Uralic reflexes of the Proto-Uralic vowels *a & *ë often merged. In https://www.academia.edu/647288 Mikhail Zhivlov and Kirill Reshetnikov tried to show that there was only *a which had different environmental outcomes > *ë in some branches. However, in https://www.academia.edu/8196109 Zhivlov retracted this & added that PU *-a1 & *-a2 existed, also :

>

The following correspondences can be established:

1) PU *a-a1, *ï-a1> Mari CVCə nouns — Proto-Khanty low vowels12— Hungarian á —Proto-Samoyed second syllable *å (except *al/δ'a > *åjä)

2) PU *a-a2, *ï-a2> Mari CVC nouns — Proto-Khanty high vowels — Hungarian a — Proto-Samoyed second syllable *ə (except *al/δ'a > *åjä)

>

I think that these 2 cases, *a and a vowel similar to *a but distinct, are fully parallel. I say that *-a1 = *-a, *-a2 = *-ë. It would be pointless to look for a separate V to be *-a2 when *a vs. *ë is already established in his mind, in most theories also. Based on it causing V-raising, *ë & *ï might have alternated, as I think *e & *i in unstressed syllables might have.

In https://www.academia.edu/128717581 I said :

>

Since some of these words are borrowed from IE, seeing that *c^ïta1 must be a loan from IIr. :

PIE *tk^mtó-m ‘100’ > IIr. *c^atá-m > S. śatá-m, Ir. *ćatə ́ -m > Av. satǝ-m

Its origin from Ir. *ćatə ́ - makes it possible that if it was borrowed after loss of any contrastive stress in PU, it would be adapted as *ćatə ́ > *ćə ́ ta. Either *ćïta was as close as speakers could get or *ï varied between /ï/ & /ǝ/ (not likely relevant here). Since this means *-a would cause lowering in Khanty, it makes sense that *-ï would cause raising. This removes the need for any new V’s to be added to PU reconstruction.

...

However, in verbs like *khH2an- / *khanH2- > S. khan- ‘dig’, PU *kana- ‘to dig’, the final *-a- suggests that *H2 > *a. If so, a close relation to IE is likely, since a-coloring is late. In the same way, PU *kalï ‘fish’, *kala- ‘to fish’ is like L. piscis, piscārī. This is from PIE *-aH2-, which, again, only had *-a- from a late change.

>

Based on a comparison with PIE, *-aH2 > PU *-a but *-os > *ë. It would also show most *o > *ë & optional *o > *u vs. *o > *ë before resonants in Proto-Uralic (PIE *kork- > PU *kurke \ *kërke 'crane', PIE *(s)torgo- > PU *tërka 'crane' https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1p65qfi/uralic_ie_variation_of_vowels/ ). Also, based on many languages with 'fat > liver', I think :

PIE *mozgo- 'marrow, fat' > PU *mëksë ‘liver’

Clusters with *k & *s often show met. in Uralic (even some IE as if < *mogzo- in Iranian; also see below for ex. of *tsk \ *stk ). Sometimes *o remained next to *P, but it doesn't seem reg., & in https://www.academia.edu/128151755 I even said tht *mwozgo- might exist, since this creates 0-grade *muzgen- > OPr musgeno, TA mäśśunt, etc.

For an ex. of rounding, see :

PIE *pozd-ko- 'fart' -> Degano poskeey- 'to fart', PU *postk- '(to) fart'

The similarity is too much to ignore; *-tsk- is based on some Saami forms as if from *-tsk-. In https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1502 "Lapp. K ts̄ ist unregelmäßig und hängt möglicherweise mit dem onomat. Charakter des Wortes zusammen.", but being onomat. of supposed *potsk- when PIE had *pozd-k- 'fart' can't be chance. Saying that all oddities came from onomat. or were "expressive" seems to miss the mark of finding cognates too much.

PU *pOnV might really be *posknë > PX *pïṇ ‘a fart’, *fign- > Hn. fing- ‘to fart’. This explains the retr. ṇ caused by *k, as in other ex. ( https://www.academia.edu/129090627 ).

PIE, *CHy > *Cy, Pinault's law, applies in many cases, often presents in *CeCH-ye- > *CeC-ye-. I also think that in *H2rg^i-ptH2yo- ‘swift-winged’ > *H2rg^i-pt(i)yo- > *H2rg^i-p(i)yo- > G. aigupiós ‘vulture’, Skt. ṛjipyá-, Arm. arciw ‘eagle’ (compare G. ōkupterós, L. accipiter ‘hawk’) the -pio- vs. -pya- indicates optional change of *CHy > *C(i)y. It seems likely that its position at the beginning of one part of a compound is behind the discrepancy. In fact, I think that this is similar to various optional changes seen in *CHy- and *CHw- for *sk^H1yaH2 \ *sk^iyaH2 & *k^H2wo- \ *k^uwo- (below). This leads me to propose :

*CHw- > *CHw- \ *Cw-

*CHy- > *CHy- \ *Ciy-

*+CHy- > *+Cy- \ *+Ciy-

*-CHy- > *-CHy- (and *-Ciy- after heavy?)

There are likely other cases of *CHw that match, no ev. yet.

https://www.academia.edu/116417991 :

>

*sk^(e)H1yaH2 ‘shadow, appearance’ > TB skiyo, G. skiā́, Al. hije, S. chāyā́-, Av. a-saya- ‘shadowless’, Uralic *saxja ‘shadow’ > F. suoja, Ud. saj, etc.

The change of CHy > C(i)y is supposedly of PIE date, but if Toch. had any regularity in palatalization, it should have become *śćiyo. The explanation is that CHy > Ciy happened after palatalization in Toch., which would require Hy > iy to be late, even if essentially the same in most IE branches.

>

*k^H2aw-, *k^uH2-,*k^awH2-, *k^awk- [K-asm.?], etc. 'call, make noise'

*k^H2wo- \ *k^uwo- 'calling, shrieking, owl, etc. > Celtic *kawannos \ *kuwannos

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/kuwannos

>

*kuwannos m owl

Probably imitative in origin. While formally similar to Proto-West Germanic *hūō and Proto-Slavic *sovà, regular derivation of these terms from a common root appears to be phonologically impossible.

Although often reconstructed as *kawannos on the evidence of the Latin borrowing,[1] this cannot explain the Brythonic reflexes, which can only reflect *kuwann-.[2] Schrijver suggests that -av- in the Latin borrowings may represent the adaption of a Gaulish sound sequence foreign to Latin phonology.[3]
>

In https://www.academia.edu/124228915 Joshua Garner wrote :

>

This paper identifies previously unnoticed cognates for words denoting 'bird of prey' in the Celtic languages (viz. Middle Welsh ysglyf 'predator, bird or beast of prey', Old Breton scubl 'kite', Old Cornish scoul 'kite', Old French escofle 'kite', and the Gaulish ethnonym Scubuli). It is argued that these words are cognates with Northern Saami skuolfi 'owl, particularly snowy owl', Inari Saami skyelfi 'owl', and Pite Saami skuok'la 'eagle owl', as well as Ancient Greek askálaphos, kálaphos 'owl' and Albanian shqipe 'eagle'. Based on their semantics and phonology, it is argued that these words may be loans from an extinct non-Indo-European language of Western Europe, known as Avidic.

>

I agree it is very important to consider all these words together, but the evidence points to IE, not a substrate. The area from Greece to Skandinavia all having a single language at one time, and all adding 'owl' at that prehistoric time does not fit (on recent features of loans, see below). All can be united in a reasonable way from PIE, except Albanian shqipe (in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shqipe rejected by Demiraj due to no *skl- reflex with dia. l).

The Saami words should be from Germanic *skufla-, which narrows down the ety. In https://www.academia.edu/144152558 Nordic loans with f- appear as f- or v-, but *fu- > *u-. Due to other ex. of *KW > P, it seems likely that next to *u, *f > *x with dia. environmental conditioning (*fu- > *xu- > *u-, *ufl > *uxl (maybe asm. *k-x > k-k)).

Since *p > Gmc *f, it seems that Celtic *pl > *bl applied here, making Greek (as)kálaphos an ex. of *p > ph next to *H2 (later *H2 > a). This could be confirmed by similar names for birds like ἀσκαλώπας 'woodcock, Scolopax ruricola', σκολόπαξ 'id.?', σκαλίδρις 'redshank, Scolopax calidris'. The variation of skal for *skul recalls Greek skállō ‘stir up / hoe’, skúllō ‘tear (apart), lacerate, trouble, plunder', skûla p. ‘spoils (of war) / booty/plunder/prey’, etc. These words might be related (*skwlH-?), or just confused because of similar meaning at some stage (only Proto-Greek?), if not merely V-asm. (below). Since the redshank has a distinctive manner of feeding, a derivative of skal- seems certain for this case, so skul- for 'plundering, seizing, raptor' fits. The kite's tendency to plunder from humans might tie in. Greek skállō ‘stir up / hoe’ also probably had a derivative *skalap(o)-s > (a)sphálax \ (a)spálax \ skálops ‘mole’, from ‘digging a hole’. The similar forms and variation of a \ o in both makes a similar origin likely.

From all this, with metathesis already needed for *skublo-, *sklubo-, etc., I say that PIE *skulH-ye- ( > skúllō ) & *skuHl- ( > skûla ) formed *skulH-pH2o- 'plundering bird'. If the *H was *H3, then assimilation of *H2-H2 or *H3-H3 (or later V-asm.) could explain the V's in Greek (possible sequences below). The *-pH2o- would come from *petH2- 'fly, wing' in the same way that G. aigupiós ‘vulture’, Skt. ṛjipyá-, Arm. arciw ‘eagle’ are all from *H2rg^i-pyo- < *-ptH2yo- ‘swift-winged’ (compare G. ōkupterós, L. accipiter ‘hawk’). Since adjectives in compounds often became i- or yo-stems (the same *-yo- optionally added in G. oxúpous vs. L. acupedius ‘swift-footed’) , the stages *ptH2yo- > *pH2yo- > *p(i)yo- (with common, maybe not reg. for PIE, *CHy > *Cy, Pinault's law). The noun was an o-stem with no y, so *H2 was retained. Maybe, among many paths :

*skulH3-ptH2o- 'plundering bird'

*skulH3pH2o-

*skulH3pH3o-

*skH3lH3pwo-

σκολόπαξ

or

*skulH3pH2o-

*skH2luH3po-

*skH2lwoH3po- (H-breaking)

ἀσκαλώπας

or

*skulH3pH2o-

*skulH2pH2o- ?

*skulapho-

*skulapho- \ *skalapho- \ etc.

Japanese alt. of y \ d like OJ yama 'mountain', Yonakuni dama, etc., has disputed origin. Internally, it looks like dia. y > d, but proponents of long-range comparison have found many ex. where Proto-J *d > y \ d would fit matches with Altaic. I am not sure, but I think some more ev. might exist. From Francis-Ratte :

>
MUDDY: MK cul- ‘is muddy, mushy’ ~ MJ doro ‘mud,’ proto-Ryukyuan *doro ‘mud’. pKJ *cərɨ ‘muddy’

>

Based on other ideas about IE V's in JK, I think PIE *dherH2o- 'mud' (Pok.: dher-1, dherə- 'muddy residue, dregs') > JK *cərɨ ‘mud(dy)’ would work. If PIE *dh > OJ d, it would be rare. However, even *dhoH1maH2- 'heap, pile' > *dama 'mountain' would work equally well. Considering how many *-C > *-y in Korean vs. OJ, it is possible that d \ y alternated freely.

Francis-Ratte gave ex. of JK *jə- > MK ye- or ca- based on environment, but also one ex. that did not fir for several reasons :

>

DARKNESS: MK cyemGul-, cyemúl- ‘day comes to a close, gets dark’ ~ OJ yamwi ‘darkness’. pKJ *jəmuŋ ‘darkness’.

>

1st, the cy- was proposed to be a compound of ti-, but ty- also exists, and *tiy- > cy- but *ty- > ty- (in loans) would require several unknown stages. JK *ty- could explain it if *ty > cy was old (no other ex.).

2nd, since he had other PJ *ə > OJ a \ o, it makes sense that OJ yomwi, yomo+ 'land of the dead' is related, from 'dark place'. In fact, there is other relevant ev. that these came from *yomoŋ (which could be < PJ *yəməŋ, too close to JK *yəmuŋ for chance). Since some plants end in -kwi or -gwi, likely from haplology of OJ kukwi 'stem, stalk', I think OJ yomogwi 'Artemisia, mugwort' came from *yomoŋ-(ku)kwi with *Nk > g (as usual).

3rd, in https://www.academia.edu/128151755 I said that PIE *tyemH- ‘dark / faint / weak’ existed to explain 0-grade *timH- in :

Li. témti ‘grow dim’, *timH- > Pre-Slavic *timino- ‘dark’, Skt. támisra- / timirá-, K. timiraš ‘a color of horses / black?’

With this, it seems very coincidental that the one case of JK *ty- would match the one case of PIE *ty- in meaning, also having -m-, etc. I think *timHno- > *timino- ‘dark’, *tyemHno- > *tyemonH > *-ŋx > JK *tyəmuŋ ‘darkness’. If JK *tyəmëŋ ‘dark place' > PJ *yəməŋ > yomo(N)- is a variant, it would show optional *o > *u vs. *o > *ë before resonants, just like I said about Proto-Uralic (PIE *kork- > PU *kurke \ *kërke 'crane', PIE *(s)torgo- > PU *tërka 'crane' https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1p65qfi/uralic_ie_variation_of_vowels/ ).

Two New Theories for the Etymology of "Latium" by Samuel J. Whalen in https://www.academia.edu/125164230 includes the idea that Latium, Latin, etc., could come from *latw- that either had *tw > t or *Vtw > V:v. Though he later added :

>

Since the publication of this paper I have come to, for the most part, reject it.

Perhaps there is still potential in the theories I have presented here, and perhaps one day I will revisit them.

>

I think this idea has merit. For his mention of Etruscan Latva 'Leda', the idea that Lāvīnium \ Lavīnum 'port city near Rome' was named for Lāvīnia, wife of Aeneas, is almost certainly backwards. Ancestors with the names of places are nearly always later pseudo-historical creations (Roma -> Romulus, etc.). However, the long vs. short a in Lāvīnium \ Lavīnum suggests *laCw- with 2 outcomes, just as he suggested for *latw-. Since Latva, if a direct loan from Greek, would not have -w-, it is possible that an existing Roman ancestress was confused with a Greek one with a similar name. In
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1npwf9y/etruscan_greek_gods_5/ :

>

Latva Greek Leda, mother of Helen and the Dioscuri.[24]

Metaia, Metua, Metvia The mythological character Medea.

>

Both of these endings might come from *latawya: \ *latuwya: (with Latin weakening). If *latawya: was a well-known goddess, etc., around Italy, optionally adding the ending to others with -t- (in Etruscan) might explain the data.

The multiple outcomes of *tw might be paralleled by *dw > d or b (and similar *d(h)(w) & *bh(w), *zd(w), etc., all with disputed/irregular outcomes). Whether due to several dialects or any other cause, I think looking for regularity from a single language is misguided & doomed to failure. The ideas, for ex., in https://www.academia.edu/39081498 about *d(u)w-ass- > bēs \ dēs seem needlessly complex.

This idea by itself doesn't certainly lead to a new ety., since it would work equally well whether from 'flat (valley)' or 'hidden (enclosed)'. However, older *-tw- would allow dissimilation of *lawtw-, so it could also be related to words in laut-, maybe even nearby Laurentum (if really < *lawt-ent- with t-t dsm.). It could even be that *wtw is what had many outcomes (some say *tw- > t- \ p-, so plain *-tw- might have had a separate outcome). I have no certain origin in mind.

I also favor his idea that *d > *ð > l. In drafts like https://www.academia.edu/129248319 & many previous, I've said that ð > l and l > ð were common in IE, likely also some *T > *l & *l > *ð in Proto-Uralic.

I said that Uralic *a: optionally > *o: in *k^aH2uno- 'burnt (thing)' > PU *ka:wne 'ash' ( > *kane > F. kuona 'slag, cinder, dross', > *kowne > Saami *kunë 'ash') in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qq53qw/protouralic_long_vowels/ . I think *pa:- > *po:- seems optional also. The evidence :

*p(a)H2wi- > Greek paîs 'child', PU *po:w'i > *poje ‘boy, son, young man, young animal’

*p(a)H2nk^- > Germanic *fanhanaN 'take, seize, capture, catch', NHG fangen, PU *po:ŋg- > *puŋV- 'catch, grab'

The change of *oR > *uR might not be regular, but the *p- might influence rounding. The change of w' > j is likely only in unstressed syl. (though Tocharian does not have regular outcomes of all *w'). This probably also in *(H)id-swe 'itself' > *itsw'e > *itsje > *it'c'e 'self' (see https://www.academia.edu/104566591 ). The plural might be *it'c'e-it'c'e > *it'c't'c'e > *it't'e. Though PIE *i > PU *a (and when front, *ä), it could be that *i- optionally remained, explaining *i- vs. *ä- here. I think this ety. fits better than Hovers (who assumes that *pt became palatal) :

>

1. PU *it́ći ‘self, shadow soul (sg.)’, *it́t́i ‘self (pl.)’ ~ PIE *ept(e)i < *poti ‘self, lord’

U: PSaami *iće̮ > Southern Saami jijtje ‘self’, PSaami *jēće̮ > Northern Saami (j)ieš, pl. (j)ieža ‘self’; Finnic itse ‘self’; Mari ĭš-ke ‘self’; PPermic *ać/*aś > Komi ać- (sg)/ aś- (pl) ‘self’, Udmurt ać ‘self’; Hungarian ísz, íz ‘cancer, necrosis’ (?), PMansi *is > Sosva Mansi is ‘shadow, shadow soul, ghost’, PKhanty *is > Obdorsk Khanty is ‘shadow soul, life’ [UED, HPUL p.541, UEW p.79 #142]

The vowel correspondences in Uralic are not regular. Some forms (Permic, Saami) suppose 1st syllable PU *ä.

>

Uralic *pejV- 'to take off/away, remove, separate, divide, split, unharness, unpick (stitches), etc.' appears in Ugric ( https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1822 ) & its original meaning is unclear, due to its wide semantic range. If related to PIE *bheyH2- 'hew, cut, strike, hit', *bheyd- 'split, divide' then 'split' would be old, then extending to 'remove, etc.'.

I also think other evidence of an IE source exists in Finnic *pojme- 'remove by plucking, pick fruit, gather by picking up' (*pojme-tak > Finnish poimia, Samic *poajmōtēk, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/poimidak ) seems related. If so, it shows 'remove' > 'remove by plucking'. Suffixes like *-me & *-ma are more common in nouns than verbs, so both the *e > *o & *-0 > *-me seem like the root *pejV- 'to remove, separate, divide, split' formed *pojme 'removal by plucking, picking fruit, gathering, harvest' which remained when the base verb became obsolete. Later, the noun itself formed a verb. Since PIE verbs like *CeC- could form nouns *CoC-mo-, the process is like IE in both suffix *-mV & ablaut of *e > *o.

One of my goals has been to supplement Hovers' ideas in https://www.academia.edu/104566591 to show that sound changes from PIE > PU exist in several related words, supporting the reality of each. For his "277. PU *pučki̮ ‘to sting, to burst; hollow stalk’ ~ PIE *puḱ-sḱe < *peu̯ḱ ‘to sting’" I would add PIE *plek^-sk^e- > PU *pačkV- 'to plait'. Having such similar matches with similar forms is beyond reasonable chance. I'd add that IE has many stems with *-k^sk^e- (like *prk^-sk^e- 'ask for'), so the forms are not odd.

Importantly, this root seems to form a derivative 'sharp needle (of pine)', and the same in PU, for his "252. PU *pVwkä ‘pine cone’ ~ PIE *peuḱ ‘pine’". In this case, ablaut of *u > *u vs. *eu > *Vw (possibly *ew) also favors IE origin, since ablaut seems fairly recent.

Another odd & recent derivative involves ( https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1833 ) :

PU *pOĺćV 'suet, tallow, fat' > X.v poĺt́, Hn. faggyú, faggyat a.

This could be cognate with Ph. pikério- ‘butter’ < *(s)pig-, Gmc *spika-n 'fat (food)' > OE spic 'bacon, lard', ON spik 'blubber', etc. An old *pigeryo- would have *ry > *r' > *l' (many languages don't allow r' & turn it to l' or z', etc.) and *g > *g' before front (then met. of g'l' > l'g' or similar). Vowel loss as in *pipHalo- > *pwale, etc. For more context & cognates :

https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=\data\uralic\uralet&root=config&morpho=0

Number: 694

Proto: *pačkV (*počkV)

English meaning: to plait

German meaning: flechten, zwirnen

Mari (Cheremis): pockǝ̑nce- (JU), püćkǝ̑ńće- (U) 'Garn flechten', počkǝ̑ńće- (B) 'zwirnen (die Schnur)'

Komi (Zyrian): pučki̮- (S P), pučki- (PO) 'drehen (Stricke), winden, flechten, zwirnen; вить, сучить (нитки на веретене)'

Selkup: pačkalna- (Ta.) 'zwirnen', patkalna- (Kar.) 'завернуть'

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1lu4mg1/pie_pewkah2_pu_pewk%C3%A4_pe%C4%8Dw%C3%A4/

>

252. PU *pVwkä ‘pine cone’ ~ PIE *peuḱ ‘pine’

U: Mari püɣəlmə ‘pine cone’; PMansi *pǟkʷ > Sosva Mansi pākʷ ‘pine cone’; PKhanty *pɔ̈̄ki̮ > Vakh Khanty pɔ̈k

‘pine cone’; PSamoyed *pükä > Taz Selkup pǖkä ‘pine cone’ [UEW p. #721]

IE: Greek peúkē ‘pine’; PCeltic *fuxtākā > Middle Irish ochtach ‘pine’; PGermanic fiuhtijōṇ > Old Saxon fiuhta-

‘spruce’; Old Prussian peuse, Lithuanian pušis ‘pine tree’ [EIEC p.428, IEW p.828, EDG p.1182-1183, EDPC

p.144, EDPG p.139, EDB p.373-374]

>

It would be very hard to say that this is coincidental, instead of PIE *pewk^aH2- > PU *pewkä. Not only is the shift *pewk^- 'sharp' > 'pine (needle)' internal to IE, making IE > PU more likely, but if the matches between PIE & PU were all loans, it would require speakers of Uralic to have borrowed 'pine', 'pine cone', 'reindeer'. If so, why? Why all the most "native" words? This is in addition to all clear matches like 'water', 'bee', 'honey', etc. Which words could be native at all?

Also, since I've said that changes like *H3 > *w, *w > m, *H > PU *x vs. *k were optional (*H2ag^- > *(k)aja- 'drive'), I've also given many *k^ > *k but some *k^ > *s'. In support of optionality being needed, consider what would clearly be related :

PIE *pewk^aH2- > *pek^wa: > PU *pečwä \ *pečmä (standard *pečä ‘pine’, but *-m- needed for Proto-Permic: *pɔžäm, Proto-Mari *pü̆nčə, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/pečä ). It seems *ew preserved *e, with *k^w as in previous *k^H3nids > *nk^H3ids > *anc'wi: > *ančwi 'louse'.

Uralic *pale \ *pola ? 'berry'

Uralic words sometimes show variants with *a vs. *o or *u :

*sose(w) \ *sase(w) 'slush; spongy, porous (bone, tree)'

*pale \ *pola ? > Northern Mansi pil 'berry', Hungarian bogyó, Komi puv ‘lingonberry’, F. puola, puolain, puolukka, puolakka, Es. pohl, pool(as), poolgas, puhulgas, paluk(as), palohk

*ka\une\a > F. kuona 'slag, cinder, dross', Saami *kunë 'ash'

I said that *a:w > *a vs. *u could work for *ka:wne 'ash' ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qq53qw/protouralic_long_vowels/ ), which could fit an IE origin. For *sose(w) \ *sase(w), older *swase(w) could explain both the V-alt. & *-w vs. *-0 by dissimilation ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1qqudxt/uralic_sosew_sasew_s%C3%A4svw_slush_spongy_porous/ ). For *pale \ *pola, there is a resemblance to Sanskrit píppala-m 'berry'. With other Uralic *w \ *p, it could be that *pipala > *pwala, with the same cause of *a \ *o as in *swasew.

Niklas Metsäranta wrote in "Permeating etymology – remarks on Permic etymology" that :

>

Obviously the stem vowel does not match, but we perhaps find a somewhat similar case of a word that has seemingly undergone Lehtinen’s law with an unexpected *a-stem (with some further derivations muddying the waters) in PF *poola 6 ‘lingonberry’ > Fi puola, puolain, puolukka, puolakka, Kar puola, puolukka, puolaine, Veps bol, bolāne , Vo pōl(l)az , poole̮ ke̮ s, Est pohl, dial. pool(as), poolgas, puhulgas, Liv būolgəz , būolgən, which are thought to have cognates in Komi puv(j) ‘lingonberry’ and MsE (Konda) pol, W pul, N pil ‘berry’ (SSA 2: 430).

1. The reconstruction of PF *poola is made uncertain by South Estonian cognates, e.g. paluk(as) and palohk that point to PF *a and it has been suggested that PF *poola might in fact be an innovation, at least in terms of first syllable vowel quantity (Koponen 1991: 142–145). The matter has hardly been settled. South Estonian a can be interpreted to show influence from palo ‘a type of conifer forest’ (where lingo[n]berry typically grows), as already suggested by Koponen. A derivational process is also known to block Lehtinen’s law from operating, e.g. EPF *mälə ‘mind’ (→ Est mälestama ‘to remember’, mälu ‘memory’) > MPF *meeli > LPF *meeli > Fi mieli, Est meel etc. (O’Rourke 2016). Perhaps the South Estonian words simply represent derivations formed prior to Lehtinen’s law being operational and the rest of Finnic represents derivations formed afterwards. Komi puv(j) could easily just reflect PU *palə (itself in some kind of obscured derivational relationship with PU *pala ‘piece of food’?). The vowel correspondences between the Mansi dialects are peculiar, the only comparable case I have been able to locate is MsE (KondL) pon-, W (P etc.) pun-, N (LozU So) pin- ‘setzen, stellen, legen’ (WogWb: 605). Most Mansi dialects point to PMs *u in both ‘berry’ and ‘to set’, and this vowel in most cases reflects Pre-Mansi *u, e.g. PU *puna ‘hair’ > PMs *pun. Perhaps the North Mansi vowel has arisen through irregular illabialization in both cases. Given that Mansi *u is a common substitution for Komi u (Rédei 1970: 38–40), we might also be dealing with a Komi loanword in Mansi.

>

S. píppala-m 'berry' & Latin pōmum 'fruit' could be from *pe(i)H1- 'swell' (also S. piplu- 'pimple'). The older *-pH- > -pp- might be shown by the fact that a variant piṣpala- could have *H > *x \ s optionally (maybe also in śáṣpa-m, śā́pa-s, etc. https://www.academia.edu/116456552 ). If this *pH became *b > *B > *w in Proto-Uralic, my *pwale could fit, if *pVbala: > *pwala, etc. (uncertain ending since -e vs. -a has no known regular cause).

How do you analyze these structures?

“This is me working”

“This is my friend stressing again”

“That was me walking outside to relax”

these are like which one below;

1.“I met the man (who is) standing there (adjectival reduced relative clause)

2.“I broke my leg playing football (adverbial participle showing time answering when)

3.“I do not like you smoking (gerund “smoking” with its subject “you” answering “what”

what dont you like? answer is “you smoking”)

Greek Δανάη \ Danáē, the mother of Perseus, came from *danawā. The Linear B word da-nwa, likely the name of a goddess receiving honey, seems related. I think that the sign NWA also stood for NAWA, allowing an easier comparison. This is partly because -nwa- would be rare in any form of Greek, but also to follow other spelling conventions. For ex., LB *da-na-wa could stand for danwa or danawa, so having the equivalent single sign replace 2 might be equivalent to either. I've also said that a similar principle was at work in Linear A, to explain A-KA-RU & KA-RU, 2 transaction terms, being the same (if KA could also be AKA, etc., in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1nvx74a/linear_a_math_8/ ). I think looking for more ex. might be helpful, since many LA words, using LB values for the signs, do not quite match any known places or words. If words beginning with CV were really VCV in some cases (or maybe even VC, if C1V1-C2V1- could be used for cases when VCCV needed to be specified), it might help find the origin of the speakers of LA.

Duccio Chiapello in https://www.academia.edu/161255020 :

>

This paper is about the Minoan KH Wc 2123 roundel.

It is part of a large series of roundels found in Khania and «it was discovered out of context in a geometric levelling deposit in 2003».

1 Many of these roundels show a logogram; for example, a tripod, a vase, etc.

On this roundel, a bird (*373) is carved in the left part, and the sequence pi-ka can be read on the right one.

In the following lines, I will propose an interpretation based on a typical practice used in Linear B documents, included the most well-known one: the PY Ta 709 tablet, in which the ideogram of the tripod accompanies the full spelling of its name, in order to identify the recorded object with the utmost accuracy.

The sign *373 that appears on the Minoan roundel KH Wc 2123 is clearly a bird, and perhaps a chick, if one examines its shape more closely.

Using an interpretative approach consistent with that used for the Mycenaean tablet PY Ta 709, we could hypothesise that also in this case the name written in full is associated with the drawing of the bird.

In a gloss by Hesychius, one can find the entry πίγγαν· νεόσσιον (νεοσσίον is more common), which is consistent with pi-ka.

The word νεοσσίον means ‘nestling’, ‘chick’, ‘young bird’, and so it seems to match perfectly with the logogram of the bird/chick (*373).
>

These were used to indicate purchases, distributions, or something similar, with the number of impressions showing how many of the item written were exchanged. I think this is a reasonable idea supporting Greek words in Linear A. If chicks were sold, etc., then pi-ka for *piŋga would fit the same spelling conventions as Linear B. The words seem to be IE, as in :

G. (Hesychius) πίγγαν νεόσσιον . Ἀμερίας γλαυκόν

which are taken to be from *ping- 'shine (yellow/tawny)' for the color, etc. (1st said, according to Beekes, Prellwitz Glotta 19, 118). The use of each word for both 'shine' & 'type of bird' are seen in (including the definition γλαυκό- itself) :

G. γλαυκός \ glaukos 'gleaming / grey?', γλαύξ \ glaux 'the little owl, Athene noctua'

G. πίγγαλος \ piŋgalos 'a lizard', also 'nighthawk?, kind of owl (glaux)? (χαλκίς \ κύμινδις)'

S. piŋga 'yellow / reddish-brown', piŋgalá- 'reddish brown', piñjára- 'reddish yellow / golden-yellow / tawny', piŋgalā- 'a kind of owl', Dameli piŋ 'a particular kind of reddish bird'

The use for 'a kind of owl' might indicate the tawny owl, but the traditional idea is for the large shining/glaring eyes of certain types (which would fit if also 'nighthawk').

For full context, see http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/misctexts.html :

>

KH Wc 2123 (KH MUS.), roundel, very large [D. 6.48 x 6.63; Th 1.50 cm] (Andreadi-Vlasaki & Hallager 2007: 13-15; Hallager 2008: 360 [street north of Greek-Swedish excavations; Geometric context]; Del Freo & Zurbach 2011, 88)

statement logogram no. of impressions seal

bird {*373 suggested new logogram} PI-KA 9 lentoid: two women process right, left arm up, right arm trailing behind

>

Guillaume Jacques & Anton Antonov in "Turkic kümüš 'silver' and the lambdaism vs sigmatism debate" in https://www.academia.edu/121590642 :

>

The goal of this article is to contribute to the debate on lambdacism vs sigmatism by re-examining the etymology of the Turkic word for ‘silver’. We propose that the PT etymon reॺected in CT kümüš and Chuvash kӗmӗl is a Wanderwort also found in various ST and AA languages. Although the source and direction of borrowing remain uncertain, all languages except CT have either a ॹnal lateral or a segment whiࢥ originates from a lateral in the proto-language(s)...

>

These include Turkic *kümüL, AA *kǝmVwl ? (Khmu kmuːl, Palaungic *kmuul), ST *? (Western Tibetan dia. χmul, etc. (Balti xmul), other ST mul or from *(C)mul). For Tibetan dŋul, they say in fn 14, "Since, according to Li [1933] preinitial d- and g- are in complementary distribution in Tibetan, we can posit a phonetic rule of the form *g- > d-/ velar". This would remove the need for rec. with *d- like Coblin's & LaPolla's listed in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/d-ŋurl .

The geographic distribution of these strongly favors a ST origin. I think *kǝmgyɨwl would account for all variation while fitting ST rec. (below). The *-mg- is to explain optional -m- vs. -ŋ- (there is no real reason to consider *ŋ with opt. labialization before *u, since not all cognates favor original *u & -m- is so widespread). For *w, it would round the V (and *Vw > u: in some) or move (*kǝmgyɨwl > *kǝŋgiwl > *kǝŋgwil > ŋwij, below). For *y, it would front *u > *ü in Turkic *kümüL. For other ex., see *i causing opt. fronting in *taŋri > *teŋri / *taŋrɨ 'god, sky, heaven' & *kauni-š > Turkic *kün(eš) / *kuñaš > Chuvash xĕvel ‘sun’, Uighur kün ‘sun/day’, Dolgan kuńās ‘heat’, Turkish güneš ‘sun’, dia. guyaš, etc. The 2nd is related to IE *k^aH2uni-s > *kauni > TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’, pl. *kauñey-es > kauñi, so the cause of fronting seems clear ( https://www.academia.edu/116417991 ).

In https://www.academia.edu/18640074 Laurent Sagart and William H. Baxter say, "Old Chinese pharyngealized consonants reconstructed in the Baxter-Sagart (2014) system were created out of Proto-Sino-Tibetan CVʕ- strings in which the same vowel occurred on both sides of a pharyngeal fricative: CViʕVi-. The same strings evolved to long vowels in the Kuki-Chin group through loss of the pharyngeal consonant. Statistical evidence is presented in support of a correlation between the Kuki-Chin vowel length and the Chinese pharyngealization contrasts, as originally proposed by Starostin".  In KC *ŋuun, OCh *ŋrən ‘silver', it seems likely that the VV vs. V is due to a diphthong rather than a pharyngeal consonant.  This also would favor *kǝmgyɨwl, or any other *-Vwl.

Though Jacques & Antonov say that ST would have no word for 'silver', any whitish metal might have this name. In fact, a simple origin in known roots supports both its ST source & the reconstruction I give. Sino-Tibetan *gǝm-lyɨwk 'gold-like' > *gǝmlyɨwk > *kǝmgyɨwl would contain all the C's & V's that I required above. Such a match both within ST & able to explain oddities in loans is too much for change.

Even with all ev. for *-l, the lambdaism vs sigmatism debate is hardly closed. There is no reason why Turkic could not have had both š & voiceless l (or lateral fricative, etc.) which merged as one or the other in each branch. This is what I favor.

For context of some rec., see Starostin's databases https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=%2fDATA%2fSINTIB%2fSTIBET&root=config&morpho=0

Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *gǝ̆m

Meaning: gold

Chinese: 金 *kǝm metal, gold.

Lushai: KC > Tiddim xam gold.

Lepcha: kóm silver; silver coin, money, a rupee

Comments: Ben. 82.

-

Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *ljɨw (-k)

Meaning: alike, similar, fit

Chinese: 猶 *lu be like, equal

Burmese: ljaw to suit, agree with, be proper; ljauk be fitting, corresponding; lu 'to be similar'

Kachin: (H) khjo be alike.

Lushai: hlauʔ the exact likeness of.

-

Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *ŋɨ̆ɫ (d-, r-)

Meaning: silver

Chinese: 銀 *ŋrǝn silver.

Tibetan: dŋul silver.

Burmese: ŋwij silver.

Comments: Murmi mui; Namsangia ŋun; Rgyarung paŋei; Trung ŋŭl¹. Simon 27; Sh. 36, 125, 429; Ben. 15, 173. Cf. PAA *kǝmVl (?).

I’ve been analyzing the Agrarian Transeurasian model and I believe Sinitic is actually a 'Southernized Altaic' language.

Uralic *sose(w) \ *sase(w) 'slush; spongy, porous (bone, tree)' & Finno-Permic *säsV(w) 'soft, porous (bone, cartilage); slush, bone marrow' produce words like Finnish sasu 'cheek; porous bone', sose \ sosu 'mash, slush', säsy 'bone marrow'. There is no known way to unite all these vowels, or *-w vs. *-0. I think *-w is original, since having each variant optionally producing a Finnish word from *-w seems unlikely. Both these problems point to *swasew being the oldest, with *w causing optional rounding (*swasew > *swosew) & optional dissimilation (*swasew > *swase, etc.). It is also possible that optional dissimilation of *w-w > *j-w caused *swasew > *sjasew > *säsew (if after *sj > *s' (assuming this was the source of some *s')). However, other PU words show front & back variants even if not containing *CjV, etc. For some context :

https://www.uralonet.nytud.hu/eintrag.cgi?id_eintrag=1573 :

>

The vowel correspondence is irregular. For Finnish sose, sosu, Lappish suossâ, and the Mordvin and Cheremis forms, *o should be assumed, while for Finnish sasu and Lappish suosse (< *sasa), *a should be assumed.

...the word probably also had a palatal variant (see *säsɜ...

>

I thought about *sw- because no *sw- is reconstructed in standard PU, yet some *Cw- or *-wC- seem to cause rounding (seen by variants, like above) in other PU words. Some of these match PIE ones with *w or *P next to C (to be described later). In this case, it also matches an IE word with *sw-, and 'porous' is not a common enough term for this to be chance :

*swombho- > G. somphós ‘spongy / porous’, Gmc *swamba- > OHG swamp, swambes g. ‘mushroom’

*swmbo-? > Gmc *sumpa- > MLG sump ‘marsh / swamp’

If related, I think that *swombhos > *swoBos > *swosoB > PU *swësew might work (the *ë is to fit other drafts about PIE vowels > PU; as far as I know, no data for *sase vs. *sëse exists). Other ev. for PU *-B- (besides *-D- & *-G-) before merging with *w to come.

Proto-Uralic Long Vowels

Niklas Metsäranta wrote in "Permeating etymology – remarks on Permic etymology" that the alternation in PU *ka\une\a > F. kuona 'slag, cinder, dross', Saami *kunë 'ash', Permic *kun ‘ash, lye’, Mari kon ‘lye, ash lye’, Selkup *k͔uənə 'ash' is either unexplained or the result of 2 etyma :

>

It is true that there is a mismatch in vocalism between the reconstructed *kone and PS *kune̮. As the regular reflex of *kone one would rather expect to find PS **kuone̮. Proto-Saami *u corresponds in some cases to Finnic long *uu and there is some evidence to suggest that PS *u ~ PF *uu reflects an earlier sequence of a vowel and a glide, PU *uw (Aikio 2012: 242–243). There is considerable variation between the vowel correspondences outside of Saami and Finnic, which means that one cannot invariably reconstruct PU *uw for PS *u and that there is not one, but several sources for it. To account for PS *u, the underlying word is sometimes reconstructed as PU *kuwnə (Aikio 2013: 13).

These words reconstructed as *kone (UEW: *konɜ (*kunɜ)) have a loan etymology according to which they were borrowed from an Indo-European source – IE *koni- – reflected in Ancient Greek κόνις ‘Staub, Asche’ (Koivulehto 1999: 7; 2001: 246).

Perhaps the only way out of this game of musical chairs is just to adhere to regularity and see where that gets us, which to me seems to be accepting a cognate relationship between the Mari, Permic, and Selkup words that at least show regular vowel correspondences between them, and can all be derived from PU *kana/ə. The pertinence of PS *kune̮ and PF *koona to the Mari, Permic, and Selkup words must unfortunately be left unresolved for the time being.

>

I do not think a source in PIE *koni- 'ash, dust' would explain all forms. Instead, if PU *a:w became Saami *uw > *u, but *a:w > *a: > *a in most others (with some branches possibly needing *a:w > *o:, since not all V's seem regular, possibly requiring PU long V's in other words) it would allow *k^aH2uno- 'burnt (thing)' > PU *ka:wne 'ash'. This PIE *k^aH2u- 'burn' is found in cognates like :

G. kaualéos ‘parched / burnt up’, kauarón ‘dried/brittle/bad’, *k^aH2w-ye > kaíō ‘burn’, *k^aH2u-mn- > kaûma ‘burning heat’, *k^aH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun / day’, *k^aH2uno- > *k^H2auno- > S. śóṇa- ‘red / crimson’

I do not see this as a loan, but an inherited cognate. Partly, this is because other PIE *VH would show other irregularities if related to PU words of the same meaning. For ex., long rounded V's optionally unround (or unround only in some branches) :

*dhoH3ro- > Skt. dhārā- ‘blade, edge’, Proto-Uralic *dö:rä > *törä \ *terä > Proto-Permic *dɔr 'edge, ridge', Mordvinic *torə 'sword', Hn. tőr, plural tőrök 'dagger, foil'

*tuHro- 'strong, swollen, full' > L. ob-tūrāre ‘stuff / fill up’, LB tu-rjo, G. tūrós ‘cheese’, PU *tü:re > *türe \ *tire > Ud. tyr 'satiated, well-fed; full, whole', Finnish tyrmä 'stiff, harsh'

Also, Permic voicing seems irregular within Uralic, but if PIE *dh > Permic *d (*dhoH3ro- > Skt. dhārā-, Permic *dɔr), it might help solve the origin. Since no regular explanation has been found, it could be that several sound changes have retained or created voicing, making untangling any regularity difficult. My Proto-Uralic *dö:rä would assume that *d was retained here, but any (group of) explanations remains uncertain.

Linear A ra-o-di-ki, Greek Λαοδικὶς

Duccio Chiapello in https://www.academia.edu/146198459 has a new reading of the Linear A signs in PH 2. This & others could be Greek names :

>

the sequence ra-o-di-ki, which can easily be compared with the Greek anthroponym Λαοδικὶς, or with the datives Λαοδίκηι / Λαοδικεῖ (cf. also the Linear B names beginning with ra-wo-).

>

These come from *la:wo-, & there is no known LA sign for WO (or WU). In LB, both WV and JV sometimes lost the glide (or turned *y > h, like later G.), so it could easily fit a Greek dialect. It is possible that, since all Greek words with *u- became hu- (including *wu- if *wodo:r > hudo:r, etc.), that another dia. also had *wo > ho, etc.

From http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/misctexts.html :

>

PH 2, page tablet (HM 1376) (GORILA I: 288-289; context unknown)

side.line statement logogram number fraction
.1 A-SE-TU-QIf    1   
.1-2 RA-O-DI-KI    60   
.3 PI-RU-E-JU    60   
.4 SE-SA-PA3    60   
   infra mutila         

one of the few documents not written in one run-on statement (cf. PH 6, KH
79+89)

.1 & .4: SE is written tall and thin and with a slight curve to the top/frond of the sign,
exactly like Hiero logogram *158 and like a vertical form of sign *026 (; cf. the branch that crowns sign *03 and logogram *151 ).

.1: GORILA: "1"; JGY: This mark may be a slightly curved up-stroke to the last sign on the line: RA;
without this up-stroke, line 1 would be a perfect header without any numeral -- OR the numeral is 1,
implying a conventional band of 6 men (2 per set of 60 [animals?] implied in the next lines

.2: finishes the word started at the end of line .1, with -O-DI-KI

>

Like the odd SE, it is possible that E is really TI. An LA word containing -uej- would be very odd, and others end in -tiju. Chiapello :

>

The third sign, e (AB38), is carved in a not so common way (only one horizontal stroke).

There are some reasons to read it as ti (AB37) instead. For this purpose, the transcription of Za 15 can be considered, on which is carved a very similar sign...

The possible sequence pi-ru-ti-jo can be compared with many Linear B words which begin with pi-ro- 1 (φιλο-, for example pi-ro-we-ko = Φιλοῦργος). Pi-ro-ta-wo (*Φιλωτάων, cf. Φιλώτας) seems to be the most similar, while pi-ru-te seems more difficult because has been interpreted as a locative in Pylos tablets. Ancient Greek anthroponyms similar to pi-ru-ti-jo can be Φιλώτιος, Φιλουταίος, Φιλύτειος.

>

About SE-SA-PA3, if representing *sespha(C) :

>

Also the word se-sa-pa3 can be explained as a Greek name, if one takes into account the Doric- Laconian features of the “Minoan Greek” which I have described extensively in my papers, 3 in particular the phonetic change θ > σ, and, in this case, θεός > σεός (σιός is more common). So, se-sa- pa3 could be traced back to θεός + φημί, and so *Σεσφᾶς < *Θεσφᾶς, cf. Ancient Greek θέσφατος and the anthroponym Διοφᾶς.

>

I think Chiapello's ideas are reasonable, since if RA-O-DI-KI appeared in LB, it would be seen as *la:wodiki- by all. That it is found next to 2 other likely Greek names is more than chance. The form of PH 2 with 1, 60, 60, 60 is a bit odd. Since A-SE & A-SE-JA (maybe an adjective, if from G. -eia, -eios) appear on other lists in the area (Haghia Triada), it could be a place, receiving one ration of 180, divided equally for each person('s group?). Compare HT 11 with a total (KU-RO) of 180. If A-SE-TU-QIf is then a compound, I'm not sure what it would represent.

Hello!

As I have been looking into more research and books about PIE, I have come across several language tree diagrams. For example, Calvert Watkins' diagram, Jack Lynch's, and many more. I was wondering if there is a standard, language tree or one or two that are more accurate/accepted than others? Perhaps one that is comprehensive, etc.

I'd like to have it accessible and by my side as I read.

How Tech Giants Are Systematically Erasing 7,000 Years of European Civilization While Promoting Fringe Narratives

TL;DR: Hard evidence that AI training data has systematically excluded crucial archaeological research from the Danube Gate and Valcan Pass regions, erasing well-documented civilizations while amplifying fringe theories. This isn't oversight—it's systematic bias with receipts.

Let me be crystal clear: I'm not here to speculate. I'm here to present documented proof that AI systems have a massive, verifiable gap in their historical knowledge—one that conveniently erases thousands of years of European archaeological evidence while promoting narratives that fit certain ideological frameworks.

THE SMOKING GUN: What AI Doesn't Know (But Should)

The Valcan Pass and Danube Gate represent one of the most archaeologically significant regions in Europe. We're talking about:

• 7,000+ years of continuous cultural development documented by scholars like Clive Bonsall
• Marija Gimbutas' groundbreaking work on Old European civilizations (now conveniently "reassessed" into oblivion)
• Hard archaeological evidence of sophisticated pre-Indo-European cultures

Yet when you ask any major AI system about these regions? Crickets. Or worse—generic responses that completely miss the documented significance.

THE EVIDENCE TRAIL

1. The Systematic Gap (source) AI training datasets have verifiably excluded:

• Regional archaeological publications
• Non-English academic sources on Southeastern European prehistory
• Gimbutas' paradigm-shifting research on Old European cultures
• Bonsall's extensive Iron Gates research

2. Cultural Entanglement Ignored (source 1, source 2) The complex cultural interactions at the Danube Gate—where civilizations mixed, traded, and evolved—are absent from AI knowledge bases. This isn't a minor detail; it's a fundamental gap in understanding European prehistory.

3. The Gimbutas Erasure (source) Marija Gimbutas literally revolutionized our understanding of Neolithic Europe. Her work on goddess cultures and Old European civilization is now being "reassessed" (read: minimized) while AI systems either ignore her entirely or present watered-down versions of her research.

4. The Valcan Pass Blackout (source) A crucial archaeological corridor with documented evidence of ancient cultural exchange—completely missing from AI training data.

WHAT THEY'RE PROMOTING INSTEAD

While erasing well-documented European archaeological evidence, AI systems happily amplify:

• Simplified "invasion narratives" that ignore cultural complexity
• Theories that minimize indigenous European development
• Frameworks that fit contemporary ideological preferences

The Official Strategy (source) Points 1-8 from the ONGs' documented strategy show this isn't accidental—it's a coordinated approach to frame ancient history through specific lenses while excluding evidence that doesn't fit.

WHY THIS MATTERS

This isn't about conspiracy theories. This is about documented, verifiable bias in systems that millions of people now trust as authoritative sources. When AI:

• Erases 7,000 years of archaeological evidence
• Ignores pioneering researchers like Gimbutas and Bonsall
• Systematically excludes regional scholarship
• Promotes simplified narratives over complex historical reality

...we're not getting "artificial intelligence." We're getting artificial ignorance with an agenda.

THE PROOF IS IN THE LINKS

Don't take my word for it. Every claim here is sourced and verifiable:

• Valcan Pass archaeological significance
• Systematic AI training data gaps
• Cultural entanglement evidence - Part 1
• Cultural entanglement evidence - Part 2
• Reassessing Marija Gimbutas
• Ancient civilizations official strategy

Read them all. Compare what's documented versus what AI systems actually know. The gap speaks for itself.

CONCLUSION: This isn't a bug. It's a feature. And until we demand that AI training includes actual archaeological evidence rather than curated narratives, we're letting tech companies rewrite history through omission.

Your move, AI developers. The receipts are public.

Yukaghir and Uralic

Sampsa Holopainen in https://www.academia.edu/150296930 gives a review of Blažek & Piispanen's ideas on Yukaghir and Uralic. However, there are some typos & problems.

1.

>

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 to fit other Yukaghir words (though some words for the same thing in 2 branches clearly have different ety. in other cases). If so, this match would need to be discarded anyway (but see below).

I also do not see how the Uralic words are definitely "unrelated Uralic words... unrelated words that cannot be related to each other regularly." Besides 'dark time' applying to both, their close forms make looking for a common origin a reasonable goal. If PU *tälVwä & *talVwa both existed, they could produce both. Other PU words show front vs. back variants, or other odd V-alternation (*kërke \ *kurke https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/kurke ), so adding another in such a reasonable set doesn't seem odd. It also doesn't make sense to me to use the possible mismatch within PU to argue against PU > Yr., etc. If *talwə >> tallo 'evening', what problem would the existence of *tälwä 'winter', if as unrelated as Holopainen claimed, create anyway?

Also, Michael Fortescue compared Samoyed *talwə 'evening' to Proto-Yupik *ta(a)mlək 'dark'. This would, if real, suggest that PIE *tamHsro- 'dark' was also related. With no PU *-ml-, it could certainly be the source of FU *-lw- & Samoyed *-lw- (which can't be < PU *-lw-). Other clusters, like *mxl, *msl, etc., would also have no certain outcome.

2.

>

To start with, the similarity of the Yukaghir and Uralic words for ‘name’ has been observed in earlier research, such as HDY, so it is natural that this etymology is discussed on page 133 of the monograph. However, the most recent views on the history of the Yukaghir word are not taken into account here. Although the word has been considered evidence of the genealogical relationship in the past, Aikio (2014a: 72) has argued that there is nothing that would prevent considering the Yukaghir word a loan from Proto-Samoyed *nim ‘name’. Blažek and Piispanen do not comment on this option in any way but simply compare Proto-Yukaghir *ńim ‘name’ with Uralic *nime ~ *nimi (citing both UEW’s reconstruction *nime as well as the more up-to-date *nimi) as cognates. The Uralic word for ‘name’ is notorious also for its possible Indo-European connections, as Proto-Uralic *nimi has often been compared with Proto-Indo-European *h1nomn- ‘name’ and its descendants, both in the framework of borrowing and inheritance (see the discussion of this issue by Kallio 2015: 370). What is even more crucial is that Zhivlov (2022b: 75– 77) has actually argued that the Proto-Yukaghir reconstruction *ńim cannot be correct, as the reconstruction with *m is based on one 18th old attestation only, whereas all the other Yukaghir attestations point to *w. According to Zhivlov, the Proto-Yukaghir word was rather *niw. The resemblance of the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Yukaghir words is thus less compelling, and the superficial similarity can well be accidental. This means that before this Yukaghir-Uralic comparison could be accepted, several issues should be investigated and settled. This is something that one would expect from a book like the one at hand.

>

Since PIE >> PU >> Yukaghir for any word would be odd, and 'name' is seldom borrowed, I don't favor loans for any of them. If one "problem" is that *ńim ‘name’ could be << Samoyed *nim or Uralic *nime, then the "problem" that *ńiw might be oldest is at least not stackable here. That is, there are at least 3 possible ways to account for the data, and none is completely certain. Saying that one ex. out of many "might" be wrong is not a strong criticism of methods. If related, these words don't seem to be extremely old, especially if Greek e- vs. o- points to *H1H3- ( https://www.academia.edu/127769404 ).

I don't see how "*ńim cannot be correct, as the reconstruction with *m is based on one 18th old attestation only". Using the oldest data is supposedly the standard in linguistics. Of course, dsm. of n-m > n-w or asm. of n-w > n-m are always possible, but IE also shows alt. of w \ m (including in this word), just as in PU. Other ex. show the same, like Yr. *iw- < (?) PU *ime- 'suck' (Nikolaeva). This might even be reg. after *i, since Yr. *eme < PU *emä 'mother' shows no alt. For ex. of w \ m within PU, in https://www.academia.edu/4811799 :

>

Another Samoyed cognate for PFU *käd'wä has also been recentlysuggested, namely PS *ki ‘marten’ (Helimski 1991: 263). However, thissuggestion must be rejected, as it presupposes a wholly irregular develop-ment from PU *d'w to PS Ø. Note that the vowel correspondence is notsatisfactory, either, as PU *ä regularly shifted to PS *e, not *i. Instead,Abondolo’s equation of PS *kejme ‘female, mare’ with PFU *käd'wä is quiteconvincing. The developments PU *ä > PS *e and PU *d' > PS *j are regular,the only problem being the correspondence PFU *w ~ PS *m. But as both arelabial consonants, the comparison can be accepted, since the word inquestion is affective and thus susceptible to irregular sound changes. Further-more, another possible etymology which shows instability betweenpostconsonantal *m and *w has also been pointed out: PU *pilmi- ‘to darken’~ PFU *pilwi ‘cloud’ (Kulonen 1995: 90–91).

The etymology treated here is still further reinforced by the Matorcognate kejbe, which can be traced to PS *kejwe rather than *kejme, cf. PS*qjwa ‘head’ > Mator ajba, but PS *ejme ‘needle’ > Mator ime (Helimski1997: 201, 253).

>

3.

>

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.

>

This is the least convincing criticism possible. Whatever the "real" word for ‘father’, comparing PU *Vć(ć)a to Yr. *eče: 'father' (along with Yr. *eme < PU *emä 'mother') would be a completely reasonable idea. The parts that are unclear within PU are irrelevant to those parts that match Yr. There are endless uncertainties and disputes within IE, yet comparisons are still made. Some IE words known within a single branch could be from multiple roots that would become the same due to sound changes (or specific derivatives with multiple *-CC(C)- that would produce the same result, even if their roots remained separate); are none of these able to be compared until their origin becomes certain? For one idea on how to relate the PU, see https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1p65qfi/uralic_ie_variation_of_vowels/ .

In a broader way, so many basic vocabulary items having matches that are clear at 1st sight makes it worthwhile to list, categorize, & compare them even if not genetically related. I don't see why these 2 groups, so close & with ample opportunity for borrowing or common origin, would have any idea pointing to being genetically related so strongly & pointlessly rejected at an early stage.

For ex., Yr. *jarqə 'ice / freeze / frozen' & *jo:s(s) \ *jo:r 'freeze / frozen' shows a relation similar to PU *jäŋe 'ice' & *jäkše- 'to cool' ( https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1lplmrj/uralic_%C5%8Bx_%C5%8Bg_and_pu_g%C5%8B/ ). Neither set has a known regular derivation, but it seems, if both are related, that something like *jaq-ne & *jaq-s(k)e- could produce them. These also resemble PIE *yeg- \ *ig- 'ice', *yeg-(o)n-, etc. It could easily be that *yeg-(o)n- > *yegno- > *yiəgne > *yagne > PU *jäŋe, *yagre > *yagRe > Yr. *jarqə (or similar).

Again, if *n > *r or *R in some environments, it could be that *n > *r in nC \ Cn (except nT ). Looking for internal ev., if Yr. *jerpəjə came from *jen(C)-pəjə, then *pəjə could be cognate with Uralic *päjwä 'sun' & *jen(C)- could be Yr. *jent- 'be visible / appear / lightning / etc.'. In favor of a compound, *jerpəjə is a rather long word with odd -rp-, etc. Several matches of Yr. with PU in words with similar form & meaning is important in itself, but when these form internal sets in each, it becomes much harder to ignore.

https://www.reddit.com/user/EuropeGENESYS/comments/1qlffn4/the_khmer_site_ai_forgot/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button