Numerals

Numeral etymologies
While a couple of items have unmistakable external connections and established loan etymologies (wherefore these items also formally are included in the main part of the wordlist, § 4.1), the following treatment of the IE numerals will also take the form of an excourse discussing the strictly internal arguments for the traditionally reconstructed system in PIE.

  1. ‘One’ (item 37 and § 5.1 in Bjørn 2017)
    Two PIE roots produce the first cardinal in the attested languages, viz. *(h1)oi- and *sem- (cf. Ringe et al. 2002: 74f.), but there is some reason to assume that the former may have been the first choice, given that it by far is the most widespread base (different derivations abound, e.g. *-no- and *-ko-); that Anatolian, Tocharian, Greek, and Albanian employ the latter may thus be ascribed to semantic innovation (cf. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 740f.). Martínez holds that, strictly speaking, the numeral ‘one’ is not really counting (1999: 211), and other language families, including Uralic, Kartvelian, and Semitic, are similarly without a single ‘one’ (Mallory & Adams 1997: 398).

    External comparanda:
    NW Caucasian: Abkhaz *ajə́ba ‘orphan’
    Discussion
    :
    Bomhard suggests the connection of PIE *(h1)oi- ‘one’ with the Northwest Caucasian item as a sign of an ancient adstrate relation (2015: 17), but for multiple obvious reasons the proposition has to be rejected, most saliently because the Abkhaz form convincingly can be connected with the Northeast Caucasian stock treated under *h3orbh– ‘to change allegiance’ (item 62).

  2. ‘Two’
    The PIE reconstruction of the second numeral is wholly unproblematic and all branches are securely attested. It may be noted that no convincing external comparanda has been proposed for this item.
  3. ‘Three’
    As with the preceding numeral there is no reason to question its ancient status within PIE, and there is no obvious external comparanda for this numeral either. Martínez has, however, suggested that it is transparently derived from *ter ‘beyond’ (1999:207), but this has no consequence for the present inquiry without proposed loan etymologies and with the numerical value established by the split of the Anatolian branch from the rest of PIE.
  4. ‘four’
    PIE (1) *kwetwor

    Attestations:
    Toch. A śtwar, Toch. B śtwer; Lat. quattuor; OIr. cethair; Goth. fidwor; Lith. keturì; OCS četyre; Alb. katër; Myc. qe-to-ro-pi ‘four-footed’, Gr. τέσσαρες; Arm. cՙorkՙ ; Ved. catvára-, Av. čaθvārō

    Notes:
    Entirely consistent in all branches except for Anatolian, this PIE forms may be a compound *kwe-twor, and, following Villar (1996: 158), be a missegmentation that originally belonged to the numeral ‘three’, that thus shared desinence with ‘five’, cf. the simpler attestations in Ved. turīya– ‘fourth’ (Martínez 1999: 214), YAv. tūiriia– ‘id.’, and possibly also Greek τράπεζα (Myc. to-pe-za) ‘four-leg’, the  standard explanation for which is zero grade *kwtuṛ– without realization of the initial consonant (cf. Mayrhofer 1991: 657 and Beekes 2010: 1499). The assumption, then, is that the sequence went ‘three-and-four-(and)-five-and’, viz. *tres-kwe-twor-pen-kwe (cf. also Bammesberger 1995: 218f.); the fact that ‘four’ does not have a separate *-kwe nonetheless remains suspicious. It does not amount to much of a counterargument to accept *pen(kw)-sti- ‘fist’ (item 104) as the base word for the numerical derivation, since the vital *kw is eclipsed in a consonant cluster (but note finger).

    PIE (2) *méh1-u-

    Attestations:
    Hit. miyu-, CLuw. maauua-, Lyc. mupm̃m- ‘fourfold?’; (?)Myc. mi-we-jo ‘less’

    Notes:
    This item introduces problems for the otherwise consistent IE decimal system with Anatolian discontinuation. Under the binary paradigm methodologically employed here the Anatolian forms may have a profound impact of the traditionally reconstructed numerical system of early PIE, if, indeed, the difference cannot simply be ascribed to loss and substitution, which would be unique within IE where, as far as the attestations show, all other branches retain all numerals from ‘two’ through ‘ten’ (cf. Fortson 2010: 145f.). This form may well be an innovation, likely derived from an adjective also continued in Mycenaean, as suggested by Martínez (1999: 207), but this says nothing about whether the traditionally reconstructed root (1) was discarded. Indeed, there are dozens of uninterrupted modern continuations of *kwetwor (in Danish, Spanish, Kurdish, Hindi, Welsh, etc.) and substitutions are demonstrably exceptionally rare, if not phantasmal. The point that is being driven at here is, of course, that a claim of such an exceptional substitution in the Anatolian languages of an ostensibly inherited word for ‘four’ requires solid evidence; tantalizingly, according to Kloekhorst, the common IE root may actually be continued in the legal term kutruuan ‘witness’, literally the fourth part, after defendant, plaintiff, and judge (2008a: 499ff., see also Eichner 1992: 80ff.), yet this claim is disputed and other likely cognates exist (cf. Puhvel 1997: 299f.). This dichotomy is a fundamental differentiation in the stratification of PIE and adds plausibility and urgency to the internal (or, theoretically, external, cf. the numbers 6 ‘six’ through 8 ‘eight’, § 5.6-5.8) derivation of the other root (1). Ultimately this analysis elucidates a stage of innovative morphology was disrupted by the branching of the ancestor of the
    Anatolian languages.

    PIE (3) *(h3)ok̂t

    Attestations:
    (?)PIE *(h3)ok̂tṓ- ‘eight’ (du.); Av. ašti– ‘breadth of four fingers’

    Notes:
    See § 5.8 ‘eight’ that appears to be a dual form. Widespread loss of the original form is required, only directly attested in Avestan.

  5. ‘five’
    PIE *penkwe

    Attestations:
    (?)Luw. 5-w(a) /panku-/; Toch. A päñ, Toch. B piś; Lat. quīnque; OIr. cōic; Goth. fimf; Lith. penki; OCS pętĭ; Alb. pesë; Gr. πέντε; Arm. hing; Ved. páñca, Av. panča
    Notes
    :
    Italic, Celtic, and Germanic all require altogether unproblematic assimilations of the inherited stops, although Germanic does so in the opposite direction from the rest. According to Carruba an Anatolian alternative may possibly be attested in Lycian cm̃ne ‘five’ (1979: 192), but this is emphatically denied by Melchert (1994: 32), the form is not mentioned by Eichner in his treatment of Anatolian numerals (1992), and the phonetic complement in Luwian does seem to hint at the common root. Treating *-kwe as ‘and’ (cf. § 5.4) is certainly favored by the otherwise aberrant desinence *-e. The strongest hypothesis considering the numeral a complete root is Polomé’s connection to Hittite panku– ‘all, whole’ (1969: 99-101), although this is questioned by Kloekhorst (2008a: 624ff.). Sequentially it is worth noting that Anatolian here appears to agree with all other branches, rendering ‘four’ an isolated case of noncompliance. Treating this evidence with some degree of consequence, it may be surmised that the numeral ‘five’ was established at an earlier stage in PIE, which does seem intuitive glancing at the number of fingers on each authoring hand. Further, the suggested derivation of Anatolian ‘four’ is from the meaning ‘less’ which fittingly necessitates the greater number as its referent.

    External comparanda:
    Uralic: *piηз ‘palm of the hand’

    Discussion:
    Trombetti (1923 :549) suggests a connection with Uralic *piηз ‘palm of the hand’ (UEW: 384), which would constitute a lexical rather than numerical argument, and is consequently treated as such, see *pen(kw)-sti- ‘fist’ (item 104); typologically parallelled is the origin of the Semitic numeral ‘five’ ḫamš– (Lipiński 2001: 295). Regardless of the many different proposals, it seems beyond contention that the lexeme is an internal innovation that likely predates the split of Anatolian, although this cannot be securely established.

  6. ‘six’ (item 120 and § 5.6 in Bjørn 2017)
    PIE *(s)wek̂s

    Attestations:
    Toch. A ṣäk, Toch. B ṣkas; Lat. sex; Welsh chwech; Goth. saíhs; Lith. šešì, OPrus.
    us(ch)ts ‘sixth’; OCS šestĭ; Myc. we-pe-za ‘six-footed’, Gr. ἓξ; Arm. vec; Ved. ṣáṣ, Av. xšvaš.
    Notes
    :
    Formally the union of all of the IE comparanda is problematic, parts of which may be explainable with s-mobile, or, perhaps better yet, as sequential assimilation of initial *s- from ‘seven’ (§ 5.7, cf. Szemerényi 1996: 222), but this still fails to explain all of the variation in the onset. Moreover, there is no Anatolian data for this item (Eichner 1992: 83).

    External comparanda:
    Semitic: *šidt- > Akk. šiššet
    Egyptian: śrś.w
    NW Caucasian: *səx̑cə (Colarusso 1997: 144)
    NE Caucasian: Khinalug zäk
    Kartvelian: *ekws > Georg. ekws-, Ming. amšw– Laz a(n)š, Svan usgwa (Klimov 1985:206)

    Discussion:
    The Kartvelian material requires metathesis akin to the one seen in IE to make
    all forms fit (Fähnrich 2007: 151f.), making a foreign origin probable in that family. This is usually ascribed to Armenian (cf. Kaiser & Shevroshkin 1986: 369f.), but Klimov is unwavering in positing a PIE loan and rejects a later Armenian source on chronological grounds, and is thus comparable to ‘seven’ (§ 5.7). The solitary attestation in Northeast Caucasian (Blažek 1999c:83) makes an old relation highly unlikely, and is, if related, more likely a later cultural transfer. Note, however, that Nikolayev & Starostin unproblematically include this and the Northwest Caucasian comparandum (suggested by Colarusso 1997: 144) into the North Caucasian material, thus from *ʔrǟnƛ_E (NCED s.v. ‘six’) and evidently not related to the PIE form. For the IE material, Levin (1995: 402) invokes the initial sibilant in Vedic, otherwise only a consequence of the RUKI rule, i.e. minimally requiring a preceding phoneme, or in peripheral lexical items such as onomatopoetic ṣthu ‘spit’, as evidence of a foreign element; this anomaly could, however, also be explained as assimilation to the internal sibilant (cf. Sihler 1995:413 and, more elaborately, Lubotsky 2008: 357), while Martínez (1999:208-209) and Mallory & Adams (1997: 402) all accept the loan hypothesis. A question of chronology still remains, however, to explain how the original borrowed sound was retained to produce distinct outcomes in the different IE dialects; perhaps late diffusion, which perhaps may be tacitly supported by the non-evidence from Anatolian. The Semitic form is formally removed from the PIE reconstruction with a different occlusive quality and without the initial glide, and the later Akkadian form is evidently assibilated and thus difficult to posit as primary to the hard velar treatment continued in the IE centum languages. Considering the the strong case for a Semitic origin of ‘seven’, it is difficult to discard this proposition, but the connection is not as obvious and may require intermediate languages, possibly in the Caucasus, but more probably in the Balkans, to fit the picture.

  7. ‘seven’ (item 109 and § 5.7 in Bjørn 2017)
    PIE *septm̥

    Attestations:
    Hit. sipta-; Toch. A ṣpät, Toch. B ṣukt; Lat. septem; OIr. sechtN; Goth. sibun; Lith.
    septynì; OCS sedmĭ; Gr. ἑπτά; Arm. ewtՙn; Ved. sápta, Av. hapta.
    Notes
    :
    The PIE provenance of ‘seven’ is indisputable, since a Hittite cognate has been
    demonstrated in si-ip-ta-mi-ya ‘drink of seven’ conclusively mirrored in VII-mi-ya (cf. Neu 1999). There is little internal variation, although obvious external comparanda make a loan etymology unavoidable.

    External comparanda:
    Semitic: *sb’t
    Kartvelian: *šwid- > Georg. šwid-, Ming. škwit-, Laz šk(w)it, Svan išgwid-.
    HU: Hurrian sitta

    Discussion:
    The number ‘seven’ has convincing cognates transcending most other linguistic
    divides, thus PIE *septm, Finnish seitsemän, as well as Arabic sa’ba and Georgian šwid– (Dolgopolsky 1987: 15, Katlev 2004). It was borrowed into Uralic from IE languages at up to three different stages (Dolgopolsky 1995); Janhunen suggests that Proto-Samoyedic *sejtɜwe be a loan from Proto-Tocharian (1983: 5), but the formal resemblance with Finnish seitsen leaves some internal chronology left accounted for (cf. Joki 1973: 313); these occurrences clearly are of a secondary nature and the scope of the present investigation does not allow further scrutiny. Note that, according to Napolskikh, the Tocharian form travelled even further afield, cf. Old Chinese sjɛt ‘seven’ and Turkic *jetti (2001: 373). Klimov entertains the idea that Hurro-Urartian could be a center for much of this cultural distribution (1985: 209), but its simpler structure questions this hypothesis, and the form is, indeed, considered a secondary borrowing by Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 20); a different, and supposedly native form, is shared with the North Caucasian languages that do not attest the root presently under scrutiny. The Kartvelian forms are generally assumed to stem from Semitic, cf. Klimov (1985: 206) and even Fähnrich, who agrees that the item exhibits obvious traits of a loan character (2007: 531), most likely from a form closely related to Akkadian sibittu. The saliency of this particular numeral no doubt emanates from the measure of the important seven-day week (Nichols 1997: 127), probably associated with the spread of agricultural practices and cultic rituals. With sound quasi-Afro-Asiatic cognates in Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber, an internal genesis for the form has been proposed by Blažek as deriving from a numeral ‘three’, cf. East Chadic *sab̩u/sub̩a (1997b: 18f.). It is thus highly probable that PIE similarly received the item from Semitic, and although the PIE desinence *-m has been explained as an internal sequential phenomenon from ‘nine’ and ‘ten’ (Mallory & Adams 1997: 402), the definite form in Semitic (*šab’a-t-Vm, where V = *-u- in the nominative, and *-a- in the accusative), too, could provide the coda (Dolgopolsky 1993: 243), wrapping the whole package that all but technically proves the origin of the term. A theoretical later borrowing directly into Anatolian from the, probably, Semitic origin seems unlikely considering the close phonological affinity with the rest of the IE stock. The unvoiced PIE reflex of the voiced Semitic origin is probably due to voicing assimilation to the following *-t-, although an argument could be made as to the exact phonetic nature of the earliest PIE phoneme system. Adding the sequential correspondence for the same families also for the preceding numeral ‘six’ (§ 5.6) renders Diakonoff’s criticism (1985: 124) insufficient to reject these very convincing comparanda.

  8. ‘eight’ (item 97 and § 5.8 in Bjørn 2017)
    PIE *(h3)ok̂tṓ

    Attestations:
    (?)HLuw. (see notes); Toch. A okät, Toch. B okt; Lat. octō; OIr. ochtN; Goth. ahtau;
    Lith. aštuonì; OCS osmĭ; Alb. tetë; Gr. ὀκτώ; Phr. *o(t)tuos; Arm. utՙ; Ved. aṣṭá-, Av. ašta
    Notes
    :
    There is ample evidence to suggest that the desinence is the grammatical dual marker, perhaps most obviously with the Avestan singular ašti– ‘breadth of four (4) fingers’ (cf. § 5.4). Though hard Anatolian evidence must be considered lost, there is a slight suggestion in Hieroglyphic Luwian, 8-wa-a-ī for *(h)ak(?)-tauanzi, where the IE dual ending might be discerned (Eichner 1992:85), and the form may likely be ascribed to the oldest strata of PIE. The initial laryngeal is not attested but may be posited to meet the expectations of the PIE root structure.

    External comparanda:
    Kartvelian: *otχo ‘four’

    Discussion:
    The importance of the dual in PIE is essential for the comparison with the Kartvelian form that then represents the basic meaning lost in most branches of IE. Already Bopp noted the similarity (1847), and the unmistakable parallels are upheld by Klimov (1994) and Dolgopolsky (1987: 21). The Kartvelian fricative may thus relate to the palatal nature of PIE, albeit metathesized. Curiously, the Kartvelian numeral ‘eight’ *arwa is likely a borrowing directly from Semitic ‘four’, cf. Arabic arbaʔ, and the connection between eight and four appears to be typologically common (cf. Klimov 1985: 206); Kartvelian likely also got its number ‘10’ *a(š)t from Semitic, cf. Arab. ašr ‘ten’ (Nichols 1997: 142). Semantically the transfer requires the basic meaning to have been alive, but with the attestation in Avestan this can safely be posited for, at least, the Iranian branch, which blunts the imperative for a particularly old phenomenon. The conditions favorable for a transfer of the numeral ‘four’ eludes, and a borrowing in the opposite direction may justifiably be posited as an alternative, especially given the confusing state of the numeral in PIE (§ 5.4). There are clearly some interesting stratificational consequences of the numeral exchange between PIE, Kartvelian, and Semitic.

  9. ‘nine’
    PIE *(h1)néun
    With cognates attested in Anatolian this numeral may safely reconstructed for the earliest strata of PIE; unmistakable traces of the common IE root are thus found in Lycian nuñtãta ‘a number (with nine as a component)’. Internal derivation has been proposed as ‘the new one’ fra *neu– (cf. Martínez 1999: 212). Greek and Armenian requires special attention for this etymology to work, and it was suggested already by Pedersen that Graeco-Armenian represents the innovation of prefixing *en– (1893: 272), then literally ‘anew’, possibly after
    ‘eight’, which, too, helps explain the conundrum of the Greek geminate in the classical reconstruction *h1neu– (cf. e.g. Beekes 2010: 427-428). No obvious external comparanda have been proposed.
  10. ten’ (item 9 and § 5.10 in Bjørn 2017)
    PIE *dek̂m̥

    Attestations
    : Toch. A śäk; Lat. decem; Welsh deg; Goth. taíhun; Lith. dẽšimt; OCS desętĭ; Alb. dhjetë ; Gr. δέκα; Arm. tasn; Ved. dáśa, Av. dasa.Notes:
    Without Anatolian attestations (Eichner 1992: 88) this item is otherwise wellrepresented in all other branches. Mallory & Adams convincingly argue in favor of a derivation to *dek̂-s ‘right hand’ continued in Latin dexter (1997: 403).
    External comparanda
    :
    Uralic: Fenno-Volgaic *-tVksVn > e.g. Fin. –deksan

    Discussion:
    The use of the number in Finnish is of some interest as it is confined to compounds, thus kah-deksan ‘eight’ and yh-deksän ‘nine’, literally ‘two (and one, respectively) from ten’ (the standard term for ‘ten’ is kymmenen). It is tempting to assume that this expression of the numeral ‘ten’ in some western branches of Uralic is of IE origin (Hakulinen 1946: 33), but an internal collocation may also be posited (Itkonen 1973: 337ff.), and is preferred in both SKES (1978: 1856, s.v. yhdeksan) and UEW (1988: 643f.). If a transfer did occur, it must have happened earlier than that of *śata– ‘hundred’ (§ 5.12). Note that the existence of extensive trade relations between stages of PIE and Uralic is uncontroversial, and seeing that at least early middle PIE had a concrete number ten, very likely tied to a decimal system, while Uralic demonstrably did not, it is by no means inconceivable that the numeral could have transferred in certain collocations where the exact place in the native system was undetermined, allowing a different root for ten to be adopted when the system finally was established.

  11. Teens
    Seeing that the numeric sequence even through to ‘ten’ are ripe with internal
    inconsistencies, it can be no wonder that even more complex formations pick up the mantel in more or less idiosyncratic ways in the various dialects. One particular, and, from the looks of it, odd, system that spans a wide geographical as well as linguistic area is the “left-over” teens of Proto-Germanic (only eleven and twelve), Lithuanian, and the Samoyedic language Tundra Nenets (Martínes 1999: 212). The Indo-European forms are very likely to be cognate (Germ. *-lif and Lith. –lika, despite the problem of labiovelar reflexes in Germanic), but are
    formally different from Tundra Nenets yəŋk°nʹa ‘separate’ (Nikolaeva 2014: 52). The very limited geographical distribution renders this suggested correspondence highly speculative.
  12. A short note on higher order numerals
    Just like Fenno-Ugric borrowed ‘hundred’ from Indo-Iranian *śata– → FU *śata, so did Kartvelian adopt its *as1ir ‘hundred’ from Semitic, cf. Akkadian ‘esr ‘ten’ (Klimov 1985:208). A similar derivation from ‘ten’ is likely found in PIE *(d)k̂m̥tóm ‘100’ ~ *dek̂m̥ ‘10’ (Mallory & Adams 1997:404).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cow

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

Attestations:
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.

Notes:
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’

Discussion:
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.

Horse

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

Attestations:
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

Notes:
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

Discussion:
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 (§ 1.3.2.13). 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).