / etc.: *k^emH2-dho- > Gmc. *ximda- > E. hind, *k^emdhH2o- > *kemtho- > G. kemphás \ kem(m)ás ‘young deer’; *psamH2dho- > G. psámathos \ psámmos ‘sand’. Maybe the same for Gmc. -m(m)- in *b(h)remH1- > *brim(m)- > OE bremman; *ramH2-? > ON ram(m)r ‘powerful/mighty/strong/bitter’, OE ramm ‘ram’ (*raH2m- > OCS raměnŭ ‘severe’). Also for *nH, *g^onHeye- > S. janáyati, Go. kannjan ‘make known’. With many ex., I see no need for kannjan to be analogical to kunnan. That *g^noH3H1- ‘know’ really contained 2 H’s is seen by the need for n-present *g^noH3H1-ne- > *g^nH3neH1- > S. jānā́ti \ jānīté. A similar outcome in T. *knānā-tär > TB nanātär ‘appear/be presented’ > 35. *pstV(:)no- ‘(woman’s) breast’ Li. spenỹs, Lt. spenis ‘nipple / teat / uvula’, ON speni, OE spane ‘teat’, OI sine, S. stána- ‘female breast, nipple’, MP pestān, NP pistān ‘breast’, Av. fštāna-, TA päśśäṁ, TB; päścane du. OI bó tri-phne ‘three-teated cow’, YAv. ǝrǝdva-fšnī- ‘full-breasted’ These show differing *-V-, also long vs. short. If S. viśvá-psn[i]ya- meant ‘all-nourishing/ feeding’, it is unrelated (bhas-, bábhasti \ bápsati ‘chew / devour’, etc.). G. stḗnion \ stêthos ‘breast / breast-shaped hill’, Ar. stin ‘female breast’ don’t seem unrelated, but *pst- > pt- (like *pstr-nu- > Ar. p’ṙngam ‘sneeze’, G. ptárnumai, L. sternuere), so not directly. If PIE *stH2-eH1- intr. ‘stand up/out’ formed *stH2eH1-no- \ *stH2aH1-no- ‘what stands out / protrudes’ (with either H coloring *e), then later opt. dsm. of H > *stH2eno- \ *stH2ano- in some branches would fit all data. For others, a compound with *pes- ‘swell’ (*pes-no\ni- ‘penis’) for ‘woman’s breast’ could give *pes-stH2eH1-no- \ *pstH2aH1-no- \ etc., which would fit all data from the 1st group

2016

The paper focuses on some problems of word formation in Estonian and Finnic, which are etymologically relevant. Diachronic derivational relations may not be ascertained by the synchronic approach, e.g. either due to sound changes in the stem (cf. Estonian kõõl-us ‘tendon, string’ and keel ‘tongue; language; string’), or because a root does not occur separately or is rare. A suffix may have been dropped from active use or is subject to extensive variation, e.g., many Estonian verb stems containing the component -ka, -ki, -ku etc. (kilka-ma ‘to scream’) could be interpreted as derivatives with respective suffixes (kil-ka-ma, cf. kil-ise-ma ‘to clink’). The interpretation of the morphological structure of loanwords is often complicated. The loanwords may contain derivational suffixes of the donor language, sometimes even resembling genuine ones, e.g. Estonian lusikas, Finnish lusikka ’spoon’ does not contain historically the Finnic suffix -k(k)a but is borrowed from Old Russian lŭžĭka....

• Explore
• Papers
• Topics

• Features
• Mentions
• Analytics
• PDF Packages
• Advanced Search
• Search Alerts

• Journals
• Academia.edu Journals
• My submissions
• Reviewer Hub
• Why publish with us
• Testimonials

• Company
• About
• Careers
• Press
• Help Center
• Terms
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Content Policy