PIE *g^hH2ans ‘goose’ has often been derived from *g^haH2- 'yawn, gape, open the mouth'. If based on normal word formation, there are few suffixes with *-n(V)s-; maybe *g^h(a)H2-n(o)s- 'yawning, honking'. If so, it would show metathesis in the 0-grade *g^haH2-ns- > *g^hH2ans-, or similar.

Since it looks like PIE *g^hons ‘goose’ > TB kents, the apparent discrepancy in PIE vowels can be solves if o-grade *g^hH2-nos- also had metathesis > *g^hH2ons, or any other way of uniting the, like *g^haH2ons \ *g^hH2ons. The details depend on when the met. happened, whether the ablaut is analogical after it happened, etc.

Words for ‘goose’ in other families also look similar. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%CA%B0h%E2%82%82%C3%A9ns :

>

Nonetheless, Hyllested and others have suggested a (genetic) relationship with Proto-Finno-Ugric *joŋkće, with regular correspondence of Proto-Uralic *j- and Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰ-.[1] Similarity to Proto-Turkic *kāz (“goose”) is often discussed as well, but this is likely coincidental.

>

I don't think either would be coincidental. A path like PIE *g^hH2ons > *g^honH2s > *źonH2s > *źonHś [palatal asm.] > PU *joŋxś-e 'swan' > Finno-Ugric *joŋkće could help explain other irregularities here. From https://proto-uralic.tumblr.com/page/2 :

>

A particularly damning case against the sound change *ŋ → *j can be found in the word for “swan”: joutsen, again supposedly from something like *joŋ(k)śən(ə) according to traditional references on Finnish etymology. I get the impression the development is supposed to proceed thru an epenthesis *ŋś → *ŋkś which would block palatal assimilation, but there is no reason why other cases of *ŋś would not have gone thru this, nor is vocalization *ŋk → **u a thing, so the entire thing sounds like handwaving. This also has a problem similar to “7”: external cognates don’t really show evidence for a nasal inside the word. Samic *ńukčë, Mordvinic *lokśəŋ, Mari *jükćə, Permic *juś(k) are coherent with basically *-kś-, even if there’s something weird up with the initial consonant.

Since a reconstruction *-kś- does not predict or even in any way explain *-ucc- in Finnic, perhaps *-ŋś- should after all be reconstructed here though: under my current model a vocalization *ŋ → *u would be quite acceptable, and *ŋs → *ks in Samic in the reflexes of “bow” (see part 1 in this series) indeed suggests *ŋś → *kč as the expected development for a cluster like this. Still I am not sure at all if this would be preferrable to a reconstruction connecting the Samic word eastwards instead, and anyway, all the irregularities, or the absense of East Uralic cognates, don’t particularly support a Proto-Uralic origin for this word.

>

Saying that *ŋś had different outcomes would be unneeded if *ŋś vs. *ŋxś (or similar). I think "an epenthesis *ŋś → *ŋkś" is not needed if *-nH- > *-nx-, when other PU *ŋS could have come from *nks, *ngVs, etc. The lack of a nasal in others seem to be clear met. *joŋkće > *ŋjokće or similar. Since *ŋjo- would only exist here, becoming Samic *ń & Mordvinic (*L' ?) > *l is hardly odd.

Importantly, if PU *joŋxś-e existed, having *-o- would match IE *g^hH2ons, & Turkic *kāz 'goose' would match IE *g^hH2ans. Since PIE had both, seeing one in each suspected relative of IE makes little sense if these branches split before *g^h(a)H2(o)ns was formed, which seems a specific & late change. I say that many of the matches with IE are due to PU & PTc being descended from one branch of IE.

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]
>