Several items meaning ‘goat’ have external comparanda, four are included here. See also Kroonen (2012: 245-247):

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

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

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. § and be ascribed to a loan into the later strata of PIE.


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

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

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’

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’

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-
Lith. ožýs; OCS azno ‘goat-skin’; Alb. edh; Ved. aja-, Av. aza-

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’)

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)

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

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

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.


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

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’.

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.).

Distribution of the wels catfish

External comparanda:
Uralic: *k(w)ala


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 [see further in the comments below]. 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.


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

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-.

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’

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.


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

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

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

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)

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)

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.


PIE *gwṓu
Gloss: ‘cow’ (item 30 in Bjørn 2017)

HLuw. wa/i-wa/i-(i); Toch. A ko, Toch. B keu; Umb. bum (acc.); OIr. bō; ON kýr; Latv. gùovs; OCS go-mĭno ‘threshing floor’; Alb. ka; Myc. qo-u-, Gr. βοῦς; Arm. kov; Ved. gáu-, Av. gāuš.

Albanian shows some irregularity in the exact type of velar (Mallory & Adams 1997: 134ff.), but does not question the PIE reconstruction. The phonetic complements in Hittite (GUD-us, GUD-un) do allow a continuation of this root, but cannot be known for certain (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 483), but the Hieroglyphic Luwian attestation appears solidify evidence for the Anatolian branch (Melchert 2003: 195).

External comparanda:
Semitic: *ġi ‘to bellow’ (Schott 1936: 66f.)
Egyptian: gw ‘bull’ (Mallory & Adams 1997: 135)
Kartvelian: *pur (attestations see Klimov 1998: 206)
NW Caucasian: *č’:amə > e.g. Kabardian gwaw ‘bull’ (Nichols 1997: 143)
NE Caucasian: *ʒ ̣̌VW > e.g. Chechen-Ingush govr ‘horse’ (ibid.)
Sumerian: gu4 ~ gud ‘bull’

It is likely that the PIE root originally was generic only for the species (and not also for the gender), denoting both ‘cow’ and ‘bull’, i.e. ‘cattle’ (cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 482), which is practically demanded by the external comparanda. According to Mallory & Adams the domestication of the cow began during the Neolithic revolution in the Middle East in the 7th millennium BC and had spread through Europe by the inception of the fourth (1997: 137). Considering the rather extensive list of proposed comparanda, the possibility of onomatopoetic homophony may justifiably be argued, but the ostensible motivation is elusive and perhaps best represented by the Semitic verbal connection proposed by Schott, but it is weak compared to all other comparanda that clearly relate a very narrow semantic value to each other; the only possible scenario that could comprise this root as viable would be as the primordial verbal root from which the term was originally derived. Against this notion, the Egyptian evidence stands comparatively stronger denoting the animal itself and seems strengthened by further Afro-Asiatic cognates in West Chadic *warar ‘vicious bull’ (Orel & Stolbova 1995: 527). These forms may gain further credibility through the similarly positive situation in Sumerian (cf. Sahala 2009: 7) that represents the earliest attestation and is perpetuated as Sumerograms in Hittite where it curiously eclipses a word that might ultimately be related. Further suggested borrowings include Old Chinese (Mallory & Adams 1997: 135), but especially noteworthy is the proposed connection to Altaic which includes a demonstrable semantic generalization that allows a shift to other quadrupeds, cf. as a link
Manchurian geo ‘mare; cow; female (of quadrupeds)’ and consequently Classical Mongol gegün ‘mare’ (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 491f.), particularly relevant for the inclusion of the NE Caucasian comparandum suggested by Nichols (1997: 143). The NW Caucasian attestation, obviously semantically incompatible with its western neighbors, is formally interesting from a PIE point of view as it retains an initial labiovelar. Labiality is also the proposed recipient rendition of *gw– in Kartvelian, which necessitates either an early borrowing directly from PIE, a centum continuant, or a non-IE language with similar retention of the feature, e.g. NW Caucasian, but the proposed concordance poorly matches ‘to extinguish’ (item 110) where PIE *gw– yields Kartvelian *kw-, and is therefore quite
improbable. All things considered the item may well be foreign in PIE, but it is of
considerable age; it seems to significantly predate the spread of other agricultural terms, e.g. *(s)teuros ‘bull’ (item 118), but may, too, be connected with the same general wave of technological innovation, as widespread borrowings certainly suggest. The somewhat difficult Anatolian material could be secondarily introduced, but there is no imperative to favor such an interpretation.


PIE *h1ék̂w-os
Gloss: ‘horse’ (item 32 in Bjørn 2017)

HLuw. azu(wa), Lyc. esbe-; Toch. A yuk, Toch. B yakwe; OLat. equos; Gaul. epo-; ON jór, Goth. aíhwa-; Lith. ašvíenis ‘stallion’; Myc. i-qo, Gr. ἳππος; Arm. ēš; Ved. áśva-, Av. aspa

Only the Slavic and Albanian branches miss this lexeme, and the horse can safely be ascribed to the earliest strata of PIE on internal evidence alone, despite Dolgopolsky’s attempt to discredit the inherent nature of the Anatolian forms (1993: 240). The root gives valuable insights to the intricacies of the velar series with the co-occurrence of the palatal *– with the labial element *-w-: While satəm languages retain the independence of the labial element, basically [+pal] + [+lab], the centum languages fuse the phonemes into one, [+vel, +lab], and subsequently follow the rules governing the inherited labiovelars. The Greek forms remain, although clearly related, problematic, probably reflecting some kind of dialectal borrowing (Beekes 2008: 597f.), although Sihler suggests that at least the geminate may be a regular outcome of the inherited palatal-labial cluster (1995: 159f.). Internal derivation has been proposed from a root ‘swift’ attractive due to a common Graeco-Aryan collocation, ‘swift horses’, Gr. ὠκέες ἳπποι, Ved. áśvāḥ āśávaḥ, but the connection is formally difficult (Mallory & Adams 1997: 273), if not impossible (Beekes 2008: 597f.).

External comparanda:
Kartvelian: e.g. Georgian ačua (children’s language)
North Caucasian: *ɦɨ[n]čwĭ
NW Caucasian: *cʷ̣̌́ ǝ > e.g. Abkhaz, Ubykh ačy (pl.)
NE Caucasian: Avar, Lak ču, Akhvakh ičwa, Andi iča, etc.
HU: Hur. eššǝ

The domestication of the horse represents a central pillar in Anthony‘s archaeological location of the PIE speakers on the Pontic Steppes (2007: 193-224), and intense and selective exploitation of the horse was widespread from around 4.500 BCE in the region from southern Ukraine through to Kazakhstan (Mallory & Adams 1997: 273ff.). It is thus noteworthy that Uralic did not borrow the PIE word. A common Proto-North Caucasian reconstruction has been posited, *ɦɨ[n]čwĭ, without convincing internal derivation, although the authors do not explicitly make the connection with PIE (NCED s.v. ‘horse’). Such a reconstruction, however, gives depth of time comparable to PIE, and invalidates Colarusso’s intricate and very idiosyncratic analysis of NW Caucasian and PIE with the aim of uniting the phyla in Proto-Pontic (2003: 41ff.). The Hurrian form is proposed as a loan from the satəm Mitanni-Aryan superstrate that brandished a particularly specialized equestrian vocabulary, especially owing to the assibilated geminate (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 809). A similar origin has been suggested for Semitic, cf. Akkadian sisū and Ugarit ssw (despite confounding factors, cf. Militarev & Kogan 2005: 261ff.), Sumerian sí-sí (Sahala 2009: 10), some NE Caucasian languages (Dolgopolsky 1987: 19) as well as Abkhaz (Mallory & Adams 1997: 274), but these latter can just as well be explained from the bulk of Caucasian attestations treated below. According to Nikolayev & Starostin the sporadic Kartvelian forms can be ascribed to intra-Caucasian loan relations (NCED s.v. ‘horse’), and are thus considered secondary and beyond the scope of the present paper. The evidence presented by Dolgopolsky to substantiate the entry into Caucasian languages as an early Proto-Indo-Iranian loan rests solely with the palatal treatment of the internal velar in the Daghestanian dialects (1987: 19), but the argument is mute because palatals are reconstructed for PIE and there is no evidence to suggest that a proposed Proto-North Caucasian recipient language would not have treated them as such (§ Indeed, if horses were a trademark of ancient PIE culture (predating the split of Anatolian) with concomitant mercantile prowess, and the PIE speakers interacted intensely with the North Caucasian linguistic area at an early date, it is very likely that the ‘horse’ represented a sufficiently valuable item to be transferred from PIE and subsequently thrive in the Caucasus (cf. Matasović 2012: 291). Tantalizing both in the initial laryngeal PNC *ɦ– to mirror PIE *h1– and the internal sequence of palatalized velar plus labial glide, the only aberrant element in the North Caucasian stock is the nasal found in the Lezgian branch of NE Caucasian (reconstructed *ʡɨnšʷ [~ħ-], see NCED s.v. ‘horse’), but the circumstances are internally unclear. Alternative solutions, albeit less attractive, are chronological adjustments either (1) further back into prehistory and approaching Nostratic, or (2) later as a dialectal PIE loan, as suggested by Dolgopolsky (1987: 19).