Discussion of Vladimir Diakoff's proposed sound changes

The following is a guest post by Vladimir Diakoff about his proposed Indo-European sound changes. This discussion is continued from this Language Hat post: THE INDO-EUROPEAN CONTROVERSY: AN INTERVIEW.

Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law

This new Indo-European phonetic law identifies the co-existence of forms with stops vs. forms with colored vowels. Since colored vowels (e, o, a) are known to have derived from PIE laryngeals and a combination of voiceless stops and laryngeals yielded voiceless aspirates in Indo-Iranian, it’s reasonable to postulate that it’s the PIE laryngeals that are responsible for the observed doublets. The split was apparently conditioned by the existence of forms in which a "T+H" sequence before V was a cluster (the ancestral state) vs. sequences in which T+H became a consonant phoneme or H+V became a (colored) vocalic phoneme. I hypothesize that in the pre-PIE there were no voiced aspirates but only voiced stops. In the environment immediately preceding a laryngeal, a voiced stop acquired aspiration through the phonemicization of the cluster voiced stop + laryngeal. There's some indication that palatovelars may also have gotten their palatal articulation from a contact with a laryngeal but this hypothesis is presently redundant as the “system” presented below can work without it. I don't know if there was a separate line of voiced laryngeals that may have voiced neighboring stops. I understand that we need to know in what paradigmatic contexts the phonemicization of a laryngeal occurred. I don't have an answer for this yet but the minimal requirement of conditioning (namely, cluster vs. phoneme), I think, is met.

Laryngeals were a group of phonemes, H1, H2, H3, distributed from front to back (in terms of their place of articulation. H1 keeps e as /e/, hence it must have been close to this vowel from the point of view of its place of articulation. H3 colors /e/ and makes it /o/, so it must have been labialized. H2 turns /e/ into a back vowel /a/, so it must have been an uvular or pharyngeal fricative. This is the simplest interpretation of the identity of laryngeals and it seems to fit the data best. H₁ is considered to have a palatal secondary articulation. This causes the following changes: H₁ > y in some contexts and H₁a > i in Sanskrit. This is an alternative explanation to the "schwa indogermanicum"/"syllabic laryngeal," as I reject the sound change H̥ > i in Sanskrit because H is not attested in any ‘father’ forms, all branches outside of Indo-Iranian (including Pal papaz ‘father’, Toch A pa:car, B pa:cer ‘father’) display an invariant /a/ and reconstruction *pH2-ter or *p-H2ter seems to be too overengineered for such a widely attested baby kin term root as *pa-.

Following many scholars, I assume the existence of old, pre-PIE *a and *o that were not products of laryngeal coloring. Hence, combination H1a, H1o, H2o, H3a are just as possible as H1e (= “new” e), H2e (= “new” a), H3e ((= “new” o).

Following A. G. E. Speirs and German Dziebel (see http://kinshipstudies.org/2014/07/23/indo-european-labiovelars-a-new-look/), I consider a labiovelar split best described for Greek (telos, polos, kyklos depending on the quality of the following vowel) of pre-PIE or PIE age. This assumption underlies a couple of etymologies below, but the vast majority of these etymologies don’t depend on whether one accepts this alternative chronology of the labiovelar split or not.

Pre-PIE pH1e > PIE *pe / *e

1. *pH1ekwo-/*kwH1ekwo- (Lat coquo, iecur).

Gk hepa:r (hepso ‘boil’), Lat iecur, Skrt yakrt, Slav *ikra ‘liver’ ~ IE *pekwo- ‘cook, bake’ (Lith kepu ‘bake’ > kepenos ‘liver’, Slav *pesti ‘bake’, *pesteni ‘liver’) > PIE *pH1ekw- ‘bake, cook’ > *pH1ekwr-/n- ‘liver’. The derivation of ‘liver’ from ‘bake, cook’ in Balto-Slavic is remarkable considering that it applies to both *pekw- and *kwep- root variants. In Greek, an overlooked pair hepa:r ~ hepso shows the same semantic link.

2. *pH1ek'w- (Lat pekus, equus)

IE *pek’us ‘livestock’ (including horses) (Skrt pasu, Lat pecus, Umbrian pequo, Lith pecus) ~ IE *H1ek’wo- ‘horse’ (Gk ‘ippos, Skrt asva, Lat equus, Toch yakwe, etc.) < *PIE *pH1ek'u-/*pH1ek'wo-.

3. *pH1egwh- (Lat bibo, e:brius)

IE *pH1egwH3- ‘drink’ > Hitt pa:si ‘swallows, drinks’, ekuzzi ‘drinks’, Pal ahu ‘drinks’, Luw u ‘drinks’, Toch yok ‘drink’ (< *ye:gwh), Arm empem 'drink', Lat e:brius 'drunk' (with a long grade because it's a "vrddhi" derivative), bibo: (< *pibo), Skrt pibati 'he drinks', payayate 'give someone a drink', OIr ibid 'he drinks', Gk pino: 'drink', posis 'drink', ne:pho 'be sober' (< *ne-egwho), Slav *pijo 'I drink', Lith puota 'drinking feast'.

Typically split into two sets (*H1egwh- and *peH3-/*piH3-), this group has traditionally posed a number of issues. The main one is -b- in Lat bibo:, Skrt pibati. It's currently assumed that they go to reduplicated *pipH3- and that H3 voiced the preceding consonant. But this interpretation is completely ad hoc and unfounded. The problem with *H1egwh-, on the other hand, is that it's rather sketchily attested outside of Anatolian and that Pal attests for a laryngeal -h- ostensibly corresponding to Hitt -k-. Finally, nobody has ever figured out why PIE would have two words meaning 'drink'.

Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss law (and Dziebel's hypothesis of a PIE labiovelar split) clarifies some (if not all) of these problems. -b- in Lat bibo:, Skrt pibati is the same -b- as in Lat e:brius going back to PIE *gwh (Gk ne:pho). *H1 reconstructed for *H1eghw- points to an earlier cluster *pH1-. Forms with long -o- (Lith puotas, Lat po:tas) go back to cluster *-gwH3- (see above for examples such as *mregwH2-, *mek'H2ter, *swetH2l-). Pal ahu shows a form after the plosive loss, while Hitt ekuzzi shows a phonemicized cluster *-gwH3-.

4. *pH1et- (Lat petere, iterare). IE *pet- ‘fly, rush, beseech, attack, demand’: Hitt pittar ‘wing’, Lat petere ‘rush, attack, beseech’ (hence petitio– > Eng. petition, repetere ‘do again’), Gk petomai ‘fly’, piptein ‘fall’, etc. ~ H1iter- ‘again’ (Lat iterare ‘repeat’, Hitt itar ‘road’, itrani ‘messenger’ < *pH1et-.

Pre-PIE *pH1a- > PIE *pa (InIr *i > 0) /*a

5. PIE *pH1ater. H1 does nor color ancestral /e/. And, now I can argue, it does not color ancestral /a/. So that's why we find /a/ in all the 'father' forms in IE languages (including the most divergent branches such as Pal papaz ‘father’, Toch A pa:car, B pa:cer ‘father’, Gk pappos ‘grandfather’, pater ‘father’) but Indo-Iranian. In Indo-Iranian we logically find /i/ in Skrt pita: ‘father’. Because H1 had a palatalizing effect, in Skrt sequence H1a gave /i/ and didn't turn p- into ph-.

6. PIE *pH1awo-/*pH1awH2o- 'grandfather, grandchild' (Hitt huhhas ‘grandfather’, Skrt putra ‘son’ [< *pH1autro-), Lat avus ‘grandfather’, avunculus ‘mother’s brother’, puclos ‘son, child’, ONorse afi ‘grandfather’, OIr aue ‘grandson’, amnair [< *aunater) ‘mother’s brother’, Welsh wyr ‘grandson’ (< *pwyr)

7. PIE *pH1awyo-: Gk pais ‘child, son’, Slav *uji, Lith avynas, OPrus awis ‘‘mother’s brother’.

Sets 5-7 coalesce at pre-PIE *pH1a- ‘father, grandfather, son, grandson’ enlarged with different affixes (Gk pappos ‘grandfather’ ~ pater ‘father’ ~ pais ‘son, child’, Toch A a:we ‘grandfather’ ~ Toch A a:p ‘father’, Toch B a:ppo ‘father’; Arm haw ‘grandfather’ ~ hayr ‘father’ (Gen. hawr); Old Irish aue ‘grandson’ ~ athir ‘father’; Old Norse afi ‘grandfather’ ~ fathir ‘father’). Hitt huhhas ‘grandfather’ actually attests for a laryngeal long postulated as responsible for the vocalic contrast between Gk pater and Skrt pita but never attested in forms with a literal meaning ‘father’.

Pre-PIE *pH2e- > PIE *pa / a

8. IE *peH2ur-/n- ‘fire’ (Hitt pahhur, Gen. pahwenas, Gk pyr, etc.) ~ *H2a-s-/t- ‘ashes, hearth’ (Hitt hassa ‘hearth’, Lat a:ra ‘fire-altar’, a:trium ‘room with a fireplace’, Czech vatra ‘fire’ < *pvatra, etc.) < *pH2es-/t-/*pH2eur-/-n-.

9. IE *H2ewis ‘bird’ (Lat. avis, Gk. aetos, Skr. vis, Av. vīš, Arm. hav, Lith. višta, Ir. aoi, Welshhwyad ‘duck’) ~ IE *pout- ‘bird’ (Slav *рutа ‘bird’, Lith putýtis ‘birdie’, pučiùtė ‘hen’, šìlо pùtinas ‘quail’, Skrt рṓtаs ‘animal cub’, Lith раũtаs ‘egg’ < PIE *pH2ow-t-. Note: Lith раũtаs ‘egg’ corresponds to Lat ovum, Gk oio:n, Slav *aje, Welsh wy ‘egg’, etc., which are often derived from the ‘bird’ root *H2owis.

10. IE *per- ‘strike, split, push’ (Arm harkanem, OIr orgaid ‘he kills’, Lith periu, Slav *pereti, Skrt sphurati) ~ IE *H2er- ‘to plow’ (Hitt hars- ‘work land for sowing’, Toch AB a:re, Gk aroo:, Lat aro:, OIr airim ‘plow’, etc.), *H2erH3tr- ‘plow’ (Gk arothron, Lith arklas, Slav *ralo, etc.) < *pH2er-.

Interestingly, Slavic thundergod Perun (< *per-) and his son Jarilo who plowed the soil may be derived from the same root *pH2er-.

11. IE *H2enH1- ‘breathe’ (Skrt aniti ‘he breathes’, Gk anemos ‘soul’, Lat animus ‘same’, Toch B a:nme ‘self, soul’, Arm holm (< *honm) 'wind' ~ IE *pneu- 'breathe' (Gk pneo: 'breathe, blow', pneuma 'breath', OEng fne:osan 'sneeze' (http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/etymology.cgi?single=1&basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpiet&text_number=1600&root=config) < *pH2enH1-/*pH2nH1-.

Pre-PIE *pH3e- > PIE *po / o

12. Another example of a possible PIE cluster *pH2- turning into phoneme *p or losing p if remaining a cluster is PIE *peH2-s ‘protect, feed’ vs. *H2owi- ‘sheep’ : Hitt pahs- ‘protect’, hawis ‘sheep’, Arm hoviw ‘shepherd’, Gk poimen ‘shepherd’, po:u ‘flock of sheep’ ~ o(F)is ‘sheep’, Lat pa:sco ‘put to graze’ ~ ovis ‘sheep’, Old Irish oi ‘sheep’. So we would reconstruct *poH2- > *pH2owi- (Hitt pahs- but *phawis > hawis).

13. IE *H3estH1- ‘bone’ (Hitt hastai, Gk osteon, Lat os (Gen ossis), Skrt asthi, Arm oskr, Slav *kosti) ~ IE *pste(H)n- ‘breast’ (Gk ste:nion, Avest fstana, Skrt stana, Toch A passam) < *pH3estH-, or *kwH3estH- ‘breastbone’. In Slav *kosti k- has always been a puzzle, so the finding of p-cognates is in line with this data point. Alternation p-/k- may point to an ancient labiovelar *kw-.

14. IE *we(s)kwer- 'evening' (Gk hesperos, Lat vesper, Lith vakaras, Slav veceru, OIr fescor), Germ. *westi 'west' ~ IE *pos-t- 'before, late, later' (Lat post 'behind, after, later, Skrt pacca 'same', Lith pastaras 'late', Slav *posdh- 'late') < *pH3oskwe-/*pH3weskwe-.

15. IE *H3dont- ‘tooth’ (Sanskrit dantam, Arm atamn, Lat dentis, Gk odous, OEng tōþ, Gothic tunþus, Lithuanian dantis ‘tooth’, Slav *desna ‘gum’, etc.) ~ IE *ped-/*pod- ‘foot, under, below’ (Hitt patas, Lyc pede-, Lu pati-, Toch A peṃ, B paiyye, Sanskrit pāda, Arm otn, Gk podi, Latinpēs, Alb poshtë, Slav *peši, Lith pėda) < *pH3ed-/*pH3don-t-.

Semantically, this etymology implies that IE *H3dont- originally meant ‘lower tooth’ (in opposition to *gombho- ‘upper tooth’), hence the connection with ‘foot’. Judging by its simple morphology, the concept ‘foot’ looks primary. From it, the concept ‘under, below, bottom’ (comp. Slav *podu ‘bottom, foundation’, Lith рãdаs ‘sole of foot’, Latv раds ‘floor’, Skrt раdám ‘step, footprint, place’, Gk πέδον ‘soil’, Lat оррidum ‘place’, pessum ‘bottom’) is derived. The forms for ‘tooth’ are most complex morphologically and they carry an additional body-part affix –t- (also seen in Skrt yakrt ‘liver’). This suggests that they are tertially derived from the ‘under, below, bottom’ forms.

16. IE *H3emso- 'shoulder' (Skrt amsa, Gk o:mos, Lat umerus) ~ IE *pemsti- (OHG fust, OEng fyst [< *fumsti), Lith kumste, Slav *pensti 'hand, fist') < *kwH2ems-/*pH2ems-.

Pre-PIE *tH2e- > PIE *te / a

17. IE *H2ekwеH2- ‘water’ (Lat aqua, Goth ahwo: ‘water’) ~ IE *tek(w)- ‘run, flow’ (Lith teku ‘run, flow’, Slav *teku ‘same’, Skrt takti ‘rushes’, Toch B cake ‘river’, etc.) < *tH2ekw-.

18. IE *H2ek’s- ‘axis’ (Gk akso:n, Lat axis, Skrt aksas, OHG ahsa, Slav *osi, Lith asis) ~ IE *tek’s- (Gk tekto:n ‘carpenter’, Skrt taksati ‘he fashions, he constructs’, Lat texo: ‘weave, build’, Slav *tesati, Lith tasyti ‘hew’, OHG dehsala ‘axe’) < *tH2ek’s-. Note Gk akso:n vs. tekto:n suggesting that Proto-Greek had a normal sequence *k’s- and -t- in tekto:n is a late, local innovation.

19. IE *Hukw- ‘cooking pot’ (Skrt ukha ‘cooking pot’, Lat aulla ‘pot’ (< *auksla), Goth auhns‘oven’, Arm akut’ ‘hearth’, OHG ofan ‘oven’, OEng ofen ‘furnace’, Gk ipnos ‘oven’, Myc i-po-no‘cooking bowl’) ~ IE *tep- (Skrt tapati ‘warms up’, Lat tepeo: ‘be warm’, Slav *teplu ‘warm’, OIrish ten (< *tepn-) ‘fire’) < *tHekw-. Vocalism here still needs work under any scenario.

Pre-PIE *kH2e- > PIE *ke/k’e / a

20. IE *H2rtko-, *H2rkto- ‘bear’ (Hitt hartagga, Gk arktos, Skrt rksa, Lat ursus) ~ IE *k’rst-‘fur, animal hair, bristle’ (Lith siurkstus ‘crude, hard’, serys ‘bristles’, Slav *sirsti ‘fur, animal hair’, OHG hursti ‘cristas’) < *k'H2r-kst-.

Pre-PIE *kH3e- > PIE *ke/k’e / o

21. IE *k’er- ‘head, horn’. The belonging of Hitt harsar to the same group as Lat cerebrum, Gk kara, Skrt siras, etc. has been suggested multiple times. The phonetics has been an issue. My reconstruction *k’Her- makes the phonetics regular. It’s possible that the variant with a colored vowel is in fact IE *H3ers- ‘buttocks’ (Hitt arras, Gk orros ‘tail, rump, base of the spine’ < *orsos, Arm or 'rear-end'). Semantically, the connection between head and horn parallels the connection between rump and tail. And we've already discussed the tendency of Indo-Europeans to equate polar body parts (thigh ~ underarm, toe ~ finger, butt cheek and face cheek, etc.) So, the resulting protoform should be reconstructed as *k'H3er-s- or even *kH3er-s-.

22. IE *H3ekw- ‘eye’ (Gk ops ‘eye, face’, ophthalmos ‘ eye’ [< *opth-], Lat oculus, Slav *oko – the etymon is widely attested but many forms are contaminated, so I'll omit them here) ~ IE *skep-/*spek'- 'look, see' (Gk skeptomai ‘observe, look carefully, consider’, skopos ‘target, purpose, aim, spy’, Lat specio ‘I look, I see’, Skrt pasyati ‘look’, spasa ‘spy’, Avest spasyeiti ‘look’, OHG speho:n ‘regard, spy’) < *sk'H3ekwo-. Hitt sakuwa 'eyes' (dissimilated from *skekuwa) supports this link. PIE *spH3ekw- is also possible. In this case Skrt pasyati with a reflex of a palatovelar can be explained as caused by a cluster velar + y. In Lat specio the loss of -w- is expected before -y- (comp. socius < *sokwyos). In Greek, too, the labial component of a labiovelar is lost before -w-.

in light of a potential Uralic cognate/IE borrowing, namely pre-Finnic *koke 'perceive' pre-PIE reconstruction with two labiovelars (*s-kwekw-t-) seems to be quite possible, which suggests that s-mobile (already seen in Hitt sakuwa) was added to the root after the action of Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law.

23. PIE forms for 'wolf' (*wlkwo-) and 'dog' (*k'wen-) can now be brought together under the root *k'H3we-l-/-n-. PIE *k’H3we- ‘wolf, dog’ yielded two early affixal derivatives – *k’H3wen- ‘dog’ (Gk kuo:n, Lat canis, Slav *senka, Arm sun, etc.) and *k’H3wel-kwo- ‘wolf’. Skrt svaka ‘wolf’, vrka ‘wolf’ and Avest spaka ‘dog’, verka ‘wolf’ establish the possibility of the connection between the IE sets for the dog and the wolf. Skrt svaka/Avest spaka are morphologically archaic as they don’t have either the -n-, or the -l- (> InAr *r) suffix. Arm skund ‘young dog’ and Gk skulaks ‘same’ show that indeed affixes -n- and -l- were in alternation. OIr cuilen and Welsh colwyn ‘young dog’ (forms without the difficult s-mobile) also confirm that the l-suffix alternated with the n-suffix. (They are not product of dissimilation from *kunen, but independent l- formations from more basic *k’we-.)

So, basically, l- in lykos and lupus corresponds to the affixal -n- is kuo:n and canis. Gk lykos (< *lhykos) is the same as -ulaks in Gk skulaks. On a methodological note, if we reconstruct PIE *k'H3we- 'wolf, dog' we can easily compare it with Uralic *kujna 'wolf' and Eskimo-Aleut qenRa 'wolf'. Even the IE DOG form is presently compared with this "Nostratic" set but the fact that the IE term for 'wolf' can be shown to be related to the IE term for 'dog' makes this long-range equation quite intriguing. Afroasiatic has a very similar root *k(w)alp- ‘wolf, dog’ (Bomhard & Kerns, no. 319) that shows -l- where Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut have -n-. Bomhard and Dolgopolsky still believe that Afroasiatic is part of Nostratic. In Uralic, Eskimo-Aleut and Afroasiatic languages the same root means both ‘dog’ and ‘wolf’. The Indo-Europeans forms with the meaning ‘wolf’ (*wlkwko-) and ‘dog’ (*k’wo:n) are both of Proto-Indo-European age, so it would be unusual if they were unrelated. Taking this material at face value, the connection between PIE *wlkwko- and PIE *k’wo:n may mean that Indo-European preserved the traces of ancient Nostratic/Eurasiatic morphological variation, whereas Afroasiatic generalized -l- and Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut generalized -n-.

24. IE *k'leus- 'listen, hear' (Toch A klyos 'listen, hear', klots 'ear', B klyaus 'listen, hear', klautso 'ear', Arm lsem 'listen, hear', Gk kluo 'hear', kleo 'make famous', Lat cluo: 'to be called, be famous', OEng hlystan 'listen', hle:or 'cheek', OIr cluo 'fame', cluas 'ear', Lith klausyti 'listen' ~ IE *H3eus- 'ear' (Gk ous, Skrt usi, Goth auso, Lith ausis, Latin auris 'ear', audire 'listen', Slav *uxo, Arm unkn 'ear' < PIE *k'lH3eu-s, or *klH3eu-s. Semantics cannot be better (Tocharian, Celtic and Latin directly attest for one single root for 'hear, listen, ear', and notably both *k’leus- and *H2eus- root-shapes can take both meanings).

Pre-PIE *gH3e- > PIE *ge/g’e/o.

25. IE *genu- ‘knee’ (Hitt genu, Toch kanwem, B keni, Lat genu:, Gk gonu, Skrt ja:nu, Arn cunr) ~ IE *H3noghu- ‘leg, foot, nail’ (Skrt anghri ‘leg’, nakha ‘nail’, Gk onuks ‘nail’, Lat unguis ‘nail’, Lith naga ‘hoof’, nagas ‘nail’, Slav *noga ‘leg, foot’) < PIE *gH3enu-, *gH3nogh-.

Notably, Arm elungn ‘nail’ (< *enung-) shows the same morphology and dissimilation as OIr glun, Welsh glin, Bret glin, Gael gluin ‘knee’ (< *gnu:no < *gonu).

26. IE *gHnens-dho- ‘nest’ (Slav *gne:zdo, Lith lizdas [< *glinzdo < *gninzdo], Skrt nīḍás, nīḍám ‘resting place, abode’, Arm nist ‘sitting place’, Lat nīdus, OHG nest). Currently g- in Slavic remains unexplained.

Sets 25-26 may be related if the idea of a ‘resting place’ (from which the concept of ‘nest’ later emerged) evolved from the notion of ‘kneeling’. Balt -l- would then become supported by the same development as found in Arm elungen and Celt *gluno.

27. IE *genu-, *gonHdho- ‘cheek, chin, jaw’ (Toch A sanwem, Skrt hanu, Gk genus, gnathos ‘jaw’, Lat gena, Goth kinnu) ~ IE *H3ens- ‘mustache’ (Slav *(w)onsu ‘mustache’, OPruss, wanso ‘first beard’, OIr fés ‘beard’, find ‘hair’, Gk ἴονθος ‘youthful beard’ (*vi-vondho-)) < *gH3en-dh-. Note the shared morphology between Gk gnatos and ἴονθος, OIr find.

28. IE *H3enbh- ‘hub, navel’ (Gk omphalos, Skrt nabhi ‘hub, navel, kin’, Avest naba-nazdista ‘next of kin’, Lat umbilicus, OHG nabalo, OPruss nabis) ~ IE *gen-/*gon- ‘beget’ (Skrt janati ‘give birth’, Gk genos, Lat gigno: ‘produce’, na:scor ‘to be born’, OEng cynn ‘race, family, kin’, cenna ‘produce’, OHG kind ‘child’, Arm cnanim ‘be born, bears’ < PIE *gH3en- ‘beget’, *gH3enbho- ‘kin, navel’. This analysis makes it possible to bring Hitt ha(n)s- (PAnatol *Ha(n)so- > hansatar, hassatar ‘family’) ‘give birth, beget’, Luw hamsa ‘grandchild’, into the same set with IE *gH3en-. Luw -m- may hide ancestral *-nbhs- > *mbs- (comp. Lat umbilicus, Gk omphalos) > *mms- > *-ms-. A “directive possessive” (Melchert, Oettinger) affix *-s(s)a- (see Puhvel’s Hittite Dictionary, “H”, p. 227) is an Anatolian innovation.

The semantically identical derivation of Hitt hassu- ‘king’ from *ha(n)s- and Germ. *kuningaz ‘king’ from *kun- ‘kin’ makes the connection all the more plausible. Hitt hassa-hanzassa ‘kith and kin’ or ‘child and grandchild’ (the former translation seems to be more compelling) is a full morphological parallel to Avest naba-nazdista.

29. IE *H3nomn ‘name’ (Hitt la:man [< *naman], Toch A nom, B nem, Skrt naman, Avest naman, Arm anun, Gk onoma, Lat no:men, OHG namo, Slav *enmen) ~ IE *gen- ‘know’ (Gk γνῶμα ‘sign’, Lat cogno:men ‘name’, Slav *znamen ‘sign, banner, badge’) < *g’H3nomen-. The shape of Hitt la:man (instead of expected hanaman**) goes back to *ghnomen.

Pre-PIE *bH1a- > PIE *bha/(y)a

30. IE *bheH2g’- ‘divide, distribute, allot’ (Gk phagein ‘eat, devour’, Skrt bhajati ‘divide, distribute’, bhaga ‘prosperity, happiness’, Avest baz- ‘bestow, divide’, Avest baga ‘share, happy lot’, OPers baga ‘god’, Slav *bogu ‘god’) ~ IE *yeH2g’- ‘worship’ (Skrt yajati ‘worship, sacrifice, make an offering’, Avest yaz- ‘same’, Gk hagios ‘holy’) < PIE *bH1eH2g'- or *bH1ag'-.

Pre-PIE *bH2e- > PIE *bhe/a.

31. IE *H2ener- 'man, husband' (Gk ane:r, Gen. anthropos, Arm haner 'husband's father', ayr [< *anir] 'man, husband') ~ IE *bhendh- 'relative, husband's father' (Gk pentheros 'husband's father', Skrt bandhu 'relative', Lith bendras 'companion' < *bH1en(dh)r)-/*bH1n(dh)r- < *bH1en-dh-. Note affixal consistency between Gen. anthropos and pentheros. Note precise semantic match between Arm haner and Gk pentheros.

32. IE *H2erH2mo-/*H2RH2mo- ‘arm’ (Skrt i:rma ‘arm’, Avest arema ‘forearm’, Arm armukn ‘elbow’, Lat armus ‘arm, forearm, shoulder blade’, Goth arms, OEng earm ‘arm’, OPruss irmo ‘arm’, Slav *ramo ‘shoulder’) ~ IE *bher-/*bherH2- ‘carry’ (Skrt bharati ‘carries’, bharitram ‘arm, shoulder’, bhari:man ‘carrying, keeping’, bharma ‘care’, Avest bereman ‘same’, Gk phero: ‘carry’, pherma ‘fetus’, Lat fero ‘carry’, offerumentum, Arm berem ‘carry’, Goth baira ‘carry’, Slav *birati ‘take’) < *bH2er-mo-, *bH2erH2-mo.

33. IE *bherg’- ‘white, shining, birch tree’ (Lith bersta ‘he turns white’, berzas ‘birch tree’, Skrt bu:rjas ‘Himalayan birch’, Goth bairhts ‘shining’, OHG birihha ‘birch tree’, Slav *bereza ‘birch tree’, Alb bardh, bardhe ‘white’, Lat farnus, fraxinus ‘ash tree’) ~ IE *H2erg’- ‘white, silver’ (Hitt harki ‘white, silver’, Toch A a:rki, B a:rkwi ‘white’, Gk arguros ‘silver’, arge:s ‘white, blinding’, Arm arcat’ ‘silver’, Skrt rajata ‘silver’, arjuna ‘white, light-colored, silver-colored’, Lat argentum ‘silver’, OIr argat ‘silver’) < *bH2erg'-.

A laryngeal is clearly responsible for the emergence of a voiced aspirate here. Notably Germanic, Baltic and Slavic that doesn't have a reflex of IE *H2erg'- is rich in reflexes of IE *bhergh'-/*bH2erg'-. Albanian bardh, bardhe 'white' is an exact morphological and semantic match for Hitt harki- 'white'. In Latin, argentum and fraxinus is an interesting doublet to analyze further.

Pre-PIE *dH1e- > PIE *dhe/e

34. IE *dhegho:m ‘earth’ (Hitt tēkan [Gen. tagnās], Toch A tkaṃ [Gen. tkanis], B keṃ ‘earth’, Gk khthṓn ‘earth’, khamaí ‘on the earth’, Skrt kṣā́ḥ (acc. kṣā́m, gen. jmáḥ) ‘earth’, Avest zā̊ (acc. ząm, gen. zǝmō) ‘earth’, Lat humus ‘earth’, Slav *zemĭ ‘earth’, *zmiji ‘snake’, Lith žemė ‘earth’, Alb dhe ‘earth’, dhemje ‘caterpillar’) ~ IE *H1egh(i)- ‘snake, chthonic creature’ (Gk ekhis 'viper', ekhinos 'hedgehog', Skrt ahi ‘snake’, Arm iz 'snake, viper', OHG egala 'leech', igil 'hedgehog', Slav *jez 'hedgehog', Lith ezys 'hedgehog') < *dH1egh-.

Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law is also relevant to the thorny problem of IE "earth" words. Hittite nominative and accusative singular te:kan points to *dʰ(e)ǵʰem. As Piotr Gasiorowski wrote about the PIE state, "the paradigm of ‘earth’ included nom.-acc. *dʰéǵʰōm, loc. *ǵʰdʰsém, and an oblique stem *ǵʰm- (in which the initial coronal was apparently dropped), e.g. in gen. *ǵʰmées. In some daughters the stem-shape of the locative, to which Schindler’s rules had applied, was generalized (cf. e.g. Gk χθών /khthǫ́ːn/, Skt acc. kṣā́am); in others the simple palatal of the oblique stem was apparently generalized (cf. e.g. Lat. humus); Anatolian and Tocharian generalized T(V)K- (cf. e.g. Hitt. dagān ‘on the ground’, Toch. A tkaṃ ‘earth’)." He also noted that we don’t know if the front consonant was an aspirate /dh/ or a voiced stop /d/. As I pointed out, metathesis and s-epenthesis proposed by Schindler and endorsed by Piotr are ad hoc solutions to this complex cognate set, and they should be avoided.

Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law explains the loss of a plosive as conditioned by the following laryngeal: nom-acc. *dH1egho:m, oblique *dH1ghe:m > Toch A tkam, B kem, Lat humus, Slav *zem-. Interestingly, the forms designating ‘snake, chthonic creature’ represent the original Nom-Acc. root shape *dH1egh-, which is otherwise lost from the subfamily of words meaning ‘earth’ outside of Hittite.

IE *H1egh- ‘snake, chthonic creature’ is usually taken to be a cognate of IE *H3egwh-/*H1ogwh- ‘snake’ (Toch B auk [< *aku-], Gk ophis). The latter suggests that PIE had an extended form *dH1eghu- and the cluster -ghu- later phonemicized into a labiovelar *gwh.

The extended form *dH1eghu- can also account for Gk ikhthus, Arm jukn, Lith zuvis ‘fish’.

The comparison between Gk khtho:n, khthamalos, khamai, ikhthus, on the one hand, and ekhis, ekhinos, ophis, on the other, suggests that -th- in khthamalos is likely unrelated to t- in Hitt te:kan but instead is a Greek-specific development similar to -t- in ptolis next to polis.

Pre-PIE *dH2e- > PIE *dhe/a

35. IE *dak’ru- ‘tear’ (Hitt ishahru-, Toch A ākär, pl. ākrunt, B akrūna (n. pl.), Skrt áśru- `tear', Avest asrū-azan- 'Tränen vergiessend', Gk dákru, Lat lacrima, OLat dacruma, Arm artasur (< *drak'ur-), Germ. *táxra-z, *tagrá-z, *tráxnu- (Goth tagr, OHG zahar, trahan), Lith ašarà).

This is a well-known cognate set but Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law suggests reconstruction *dH2ek'Hr-. Hittite ishahru attests for a laryngeal preceded by a later s-mobile (PAnat *hahru > Hitt *s-hahru (s-mobile) > *ishahru (vocalic prothesis). This is in line with current thinking. An alternative explanation would interpret the Hitt sequence sh- as a direct evidence for an unphonemicized cluster d + H2 (comp. Hitt siu ‘god’ with a palatalized *d- seen in Skrt dyavus). The absence of an aspirate in Greek suggests that in some ancient forms the vowel got colored, while d- didn't get aspiration. This may mean that the phenomenon of vowel coloring by a laryngeal emerged earlier than the phenomenon of the aspiration of a voiced stop by a laryngeal.

On the other hand, the form has a separate problem, namely the second -h- in Hitt ishahru corresponding to -k- in Gk dakru and other IE forms. Under Pre-Laryngeal Plosive Loss Law, the pre-PIE sequence VTH (vowel+stop+laryngeal) should manifest itself either as a long colored vowel or as VT. The vowel in Gk dakru is short, hence we have to reconstruct *dH2ek'Hr-.

Pre-PIE *dH3e- > PIE *dhe/(w)e

36. Hitt huwantes 'winds', Gk aFent- 'blowing', Lat ventus 'wind' ~ IE *dhwes- 'blow' (Skrt dhvaṁsati `to fall to pieces or dust, decay, be ruined, perish', ptc. dhvasta-; dhvasmán- m. `polluting, darkening', dhvasirá- `sprinkled, spattered', dhvasrá- `decaying, falling off', dhvasti- f. `ceasing, destruction', Lith dvē̃sti (dvẽsia, dvē̃sē) `den Geist aushauchen, (von Tiere) verenden, krepieren', Slav *duxnoti 'die', *dysati 'breathe', *duxu 'spirit' < *dH3we-s.

Pre-PIE *VCH > VC/ a:, o:, e:

37. IE *meH2ter ‘mother’ (Gk me:ter, Lat mater, etc.) < *makH2- (comp. OPruss moazo 'mother's sister', Lith masa 'husband's sister' < *mak'- < *makH2-)
38. IE *bhreH2ter 'brother' < *mregwH2ter (comp. Lith merga 'girl', Gk parthenos 'virgin, girl').
39. IE *seH2wl- 'sun' (Lat so:l, Gk he:lios, Slav *slunice, Lith saule, etc.) ~ IE *swet- 'light' (Hitt siwatt- 'day', Skrt cvetas 'white, shining', Lith sviesti 'shine', sviteti 'glimmer', OH hwiz 'white', Slav sweteti 'shine', *swetu 'light, day', *svetilu 'shiny, bright', Russ svetilo 'sun, moon') < *sewtH2l- < *swetH2l-.

40. IE *H1enH2ter 'husband's brother's wife' (Gk einater, Lat ianitrice:s, Skrt yatr, Lith jente, Slav *yentra, Arm niri) ~ *nepo:t 'grandson, nephew', *nepti- 'granddaughter, niece', Gk anepsios, anepsia 'cousin' < *H1enepH2ter.