Lexicon

Blackberry

PIE *moro
Gloss: ‘blackberry’ (item 95 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
(?)Lat. mōrum; (?)Welsh merwydden ‘mulberry’; Gr. μόρον; Arm. mor

Notes:
Welsh may, like the more secure cases of OHG mūrbeere ‘mulberry’ and Lithuanian mõras ‘id.’, be a loan from Latin, that again may have transferred from Greek (Schindler 1964: 172); Beekes even suggests that the Armenian cognate be borrowed from Greek, too (2010: 968), which would render it solitary in Greek, but this idea is rejected by Martirosyan (2010: 474ff.). Despite the resemblance of Hittite mūri(yan)– ‘grape’ (Tischler 1990: 233f.), there seems to be no reason to posit the noun for the oldest layers of PIE.

External comparanda:
NE Caucasian: *mer(ʔ)V ‘a kind of berry’
Uralic: *mura ‘cloudberry’

Discussion:
The Uralic stock is exceptionally consistent both formally and in terms of semantic scope, which suggests that the word entered (P)IE from Uralic. There is hardly a semantic gap between the cloudberry of Uralic and the black- and mulberries of IE that all resemble each other, and the fact that the cloudberry (also called arctic raspberry) is confined to very northern latitudes practically forces a shift. The item was also borrowed into Turkic and Tungusic languages, probably from Ob-Ugric, and later even Russian (UEW 287), so the directionality is certainly established. Campbell also posits the more general FU *marja ‘berry’ as related in a wider complex (1990: 165f.), but enough of a connection can be drawn from the more immediate resemblances. Nikolayev & Starostin have showed that a similar noun is of significant age in the Northern Caucasus (NCED s.v. ‘berry’), but the vowel quality seems better to have been affected by a desinential *-i– somewhere, possibly the derivation for the associated bush or plant (cf. Martirosyan 2010: 474ff.). Friedrich similarly suggests that Burushaski biranč may be connected (1970:150) and thus substantiates a widespread root. A transfer likely happened into a very late stage of PIE, if not purely dialectal; the geographic distance between the Uralic languages and the attested Greek and
Armenian is obviously insurmountable, as noted by Joki (1973:287f.).

Millstone

PIE *gwher-nu-
Gloss: ‘millstone’ (item 28 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
(?)Toch. B kärweñe ‘stone’; Welsh breuan; Goth. qaírnus ‘mill’; OPrus. girnoywis; OCS žrŭny; Arm. erkan; Ved. grávan- ‘stone for pressing soma’

Notes:
The noun is traditionally derived from *gwher– ‘heavy’, and despite some controversy to the provenance of Tocharian it seems best reflected within this bulk (Adams 2013:176); this evidence is accompanied by the question whether ‘millstone’ is a narrowing of original ‘stone’ (Winter 1998: 351) or a broadening of the inherited ‘millstone’. If, indeed, Tocharian represents the second (known) branching of ancient PIE, the former hypothesis seems natural, and consequently preferable.

External comparanda:
Semitic: *gúrn-u ‘threshing floor’ > e.g. Ugaritic grn (examples in Tyloch 1975: 57)
North Caucasian: *χIwĕrV ‘mill, m.’ > e.g. Ingush ħajra ‘mill’, aha ‘to mill’

Discussion:
The Semitic loan etymology is defended by Dolgopolsky (1987: 16 and 1989: 6) and Takács (1997: 374) for their phonetic similarity, while Mallory & Adams (1997: 474) and Diakonoff (1985: 128f.) ascribe the similarity to sheer chance. The latter addresses the semantic gap between an IE ‘millstone’ and a purported Semitic ‘threshing floor’, which may only be bridged through the dialect semantics of Arabic ‘mortar’ (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 770f.), but without similar variation in the ancient Semitic languages, this meaning is most probably innovated and without consequence for the present inquiry. Thematically the implement, or facility, belong to the agricultural package and should, if viable, be considered within that same context. All things considered, the Semitic comparandum requires a difficult semantic drift, especially for a purported technical loan, that renders chance resemblance the favorable option. Otherwise semantically attractive is the case for a North Caucasian connection, where a native verbal root seems to constitute the derivational basis for the implement (S. Starostin 2009: 96f.), which is a point of criticism with Matasović (2012: 290). Such a connection would, however, render the PIE system folk-etymologically associated with the root for ‘heavy’ and possibly separate Tocharian from the stock, rendering a transfer into late or late middle PIE the most likely scenario.

Pear

PIE *ĝherd
Gloss: ‘pear’ (item 25 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
(?)Alb. dardhë; Gr. ἂχεδρος ‘wild p.’, ἀχράς ‘id.’; Mac. ἀγέρδα ‘id.’

Notes:
Limited distribution to a very compact geographical region, the Balkan, has very weak bearings on PIE etymology, even more so if Orel’s reservations on Albanian are heeded (1998: 56). Furnée considers it a particular pre-Greek substrate word (1972 :127).

External comparanda:
NW Caucasian: *q(w)a
NE Caucasian: *qcör (Dolgopolsky 1989: 15)
Kartvelian: *msxal– (Fähnrich 2007: 296f.)

Discussion:
Nikolayev & Starostin, scrutinizing the North Caucasian connections, further compare the Kartvelian forms, although they concede the formal difficulties the inclusion entails (NCED s.v. ‘pear’). The linguistic travels of the fruit may be compared to that of the apple (item 42) that nonetheless appear to have wider distribution within IE. If connected, Dolgopolsky’s suggestion of a loan from North Caucasian *qcōrV (NCED *qHǖre, s.v.) or one of its descendants into a dialectically diversifying PIE (1989: 15) best fit the picture (cf. also S. Starostin 2009: 88f.), although the geographic discontinuity poses a serious obstacle (cf. Matasović 2012: 290). Caucasian connections for the Balkan languages are also pertinent in the discussion of *ĝhor-io- ‘pig’ (item 18).

Note: See now also Fenwick (2017) “An Indo-European origin of Kartvelian names for two maloid fruits”. Iran and the Caucasus, vol. 21: 310-323.

Tortoise

PIE *ghel-u(H)-
Gloss: ‘tortoise’ (item 24 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
RusCS želvĭ; Gr. χέλυς ‘t., chest cavity’

Notes: While Vasmer considers the Slavic forms derived from a verbal root ‘to bend’ (1955: 414f.), the Greek forms are significantly more contested (cf. Frisk 1966: 1086f.), and Beekes even prefers substrate origin (2010: 1623ff.).

External comparanda:
Kartvelian: *γl-az1– ‘crocodile’

Discussion:
The scattered yet very concretely matched IE evidence does lend credibility to external origins, but the Kartvelian comparandum does not match semantically. The comparison, suggested by Smitherman (2012: 510), is unfocused and draws on a proposed common verbal root ‘twist, turn’ (cf. Fähnrich 2007: 488f.) that would render the animal derivations secondary anyhow. Further circumstantial evidence may bolster future attempts, but the connection seems quite improbable.

Pole

Two different items denote poles or beams

PIE *ĝhalgho
Gloss: ‘pole’ (item 22 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
OHG galgo; Lith. žalgà; Arm. jałk.

Notes:
Despite formal problems with the second velar, the Armenian form surely belongs to the set (Martirosyan 2010: 429f.). Such a very limited distribution of the term is hardly conducive for a reconstruction dating to the earlier strata of PIE.

External comparanda:
Uralic: FU *śalka

Discussion:
It seems strange that Koivulehto prefers ascribing this word to PIE proper (2001: 238) rather than a dialectal continuant hereof, given the limited distribution within Uralic. Regional distribution of this term within IE likewise questions the claim of a truly ancient borrowing (cf. Kroonen 2013: 165). Phonetically, this word resembles *śata- ‘hundred’ which is traditionally considered a borrowing from early Indo-Iranian on account of the palatal treatment of the initial PIE palato-velar as well as the a-vocalism. Such an origin for this case is, obviously, unattractive without Indo-Iranian cognates, but the fact remains that there is no evidence suggesting great antiquity for the relation. A substrate word from an unknown source in Northern Europe could be defended in the same stratum as *kond-u- ‘hand’ (item 77), although the connection with Armenian then requires special attention. The great resemblance between Lithuanian and Fenno-Ugric thus makes a dialectal borrowing most likely.

_________________________________________________________________________

PIE *kŝeul-
Gloss: ‘beam, post, piece of wood’ (item 71 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Goth. sauls ‘column, post’; Lith. šùlas ‘post, jamb, doorpost’; Rus. šúla ‘garden post’; Gr. ξύλον, var. σύλον.

Notes:
Several aspects make the native status of this item highly questionable, including the atypical onset cluster, the very specific meaning in all attestations, and the distribution limited to a small handful of (nearly contiguous) European branches (cf. Beekes 2010: 1037f.).

External comparanda:
NE Caucasian: *č̣ɨwłu ‘beam’ > e.g. Chechen č̣erg ‘transversal ceiling crossbeam’

Discussion:
The phonetic shape of this reconstruction certainly seems to correspond with the reception in the IE languages, and the superimposable semantics bolster this scenario. Somewhat problematic is the geographic distance between the IE languages in Europe and the NE Caucasian family, but the fact that prehistoric migrational patterns, of people and, especially, words remain ephemeral, this cannot be elevated to a decisive counter-argument when, on linguistic evidence alone, the comparison is so attractive. Given the lack of internal explanation for the item in PIE, the item may well have emanated from NE Caucasian, as suggested by S. Starostin (2009: 97), or a language related hereto.

Jaw

PIE *ĝenu-
Gloss: ‘chin, jaw(-bone)’ (item 17 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Toch. A śanwe-ṃ (du.); OIr. gin; Goth. kinnus; Gr. γένυς; Phr. α-ζήν ‘beard’; Ved. hanu-, Av. zanva (acc. du.).

Notes: The problematic velar reflexes in Indo-Iranian formally require *ĝh, which has been proposed as “Homoionymenflucht”, i.e. dissimilation from *ĝonu- ‘knee’ (item 20) with which it was colliding in the Indo-Iranian vowel collapse of *e and *o to a (Mayrhofer 1996: 801f.), although *-o- in ‘knee’ is lengthened due to the effects of Brugmann’s Law.

External comparanda:
NE Caucasian: *č̣ănV ‘chin’ (NCED s.v.)

Discussion:
S. Starostin makes no distinction as to the stage of transfer (2009: 85), but the palatal development of an inherited plain velar in front of a front vowel is a strong argument in favor of a dialectal loan from a stage of Indo-Iranian into NE  Caucasian (Dolgopolsky 1987: 19), and, if the vowel reconstructed by Nikolayev & Starostin is to be preferred to Dolgopolsky’s cover symbol, the vocalism helps substantiate a loan with the hallmark traits of Indo-Iranian (§ 1.3.2.13).

Grain

PIE *dhoHn
Gloss: ‘grain’ (item 14 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
(?)Hit. dannas ‘kind of food’, (?)Luw. tannas ‘id.’; Toch. B tāno; Lith.  dúona ‘bread’; Ved. dhāna-, Av. dāna.

Notes:
Adams considers the earlier suggestion to derive it from the verbal root *dheh1– ‘put, place’, but concedes it as semantically strained (2013: 303). The identity of the Anatolian forms with the rest of the IE stock is tentatively suggested by Watkins (1965: 121), somewhat substantiated by the meaning in Lithuanian, but other, more immediate, alternatives likely reject the comparison (cf. Tischler 1991: 99).

External comparanda:
Semitic: *dúχn– ‘millet’ (Dolgopolsky 1987: 15, 1989: 5)

Discussion:
Orel & Stolbova connects the Semitic root to Central Chadic *dwan– ‘corn’ (1995: 166), adding credibility to an Afro-Asiatic origin. Diakonoff remains sceptical pending further knowledge of the importance of ‘millet’ in the diet (1985: 127), and the comparison may further be questioned by the semantic drift required to fit the IE attestations. The connection is attractive in light of the spread of agriculture, but remains inconclusive.

Earth

PIE *dheĝh-om
Gloss: ‘earth’ (item 10 in Bjørn 2017)

Attestations:
Hit. tēkan, HLuw. takam- (dat.-loc.sg.); Toch. A tkaṃ, Toch. B (t)keṃ; Lat. humus; OIr. ; Goth. guma ‘man’; Lith. žẽmė; OCS zemlja; Alb. dhe; Gr. χθών; Ved. kṣás, Av. zam-.

Notes:
This item harks back to the oldest layers of PIE with representation in most branches, including the decisive ancient Anatolian and Tocharian that further help establish the original sequence of the obstruents (D-G) that underwent metathesis sometime in late middle PIE (to G-D). This item has been mentioned as an argument in favor of Tocharian as the second branch to leave the PIE dialect continuum (cf. Kretschmer 1931).

External comparanda:
Kartvelian: *diɣwam- ‘fertile soil’ > Georgian diɣvam– ‘black earth, sufficiency’ and Svan diɣwam ‘damp low place with f.’.
Kartvelian (alternative): *diqa- ‘clay’ > e.g. Georgian tixa, (?)Svan gim

Discussion:
Klimov proposes the connection with ‘fertile soil’ (1998: 41), which semantically seems a viable loan item due to its specialized meaning and formal triconsonantal quasiidentity (D-G-M), although the vocalism seems somewhat discontinuous; the labial
treatment of the IE velar similarly needs to be explained. These considerations would establish PIE as the provider of the term. Alternatively, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov suggest that the meaning ‘clay’ in Kartvelian may be related to PIE ‘earth’, and that the Svan form represent a simplified stem *ĝhem– < *dhĝhem– (1995: 774) to illuminate internal PIE development as well, but note that Klimov does not include Svan in this cognate set (1998: 72), reducing the reconstruction to Georgian-Zan, while Fähnrich treats it along with Mingrelian gim-e ‘below’ (2007: 107). This Svan form is, moreover, not an exact semantic parallelism, but the connotations in PIE with inherent association with ‘human’, e.g., at least some European languages, Goth. guma and Latin homō (cf. Mallory & Adams 1997: 366), could mend the comparison somewhat. The sequence of the obstruents in either Kartvelian comparandum would surely establish the loan to an early stratum of PIE, i.e. before the metathesis sometime after the presumed split of Tocharian. Kaiser & Shevoroshkin reject the hypothesis on formal grounds (1986: 368), but, all things considered, the connection with ‘black soil’ appears most attractive if the similarity is not merely due to chance resemblance.

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.).