Lexicon

Sacrifice

PIE *də2p-
Gloss: ‘sacrifice’ (item 7 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
(?)Hit. tappala– ‘person responsible for court cooking’; (?)Toch. A tāpā– ‘to eat’; Lat. daps; ON tafn; (?)Gr. δαπάνη ‘cost’; Arm. tawn ‘feast’.

Notes:
While there is no consensus on an IE reconstruction for Hittite (cf. Tischler 1991: 114f., although probably formally possible, cf. Kimball 1999: 387f.), and the Tocharian connection is denied on phonological grounds (cf. LIV2: 104 fn.11), Kroonen suggests a derivation to the verbal root *də2p- ‘to slaughter’ for the Latin, Armenian, and Germanic forms, cf. Greek δάπτω (2013: 504). Note that there is no imperative other than convention preventing the reconstruction of a central vowel *-a-, especially if the item cannot be traced to ancient PIE.

External comparanda:
Semitic: *δabḥ- (Dolgopolsky 1987: 15, 1989: 5)

Discussion:
Orel & Stolbova connect the Semitic form to East Chadic and Lowland East Cushitic forms to produce the Afro-Asiatic reconstruction *ǯabaḥ– (1995:549). As a cultural term this item may well have travelled, and, despite voiced criticism (e.g. Diakonoff 1985: 124f.), IE scholars like Kroonen (2003: 504) consider the similarity plausible. The fact that a PIE verbal root has been deduced need not deter a loan from Semitic as is indicated by the various IE derivations that surely points to a native or nativized basic root, which may, indeed, have entered the language at an early stratum. More conspicuous does the unvoiced rendition of the Semitic sequence *-bḥ– in (P)IE appear, possibly attributable to intermediate languages. The lack of clear Anatolian and Tocharian cognates make a truly old transfer difficult to substantiate, yet the current indecisive nature of the Hittite form may turn to provide either evidence for a very old connection or a complete rejection hereof.

to drill

PIE *bherH
Gloss: ‘to drill’ (item 5 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Lat. forō; ON bora; (?)OLith. barti ‘to scold’; (?)OCS brati ‘fight’; (?)Ved. bhr̥ṇāti ‘to threaten, scold’

Notes: The Germanic and Italic forms are likely denominatives (Kroonen 2013: 85), although an iterative formation may similarly explain the o-grade (de Vaan 2008: 235f.). The rest of the set is disputed as from the same root (LIV2: 80), and none of the ancient branchings is attested.

External comparanda:
Semitic *brʔ ‘to work with a sharp instrument’ (Bomhard 1981: 403)
Uralic: *pura- ‘(to) drill’> e.g. Fin. pura ‘drill’, Proto-Samoyed *pȇrȇ– ‘id.’
Sumerian: bur(u(d)x) ‘breach, depth, hole; to perforate’

Discussion:
As a ubiquitous verb not otherwise expected to be borrowed, an innovative technique could have helped spread the item. There is a semantic link in Uralic with the verb *pure– ‘to bite’ (UEW 405f.) which may be compared to the situation in IE, making an ancient connection more attractive. Further connections may also be found in the Turkic languages, cf. Turkish bur– ‘to drill’, as suggested by Rédei, who proposes onomatopoetic, and consequently chance, resemblance (UEW 405). Not included by Orel & Stolbova (1995), Semitic is seemingly isolated in Afro-Asiatic, although Bomhard suggests two Cushitic forms, both meaning ‘broken piece’ (2008-II: 64). Sahala actually prefers a Semitic origin for the Sumerian comparandum, explicitly Akkadian būrum ‘pit, well, cistern’ (2009: 5), but the semantic side is better matched by the general term. The meaning ‘well’ is secured for Semitic (cf. Tyloch 1975: 56f.).

High, strong

PIE *bherĝh
Gloss ‘strong, high’ (item 4 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Hit. park- ‘to raise, elevate’, CLuw. parraia-; Toch. B pärk- ‘to arise’; Lat. fortis < Old Lat. forctis; ON bjarg ‘mountain’; Gr. φράσσω, φράγνυμι ‘barricade, enclose’; Arm. barjr; Ved. barh- ‘make strong’, br̥hánt-.

Notes:
Strong PIE etymology with cognates in all decisive branches.

External comparanda:
Kartvelian: *brj1- > Mingrelian burǰ-aph-i ‘battle’, Svan li-burǰ-iel ‘to ram with horns, fight (of bulls)’
HU: Urartian burgana (Dolgopolsky 1987: 22)

Discussion
:
Smitherman proposes a connection with the Kartvelian gloss ‘high; strong; old’ (2012: 514, cf. also Diakonoff 1990: 61), but the meaning seems overly inspired by PIE, and Klimov’s reconstruction ‘to wrestle’ is more faithful to the attestations (1998: 18). The Urartian form is similarly inhibited by mistranslation (actually ‘pillar, column’, cf. Diakonoff & Starostin 1986: 99) and consequently of no immediate relevance to PIE.

Bee

PIE *bhei-
Gloss: ‘bee’ (item 3 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Lat. fūcus ‘drone’; OIr. bech; ON ; Lith. bìtė; OCS bičela.

Notes: The distribution is limited to the European branches of IE that represent several different formations. Mallory & Adams suggest that the word is internally derived from the verbal root *bhei(H)– ‘to strike, attack’ (1997: 57).

External comparanda:
Egyptian: bj.t

Discussion:
According to Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995: 773) this item is significant in the placement of the PIE homeland in the Near East (or at least close to Ancient Egypt), yet the distribution of the term within IE coupled with the apparent internal derivation makes a foreign intrusion unlikely (cf. Diakonoff 1985: 127). The possibility of folk etymological reanalysis is, of course, always present, but further circumstantial evidence need be provided before a more favorable scenario for their relation can be envisaged, tentatively through the proposed Neolithic substrate (§ 2.5).

Barley

PIE *bhar-(s-)
Gloss: ‘barley’ (item 2 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Lat. fār; (?)OIr. bairgen ‘bread, loaf’; Goth. bariz-eins ‘of b.’; OCS brašĭno ‘food’, Rus. bor ‘millet’; Alb. bar ‘grass’; (?)Gr. Περσεφόνη ‘Persephone (? = the grain-slayer)’ (PN)

Notes:
It is noteworthy that a bare stem may also exist in Celtic and Slavic (Russian bor ‘millet’) next to the somewhat more prolific extensions. The inclusion of the Greek deity is highly dubious (cf. Chantraine 1968: 889), and, even if accepted, would not introduce significant new evidence to the picture already painted by the more secure attestations. Lehmann proposes that the lexeme be internally derived from a verbal root (1986: 62), but the a-vocalism and the external comparanda treated immediately below demand that the possibility of foreign influence, at least, be entertained (cf. de Vaan 2008: 201f.).

External comparanda:
NE Caucasian: *bVrcị̌nV
NW Caucasian: possibly Adyghe ‘grain’, Abkhaz ‘id.’
Semitic: *barr-/burr- ‘cereal, wheat’

Discussion:
Some objections have been raised to the Semitic loan hypothesis, e.g. by Mallory & Adams who consider a borrowing ‘unlikely’ based on the morphology (1997: 51), while Diakonoff’s rejection of the claim, based on its putative isolation in Semitic (1985: 126f.), has become mute in light of the fact that Orel & Stolbova (1995: 56) connect it to an almost ubiquitous Afro-Asiatic root, *bar-/bur– ‘grain, cereal’, which certainly advocates for Semitic (or related) origins. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov insist that the IE branches representing the item were in direct contact with speakers of a Semitic proto-language (1995: 770), but, as several other instances suggest (e.g. *ghaid– ‘goat’, item 21), the proposition of an agricultural
substrate, possibly even related to Semitic (§ 2.5), blunts the urgency of the claim. Note, too, that the semantic shift from ‘wheat’ or ‘cereal’ speaks against direct contacts. Dolgopolsky introduces the Caucasian comparanda, and questions a Semitic provenance on the basis of its simpler stem that lacks the *-s (1989: 15f.), but, as shown above, a similar IE variant could represent the original state only secondarily derived. The North Caucasian comparanda seems to reflect a higher complexity than either of PIE and Semitic, possibly hinting at greater antiquity, but, more likely, a window to PIE phonetics may be encountered here, seeing that there is a decent argument in the proposition that the desinence *-inV in North East Caucasian reflects the PIE derivational suffix *-in-o-, cf. Slavic *boršĭno– ‘flour’, Latin farīna ‘id.’, and probably also Goth. barizeins ‘of barley’ (ibid., cf. also S. Starostin 2009: 91 and further Matasović 2012: 291). This comparison is also favorable due to identical semantics. A tentative history of the term can thus be schematized as Afro-Asiatic > Semitic & Old European substrate → middle or late PIE → North (East) Caucasian.

Bean

PIE *bha-bh/k-̂
Gloss: ‘bean’ (item 1 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Lat. faba; OHG bōna; OPrus. babo; OCS bobŭ; Alb. bathë; Gr. φακός

Notes:
Formal inconsistencies and limited distribution suggest a regionalism.

External comparanda:

Old-European: Unattested

Discussion:
This item shows all the hallmark traits of a regional borrowing, quite possibly a loan from an agricultural substrate, to which, e.g., *ghaid– ‘goat’ (item 21) may be compared, cf. Kroonen (2013: xviii,55).

Goats

Several items meaning ‘goat’ have external comparanda, four are included here:

PIE *díg-
Gloss: ‘goat’ (item 15 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
OHG ziga; Alb. dhi ‘fem. g.’; Gr. (Hes.) δίζα; Arm. tik ‘hide’; Ishkashimi (East
Iranian) dec ‘goatskin bag’

Notes: The Greek form is problematic and requires either a glide to palatalize the velar, or, as has been suggested, the form in Hesychius, originally ascribed to Laconian, may rightfully be attributed to one of the lesser known IE Balkan languages, Thracian or Illyrian (Frisk 1960: 390ff.). All the data combined, this reconstruction still fails to paint the picture of a central PIE item, although proto-status certainly is possible.

External comparanda:
NE Caucasian: *tVqV > e.g. Ingush tɨqo
HU: Hurrian taɣə ‘man (male person)’
Kartvelian: *dqa > Georgian txa, Svan daq

Discussion:
The IE material does not seem to be particularly strong and lacks cognates in the decisive ancient branches. Proposed as a borrowing by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995: 774) and Nichols (1997: 146), the exact nature of the reconstruction in Kartvelian is debated (cf. Fähnrich 2007: 125), but the Northeast Caucasian material does help establish the form in the region. The semantics of the Hurrian material questions its appurtenance, but a final rejection pends further illumination of the internal relationship. Ultimately, this item belongs in the very same category as the synonyms (items 21, 40, and 73, cf. § 6.5.5.2) and be ascribed to a loan into the later strata of PIE.

_________________________________________________________________________

PIE: *ghaid-o-
Gloss: ‘goat’ (item 21 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Lat. haetus ‘young g., kid’; Germ. *gait- > ON geit, Goth. gaits.

Notes:
The connection of the Latin and Germanic forms seem beyond reproach, but remain isolated as a European regionalism. a-vocalism similarly makes a PIE origin of this item unlikely (Dolgopolsky 1987: 16).

External comparanda:
Afro-Asiatic: Semitic *gadi-̯ > Arab. jadyun, Heb. ge𝛿ī
Afro-Asiatic: Berber aġăyd
NE Caucasian: Proto-Nakh *gāʒa, Lak gada ‘kid’

Discussion:
The Semitic and IE correspondence is difficult to ignore, but whereas Dolgopolsky considers it a direct loan from Proto-Semitic into PIE (1987: 14), Kroonen proposes a (likely extinct and unattested) third party origin for both, ultimately stemming from waves of early agriculturalists that first introduced the term to Semitic and later into European IE from an already present adstrate (2013: 163ff.).The dearth of proper PIE evidence affects both theories, but less detrimentally the latter. Nichols’ analysis of the NE Caucasian forms as old dialectal borrowings due to the internal inconsistencies (1997:129) seems to
corroborate the adstrate hypothesis; it is noteworthy, however, that Nikolayev & Starostin reconstructs a Proto-NC *gēʒ́wV that would remove the Caucasian item from comparison with PIE and Afro-Asiatic. It seems callous to posit the root for PIE proper and invites further inquiry into the ancient relations of European IE and its agricultural prehistory (cf. *h1ln̥bh– ‘lamb’, item 36, for a similar correspondence between Germanic and NE Caucasian).

_________________________________________________________________________

PIE *h2e(i)ĝ-
Gloss: ‘goat’ (item 40 in Bjørn 2017)

Alternant 1: *h2eiĝ-
Attestations: Alb. dhi; Gr. αἲξ; Arm. aic; (?)Ved. eḍa– ‘kind of sheep’, Av. īzaena- ‘leathern’

Notes:
The Vedic form requires analogy to fit the picture, but seems plausible (cf. Mayrhofer 1986: 264). Attestations only warrant reconstruction for late PIE.

Alternant 2: *h2eĝ-
Attestations:
Lith. ožýs; OCS azno ‘goat-skin’; Alb. edh; Ved. aja-, Av. aza-

Notes:
The homophonous verbal root *h2eĝ- ‘to lead’ (item 43) has quite naturally been
suggested as the derivational base, but the likeness to (1) complicates this connection (cf. also Mallory & Adams 1997: 229). This form also brands cognates in Balto-Slavic, but still fails to secure the decisive old branches for ancient strata.

External comparanda:
North Caucasian: *Hējʒ́u (cf. *ʡējʒ́wē of NCED s.v. ‘goat, she-goat’)

Discussion:
The variant forms within (P)IE do suggest a foreign source, which, indeed, may
be found in North Caucasian, as suggested by S. Starostin (2009: 80 fn.8). This is certainly also suggested by the phonological compositions that are close to being superimposable, especially on reconstruction (1) with the diphtongue. The second reconstruction may under this paradigm be explained as either stemming from folk-etymological analogy with the homophonous verbal root *h2eĝ– ‘to lead’, or as the natural yet inconsequent treatment of a foreign sequence in (P)IE (cf. Matasović 2012: 290 fn.16). Further phonological confusion is encountered if PIE *h2egw-no- ‘lamb’ (item 45) is considered a derivative to the present form.

_________________________________________________________________________

PIE *kaĝo-
Gloss: ‘goat’ (item 73 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Old Low German hōken; OCS koza; Alb. kedh, kec ‘kid’

Notes:
Very limited distribution questions ancient PIE moorings for this item. Connections with PIE *h2e(i)ĝ- (item 40) are formally impossible (cf. Mallory & Adams 1997: 229). The reconstructed a-vocalism is noteworthy.

External comparanda:
NE Caucasian: *qoVcV > e.g. Lezgian ʁec

Discussion:
The Slavic forms may, according to Derksen, be borrowed from a Turkic language
relatively late (2008: 242), ostensibly within the first millennium CE. S. Starostin proposes this Northeast Caucasian connection (2009: 81), but the formal correspondence is not very attractive.

Catfish

PIE *(h2)(s)kwal-o-s
Gloss: ‘catfish’ (item 78 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Lat. squalus ‘large fish’; Germ. *hwali– ‘whale’; OPrus. kalis ‘wels catfish’; Gr. (Hes.) ασπαλος ‘fish’; YAv. kara ‘name of a fish’, MPers. kar māhīk ‘mythical fish’.

Notes:
The inclusion of the Greek form demands an extension of the root with initial *h2s not otherwise warranted, although possible. De Vaan’s suggestion that Latin is an internal derivation to homonymous squālus ‘unkempt, dirty’ (2008: 584) is semantically unconvincing, and the Italic s- form gains plausibility in light of Greek. The semantic development of a riverine ‘fish’ to a maritime ‘whale’ in Germanic, Old Prussian ‘catfish’ or Italic ‘large sea fish’ is not surprising in light of the native distribution of the catfish, a large river fish, historically absent in Western Europe (fishbase.com). The circumstantial evidence in favor of the Graeco-Aryan sub-set is presented by Rodriguez (1989). Kroonen reconstructs the word internally in PIE as a derivation from the verbal root *kwelh1– ‘to turn’ (item 80) → *kwol– ‘the turner’ (2013: 262), but this fails to explain the consistent a-vocalism, which presents an additional problem for the age of the stock. In defense of an old PIE item, and given the distribution of the wels catfish on the Pontic steppes, loss may be expected in emigrant branches such as Anatolian, Celtic, Armenian, etc., although this is very ad hoc and fails to account for the lack of Slavic evidence. There are no reflexes in Anatolian and Tocharian, but the intricacies regarding this particular sphere are salient, especially in the former branch (cf. Mallory & Adams 1997: 204f.).

Wikicommons
Distribution of the wels catfish

External comparanda:
Uralic: *k(w)ala

Discussion:

There are several phonemic features that are relevant to the comparison with the Uralic material. Most salient is the unquestionable IE labiovelar which does not exist in traditional reconstruction of Proto-Uralic, and there is no vocalism that could round the velar from assimilation. Although strictly tentative, Samoyedic Selkup does alternate two different reflexes of Uralic initial *k-, viz. q– and k-, that are seemingly unconditioned by the phonetic environment (Collinder 1960:50), and further seems to correspond to IE labiovelar comparanda, cf. *gwelh1– ‘die’ (item 26) with q- for PIE *gw– opposing k- for *-, e.g. *k̂uon (item 72) and pronominal kut ‘who’ for PIE *ku– (traditionally reconstructed as PIE *kw-, cf. Bjørn 2016: 9ff.); Attractive, of course, in light of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, the ramifications to Uralic linguistics of this analysis are palpable as it demands an expansion of the traditionally reconstructed phoneme inventory of Proto-Uralic, and it is important to stress the caution with which this proposal is put forward, including this author’s very limited familiarity with the Samoyedic languages in general, and Selkup in particular. Confounding factors include some variation within the interrogative pronoun. Rédei suggests further connections among the steppe languages, cf. Proto-Tungusic *kcolo ‘fish’ (UEW: 119), that similarly could provide a comparable phonetic environment. Within such a paradigm, ancient loan relations may work in either direction. A substrate origin has been suggested by Schrijver (2001: 423), but it has to be very old to account for widespread Uralic occurrences, incl. Samoyedic, as well as a diverging PIE dialect continuum. A very early loan Uralic > PIE seems to be the most probable solution, although chance resemblance in some of the more southern IE branches may strengthen the case for a later borrowing with more limited regional distribution in Northeastern Europe.

Dog

PIE *kŵon-
Gloss: ‘dog’ (item 72 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Hit. LUkuwan-/kun- ‘dog-man’, HLuw. zú-wa/i-n(i)-; Toch. A & B ku; Lat. canis; OIr. cū; Goth. hunds; OPrus. sunis; Rus. súka ‘bitch’; Gr. κύων; Arm. šown; Ved. śva ́-, Av. spā-.

Notes:
An early extension of the root accounts for the Germanic stock, which is comparable to Latvian sùntena ‘big dog’ and Armenian skund ‘small dog’ (Mallory & Adams 1997: 168), but this formation need not be old. It may be noted that there is a different treatment of the sequence *k̂w- in the centum languages than in ‘horse’ (item 32).

External comparanda:
Uralic: *kVn– > e.g. Selkup kanan, Udmurt kyjon, North Saami gaidne ‘wolf’
Yukaghir: *keδe ‘wolf, dog’

Discussion:
The semantic gap from ‘wolf’ to ‘dog’ is hardly insurmountable, cf. that the shift also occurs in certain IE branches (Mallory & Adams 1997: 168), and the somewhat scanty attestations from across the Uralic pallet (Samoyedic, Volgaic, and Saami) may thus be considered likely comparanda. Chronologically the Uralic proto-language is required, making a transfer from dialectal IE implausible. The term may have migrated as far as China, where, according to Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, it was adopted around the middle of the second millennium BCE, cf. Old Chinese k’iwen (1995: 507), but this, obviously, has to be seen as a secondary transfer, possibly from Proto-Tocharian. This protracted journey suggests that an earlier loan into Uralic from PIE is probable, although the relative scarcity of Uralic material makes an exact reconstruction difficult, which further makes the comparison with exact IE strata difficult; that it cannot be compared to a satəm continuant, e.g. Indo-Iranian, is, however, very clear. This comparison requires that Selkup k- is the reflex of PIE *k̂- (cf. the discussion of ‘catfish’, item 78), and a case for an Indo-Uralic item could easily be assembled.

Pig

Two items with the meaning ‘pig’ have proposed external relations.

PIE *súH
Gloss: ‘pig’ (item 119 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Toch. B suwo; Lat. sūs; Welsh hwch; ON sýr ‘sow’; OPrus. swintian; OCS svinū; Alb. thi; Gr. ὗς, σῦς (var.); Ved. sūkará-, Av. hū-.

Notes:
Only lacking in Anatolian (possibly hiding behind Sumerograms) and Armenian, the word has old status in PIE and has been proposed connected to the verbal root *seuH– ‘to bear, bring forth’. Although Mallory & Adams criticize that it appears not to be restricted to the sow (1997: 425), semantic widening may well have rendered the term more general already before the breakup of PIE. More problematic is the fate of the laryngeal that is missing, formally inadmissibly, in some derivational forms, and a more onomatopoetic origin may alternatively be posited (e.g. Mańczak 2000: 232f.), a notion which Beekes denies (2010: 1425).

External comparanda:
Kartvelian: *(h)ešw– > Georgian ešw– ‘tusk’, Mingrelian o-sk-u ‘pigsty’
Sumerian: šáḫ(a)

Discussion:
The semantics of Kartvelian are marked by great dispersal, but Klimov seems right to connect ‘tusk, fang’ and ‘pigsty’ under a common denominator ‘(wild) boar’ (1998: 48), according to Fähnrich also attested in Old Georgian (2007: 152), which suggests an early transfer to account for the divergence that nonetheless cannot directly be honored since the item is lacking in Svan and thus, conservatively, may only be secured for Georgian-Zan; a loss in the Svan language is, of course, conceivable, and must be posited for the relation to be of PIE date as Gamkrelidze & Ivanov suggest (1995: 774). Kaiser & Shevoroshkin prefers common heritage from Nostratic with the common meaning ‘to give birth’ (1986: 369), but this scenario requires that Kartvelian independently innovated the same meaning, which is hardly preferable to a loan from early middle PIE where the meaning already had been attained. A borrowing in the opposite direction, i.e. from (an antecedent of) Kartvelian is theoretically possible, and may be corroborated by the archaeological data (Anthony 2007: 285f.). The Sumerian comparandum is semantically unproblematic, but likely requires the reconstructed PIE laryngeal questioned by some. The item may well be the same in all three families (cf. Sahala 2009: 10) and have travelled from a Middle Eastern origin at an early date, although the exact origin, possibly related to the spread of agriculture, remains elusive.

_________________________________________________________________________

PIE *ĝhor-io-
Gloss: ‘pig’ (item 18 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Alb. derr ‘pig’; Gr. χοῖρος ‘piglet’.

Notes: Slight irregularities in Albanian does not challenge the ultimate adherence to the Greek form (Demiraj 1997: 131f.), but the uniqueness of the two Balkan forms cause Beekes to suggest an unspecified substrate origin for the term (2010: 1640f.). Possibly derived from the noun *ĝher- ‘bristle’ (Mallory & Adams 1997: 425), this word is obviously an innovation and cannot be projected back onto PIE proper.

External comparanda:
Kartvelian: Georgian-Zan *γor– > Georgian γor-, Mingrelian, Laz γeǯ– (Fähnrich 2007: 491f.)
Afro-Asiatic: Chadic *γr

Discussion: Tentatively posited by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov as a mutually dialectal loan relation (1995: 774 fn.15), this connection suffers from sporadic attestations in both IE and Kartvelian. An ostensible connection must consequently be assigned to a late stratum, likely dialectal, which is geographically difficult. Alternatively, Kaiser & Shevoroshkin suggest ancient relations to Afro-Asiatic, notably without Semitic cognates (1986: 378 fn.8), but the lack of PIE continuation makes a tentative connection to agricultural substrate preferable.