Zompist Bboard Again

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2026 3:31 pm

hwhatting wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2026 4:20 am

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2026 6:50 amGreek lýkos has no trace of *kʷ.

No trace is to be expected; in accordance with the boukolos rule (named after a word in where it applies), PIE *k^w became /k/ after /*u/ in Greek (boukolos goes back to PIE *g^wow-k^wolo-).

OK. Are there other evidences of *kʷ in this word?

Um the fact that the alternation with *p is much harder to justify otherwise?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2026 4:28 pmUm the fact that the alternation with *p is much harder to justify otherwise?

But we've got already another root *wĺ̥p- which would explain both Germanic *wulfaz and Latin vulpēs, and lupus would deriva from a metathesized *lup-.

The problem is that reflexes of *wĺ̥kʷos consistently mean "wolf" and reflexes of *h₂welp-, while a little more diverse, converge on "fox", but your solution of *h₂wlp-os > *(h₂)lup-os > lupus uses the "fox" root to mean "wolf" while also keeping *h₂w(o)lp-is > volpes. As such you've got to explain why there's two different words in Latin (and Greek) for very different animals from the same root, bearing in mind you've rejected a solution which posits a loanword from Osco-Umbrian and keeps wolf and fox words in their own lanes, so if you suggest a loanword you've constructed a strictly more complex solution and cut yourself on Occam's razor.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2026 6:05 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2026 4:28 pmUm the fact that the alternation with *p is much harder to justify otherwise?

But we've got already another root *wĺ̥p- which would explain both Germanic *wulfaz and Latin vulpēs, and lupus would deriva from a metathesized *lup-.

But then you have to justify why the same exact metathesis just happened to occur in both Latin and Hellenic despite one having *p and one having *kʷ.

@talskubilos: If you want to engage in discussions on PIE, at least check the etymological dictionaries and handbooks before asking questions. I don't have the time to look things up for you. If you search for "boukolos rule", you'll find a lot of information; there even is a wikipedia article. (And if, as you seem to endeavour, want to challenge the current consensus, don't stop at WP articles; go read the articles in which the rule was proposed and discussed.)

hwhatting wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 2:11 am @talskubilos: If you want to engage in discussions on PIE, at least check the etymological dictionaries and handbooks before asking questions. I don't have the time to look things up for you. If you search for "boukolos rule", you'll find a lot of information; there even is a wikipedia article. (And if, as you seem to endeavour, want to challenge the current consensus, don't stop at WP articles; go read the articles in which the rule was proposed and discussed.)

I second this advice!

BTW: I do think that an etymological connection between 'fox' and 'wolf' is not absurd. These animals are similar enough, they both belong to the family Canidae, and are a hazard for livestock, even if a fox is much smaller than a wolf, and for that reason preys mainly on fowl, lambs and the like rather than on adult sheep or cows. Yet, they were of course distinct concepts and cannot easily be equated.

Ketsuban wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2026 10:09 pmThe problem is that reflexes of *wĺ̥kʷos consistently mean "wolf" and reflexes of *h₂welp-, while a little more diverse, converge on "fox", but your solution of *h₂wlp-os > *(h₂)lup-os > lupus uses the "fox" root to mean "wolf" while also keeping *h₂w(o)lp-is > volpes. As such you've got to explain why there's two different words in Latin (and Greek) for very different animals from the same root, bearing in mind you've rejected a solution which posits a loanword from Osco-Umbrian and keeps wolf and fox words in their own lanes, so if you suggest a loanword you've constructed a strictly more complex solution and cut yourself on Occam's razor.

In the std theory, *wĺ̥kʷ- and *wĺ̥p- are very similar roots with metathesized variants referring to furred wild animals, but the first specialized in 'wolf', while the other remained less specific. The only difference is I reject *wĺ̥kʷ- for lack of direct evidence of a labiovelar and so I assign *wulfaz and lupus to *wĺ̥p- instead. So having lupus and vulpēs in Latin is no more strange than having λύκος and ἀλώπηξ In Greek.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 2:50 amBTW: I do think that an etymological connection between 'fox' and 'wolf' is not absurd. These animals are similar enough, they both belong to the family Canidae, and are a hazard for livestock, even if a fox is much smaller than a wolf, and for that reason preys mainly on fowl, lambs and the like rather than on adult sheep or cows. Yet, they were of course distinct concepts and cannot easily be equated.

Exactly, and the fact that both animals were perceived as similar hazards to livestock suggests the semantic latitude of *wĺ̥p- was and motivated, not accidental. The specialization into 'wolf' vs 'fox' happened independently in different branches, which is exactly what we'd expect from an ancient root with a broad meaning (as a rule of thumb, the wider the semantic latitude, the older is the word). By contrast, Wanderwörter such as 'horse' or 'wheel' have more specific meanings and tend to drift less.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 3:47 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 2:50 amBTW: I do think that an etymological connection between 'fox' and 'wolf' is not absurd. These animals are similar enough, they both belong to the family Canidae, and are a hazard for livestock, even if a fox is much smaller than a wolf, and for that reason preys mainly on fowl, lambs and the like rather than on adult sheep or cows. Yet, they were of course distinct concepts and cannot easily be equated.

Exactly, and the fact that both animals were perceived as similar hazards to livestock suggests the semantic latitude of *wĺ̥p- was and motivated, not accidental. The specialization into 'wolf' vs 'fox' happened independently in different branches, which is exactly what we'd expect from an ancient root with a broad meaning (as a rule of thumb, the wider the semantic latitude, the older is the word). By contrast, Wanderwörter such as 'horse' or 'wheel' have more specific meanings and tend to drift less.

I think they were different roots in PIE, but of course, PIE itself has a long history (which, however, is hard to recover), and the two roots may contain a common element (something like *wal- or *Hwal-, though we can't say much about the vowel), so they are different derivations, with different suffixes, from that common element.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 4:32 amI think they were different roots in PIE, but of course, PIE itself has a long history (which, however, is hard to recover), and the two roots may contain a common element (something like *wal- or *Hwal-, though we can't say much about the vowel), so they are different derivations, with different suffixes, from that common element.

My point is this could be the same which gave *(h₂)welh₁- 'fur, animal hair', from which derive Latin vellus and lāna. In my opinion, roots with zero-grade reflect a triconsonantal structure similar to Semitic and older than the std PIE Ablaut *e/o.

What is the most complete PIU "reconstruction" available to you or that you have made?

Brilliant-Resource14 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 9:41 am What is the most complete PIU "reconstruction" available to you or that you have made?

There are no reasonably complete PIU reconstructions, of course, at least not ones that are more than just sheer crackpotry. The majority opinion among relevant scholars is that there is insufficient evidence (not no evidence, just insufficient evidence) for such a hypothesis. What seems most promising to me is this, written by Martin Joachim Kümmel, an academic Indo-Europeanist, even if it just proposes some sound correspondences.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 10:45 am

Brilliant-Resource14 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 9:41 am What is the most complete PIU "reconstruction" available to you or that you have made?

There are no reasonably complete PIU reconstructions, of course, at least not ones that are more than just sheer crackpotry. The majority opinion among relevant scholars is that there is insufficient evidence (not no evidence, just insufficient evidence) for such a hypothesis. What seems most promising to me is this, written by Martin Joachim Kümmel, an academic Indo-Europeanist, even if it just proposes some sound correspondences.

here is an ongoing PIU reconstruction i'm part of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1620298213

Brilliant-Resource14 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 3:40 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 10:45 am

Brilliant-Resource14 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 9:41 am What is the most complete PIU "reconstruction" available to you or that you have made?

There are no reasonably complete PIU reconstructions, of course, at least not ones that are more than just sheer crackpotry. The majority opinion among relevant scholars is that there is insufficient evidence (not no evidence, just insufficient evidence) for such a hypothesis. What seems most promising to me is this, written by Martin Joachim Kümmel, an academic Indo-Europeanist, even if it just proposes some sound correspondences.

here is an ongoing PIU reconstruction i'm part of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1620298213

Thank you! I have bookmarked it, and will take a look at it when I find the leisure to do so.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2026 3:32 am

Brilliant-Resource14 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 3:40 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 10:45 am

There are no reasonably complete PIU reconstructions, of course, at least not ones that are more than just sheer crackpotry. The majority opinion among relevant scholars is that there is insufficient evidence (not no evidence, just insufficient evidence) for such a hypothesis. What seems most promising to me is this, written by Martin Joachim Kümmel, an academic Indo-Europeanist, even if it just proposes some sound correspondences.

here is an ongoing PIU reconstruction i'm part of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1620298213

Thank you! I have bookmarked it, and will take a look at it when I find the leisure to do so.

I hope you will enjoy it

Brilliant-Resource14 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2026 12:00 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2026 3:32 am

Brilliant-Resource14 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2026 3:40 pm

here is an ongoing PIU reconstruction i'm part of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1620298213

Thank you! I have bookmarked it, and will take a look at it when I find the leisure to do so.

I hope you will enjoy it

Whenever there's a new correspondence/cognate pair, I make sure it makes sense

Hi, folks! I've found recently this website purporting a relationship between AfroAsiatic and IE by Robert Cerantonio. I wrote him some comments (which are "awating moderation", i.e. on a shadow ban) pointing out inconsistences such as AA has a verbal agglutinative morphology while IE has a flexive one (although if Rodríguez Adrados was correct, it would have evolved from an agglutinative one), as well as the AA 1st personal pronoum ˀan-Vk- (Semitic *ˀanāku) would correspond to IE *h₁eg-om 'I', but he qualifies as a crackpot.

Talskubilos wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2026 3:08 am Hi, folks! I've found recently this website purporting a relationship between AfroAsiatic and IE by Robert Cerantonio. I wrote him some comments (which are "awating moderation", i.e. on a shadow ban) pointing out inconsistences such as AA has a verbal agglutinative morphology while IE has a flexive one (although if Rodríguez Adrados was correct, it would have evolved from an agglutinative one), as well as the AA 1st personal pronoum ˀan-Vk- (Semitic *ˀanāku) would correspond to IE *h₁eg-om 'I', but he qualifies as a crackpot.

I know that blog, and while I wouldn't write him off as a crackpot, I am not convinced, and I don't think IE and AA are meaningfully related, even if IE and at least Semitic seem to share some Neolithic Wanderwörter. I still think that PIE was a language related to Proto-Uralic heavily altered by a substratum related to NW Caucasian, an idea that C. C. Uhlenbeck already had in 1935, and now seems to be confirmed by genetics, even if the geneticists interpret their results differently, But that is admittedly just a hypothesis that may be misguided.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2026 4:40 am I still think that PIE was a language related to Proto-Uralic heavily altered by a substratum related to NW Caucasian,

I agree with this. It would explain the great vowel collapse.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2026 4:40 am I know that blog, and while I wouldn't write him off as a crackpot, I am not convinced, and I don't think IE and AA are meaningfully related, even if IE and at least Semitic seem to share some Neolithic Wanderwörter. I still think that PIE was a language related to Proto-Uralic heavily altered by a substratum related to NW Caucasian, an idea that C. C. Uhlenbeck already had in 1935, and now seems to be confirmed by genetics, even if the geneticists interpret their results differently, But that is admittedly just a hypothesis that may be misguided.

You can always look at relating PIE and Afroasiatic (AA) as a prelude to relating Mitian to AA. As someone who is professionally used to work with noisy data (specifically from radar), it saddens me that comparativists can't work with noisy (a.k.a. dodgy) data.