# Indo-European words for "cold" and "extreme cold" (closed for moderation)



## CyrusSH

According to wiktionary: Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gel- - Wiktionary proto-IE _*gel-_ means "to be cold, to freeze", in Latin (_gelū_ "frost", _gelidus_ "icy, frosty") and Balto-Slavic (Old Church Slavonic _golotĭ_ "icicle"), it has the meaning of extreme cold, and in Germanic (*_kaldaz_ "cold", *_kōlaz_ "cool") and Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit _śarada_ "autumn" and Persian _sard_ "cold"), it means only cold.

But in the Persian for referring to extreme cold, the word kulak is used and the word kalafaxšang means "icicle".

And about "ice": ice | Origin and history of ice by Online Etymology Dictionary
Old English is "ice, piece of ice" (also the name of the Anglo-Saxon rune for -i-), from Proto-Germanic *is- "ice" (source also of Old Norse iss, Old Frisian is, Dutch ijs, German Eis), of uncertain origin; possible relatives are Avestan aexa- "frost, ice," isu- "frosty, icy;" Afghan asai "frost.

It seems the concept of coldness is similar to each other in Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages, and differs from Italic and Balto-Slavic languages, what do you think about it?


----------



## Borin3

In Serbian _gol _means naked. If you are naked in my country you gonna be as cold as hell.

Hladan-cold
Led- ice
Leden- icy cold
Studen- very cold
s*mr*z- frozen (*m*o*r*-related to death) 

Gol and Hladan are most likely related. In some other Slavic languages you have holodnij like Russian. G could have easily turned into H..Vowels just get lost and added.


----------



## CyrusSH

Honestly, Slavic words are usually more similar to original Indo-European words, especially when we can reconstruct PIE words with more evidences.

For example another important PIE word which can be related to "cold" and "extreme cold" is **sneig* (snow), almost the same word means "snow" in the Slavic languages.

Now read it: https://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~asahala/asahala_sumerian_and_pie.pdf



> Sum. šeg 'snow; frost; cold weather'~ PIE *sneig 'snow'; Skt.sneha (स्नेह); TochB śiñcatstse; Gk. nipha (νίφα); Lith. sniegas; ON snjór.
> 
> Possible connection to Sumerian šeg was first introduced by Pokorny (1959). However, differing from Pokorny, I consider it possible that the Sumerian word was not originally pronounced /šeg/.
> 
> Sumerian word is alternatively written with a compound A.ŠU.NAGA traditionally read šeg. In my interpretation, this represents the original pronunciation: Sign A stands for a semantic complement {water} where ŠU represents a phonetic complement indicating, that the last sign should be pronounced with a syllable initial consonant cluster /**šneg*/. This would be similar to to the way Hittites scribed their consonant clusters in cuneiform e.g. pa-ra-a /prā/ 'to; forth'. Because syllable initial consonant clusters were prohibited by Sumerian phonotactics, /*n/ was dropped in the later language stages and word was simplified into /šeg/ (ŠEG) as shown in OB syllabic writing še-eg.


----------



## fdb

Persian sard “cold” goes with Avestan sarəta-, Sogdian srt, etc., for Iranian *sar-ta, the perfect passive participle of the verb *sar- “to freeze”; compare Ossetic сæлын “to freeze”, past tense салд. These point to IE *ḱel- (or *ḱelH-).

Sanskrit śarada- “autumn”, goes with Avestan sarəd-, Old Persian ϑard- or ϑarad-, Middle and New Persian sāl (with the regular Persian development of Old Iranian rd > l), all meaning “year”. These imply Iranian *sarad- in ablaut with *sard, and again an IE form with initial *ḱ, possibly cognate with Latin calēre “to be warm”.

Hence, it is difficult to link these with Latin gelidus, English “cold” etc., which imply IE *ǵel-.


----------



## CyrusSH

Does someone know about Itelmen language? Persian _kalafaxšang_ "icicle" is very similar to kaĺ-čfsom which means the same (Russian _сосулька_ means "icicle") from Proto-Itelmen *_kăl_- "ice" (Russian _лед_).


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Persian sard “cold” goes with Avestan sarəta-, Sogdian srt, etc., for Iranian *sar-ta, the perfect passive participle of the verb *sar- “to freeze”; compare Ossetic сæлын “to freeze”, past tense салд. These point to IE *ḱel- (or *ḱelH-).
> 
> Sanskrit śarada- “autumn”, goes with Avestan sarəd-, Old Persian ϑard- or ϑarad-, Middle and New Persian sāl (with the regular Persian development of Old Iranian rd > l), all meaning “year”. These imply Iranian *sarad- in ablaut with *sard, and again an IE form with initial *ḱ, possibly cognate with Latin calēre “to be warm”.
> 
> Hence, it is difficult to link these with Latin gelidus, English “cold” etc., which imply IE *ǵel-.



Thanks fdb, I just posted the words which have been listed in the wiktionary, the Sanskrit word seems to be really unrelated but it seems there are relations between proto-IE *_gel-_, *_kel-_ and *_ghel-_, about the last one there are Persian _žale_, Salvic _*želd_ and Greek _khálaza_, don't you think so? Some Iranians think _žale_ is the origin of the French-origin word _žele_ (jelly)!


----------



## Borin3

Actually that Sumerian example of šeg goes pretty neat with Serbian *žeg*a.
We have *žeg*a to explain both cold and hot weather. It's mostly used for fearsome feeling of hotness. i'm not sure how to explain it but  *žeg*a is what your body feels both during winter and summer. That terrible feeling of burnt skin. You can also feel the same thing once you are actually freezing. If you ever dipped your hands into snow, you'd first feel extreme coldness, after a while extreme hotness (*žeg*a), as if your hands are burning to the moment of frozen when you don't feel anything. _How is it outside (imagine it's January)? *žeg*a. (which actually means cold), _while _*žeg*a _originally means extremely hot. Another word related to this one is *šeg*a. It's that type of joke which provokes. Actually infuriates, inflames is much closer to it.

Srb. Sneg- Snow
Sne*ž*an (g>ž)- Snowy
Ne*ž*an (g>ž)- Gentle/Soft (since snow is gentle and soft)
Nega- Care (to take care, you'd better be gentle)

What Fdb posted here about cold; i thought Sar, Jar and Zar are all somehow connected to light, hot, energetic etc.
This Sar very much reminds me of a word we have *Žar*. Žar-Ember..Sar seems to have been the same thing as *žeg*a is to us now.
*Gel*idus (i guess gel is the root here), very close to *žel*ezo (iron) and *čel*ik (steel).

_*Kal*iti se_ in Serbian means to toughen yourself (You do it by training yourself for certain period of time). Something that was being exposed to cold becomes solid and tough.  *Kal*emiti  (to graft).Now i don't know how Itelmen works, and although Kal doesn't mean the same thing in Serbian it still seems related. Anyway if kel is the PIE for cold, then it makes sense anyway.
Can you break this Persian word on parts? I can see _šang_ in it. As i know Chinese have word Shang (written in their pinyin alphabet) which is basically used for on, but stands with other nouns and combined with them can mean above, up, top and so on. Anything that is connected to height. In their hanzi 上. čfsom  i literally have no clue.


----------



## CyrusSH

Serbian _žega_ is from proto-Slavic  *_žegti_, from proto-Balto-Slavic *_degtei_, from proto-Indo-European *_dʰegʷʰ-_ (hot, burn), cognate with Albanian _djeg_ and Persian _dagh_.

Please search in the web or a book to find older forms of the words, especially when you want to compare them to ancient words.


----------



## CyrusSH

The interesting thing about the proto-IE words for "cold" is that we can see a chain shift of Grimm's law:

gʰ > g > k > x(h)

*gʰel-* > *gel-* > *kel-* > *hel-*

From proto-IE *_gʰel-_ > Persian _zhale_
From proto-IE *_gel-_ > Latin _gelū_
From proto-IE *_kel-_ > Persian _sard_
From proto-IE *_hel-_ > Latin _algeo_

It seems Persian sarma "cold" is from proto-IE *_ker-_, cognate with Latvian sarma and Icelandic hjarn.

In Persian there is also this one: Persian Xald (Cold)


----------



## Borin3

Proto Slavic _žeg__*t*__*i*. _ ti looks like an inflect which creates a verb or in some rare case an adjective. Where did you find this original word? 
Anyway you said yourself that Slavic words are usually more original to PIE root. What is a PIE root? How does PIE root get reconstructed? Who managed to trace it with such precision and could say it's 100% sure?

Your notion about similarity of words djeg (Albanian) and dagh (Persian) is very logical since Albanians originate from Caucasus and Persians influenced the area. They who didn't call themselves Albanians till recently but Sqipetars (which is similar to Slavic/denotes people who speak the same language; they still call themselves like this, as well as Albanian) came to Balkans from what was Arabian Sicily in 11th century, brought by a Greek Georges Maniakes (who was a marshal leader of Byzantine forces in a war against Arabians) to help his manpower in his greedy conquest on the Byzantine throne. They left their trace in Sicily in a shape of blood revenge. A tradition that is still not rooted out in Albania and was present in Sicily for a long time (i don't know if still practiced). Before Sicily they lived on Caucasus. It can be easily traced down. Thus i suppose they have plenty words similar to Persian.


----------



## CyrusSH

It is not just in Persian, by considering sound shifts in the Indo-European languages, you can find other words:

Proto-IE **dʰegʷʰ-*

Italic: dʰ>f & gʷʰ>w/v

Latin foveo (warm)

--

Tocharian: dʰ>t/ts & gʷʰ>k

Tokharian tsäk (burn up)

--

Celtic: dʰ>d &  gʷʰ>g

Old Irish daig (flame)

--

Indian: dʰ>dh/d &  gʷʰ>h

Sanskrit dahati (burn)

--

Hellenic: dʰ>th/t &  gʷʰ>ph

Greek téphrā (funeral fire)

--

Germanic: dʰ>d/t &  gʷʰ>g

Old English dæg (day)


----------



## Borin3

I don't understand your point.

For example we also say dan for day, very similar to English. Sanskrit dahati is very similar to Serbian disati/dahtati. Dah is a breath, dahtati is a type of quick breathing, disati just to breath. The fire is very much related to breathing. It burns down oxygen to create carbon dioxide. If not enough just imagine the motion of fire and it's sound. This is enough for me to consider these two words related and analyze them further and figure out if i was right or wrong.
 Language is not mathematics, it doesn't have strict rules. It comes from our creativity so look at it as a creation and analyze it.
I don't see a problem in comparing old words to modern ones. How do you think they came to that PIE root if they didn't compare modern words and older written words to get to reconstructed PIE root nobody wrote down. All of these words you wrote down are a sound way of getting to the language the word originates from and a sound way of figuring out the closest as possible shape it used to have.
If i can find so many meanings for word sneg, and there are many more (but i didn't want to spam), that obviously all come from the same root and they all have a meaning in South-Slavic Serbian then it's obvious the word originates from Slavic languages.

What i wrote about word  *žeg*a is an analysis of what we have today, how the word functions, and whose aim is to get into the brain of language so it can be applied to how people might have thought in the history. It's obvious that Sar is both hot and cold. It's obvious that people before were same smart as they are today.
If you think that word Bog/Bagha is just Bog/Bagha and can't be explained then you are wrong. If you think Isa or Jesus can't be explained you are wrong again. Words came first and then religions and terms for Gods.

Maybe i'm very irritating by setting examples in Serbian, but those are the only ones i can for sure say why are they like that, what is their original, deep or whatever other meaning in Serbian and see connection between those and some other Serbian or some other languages' words. Beyond that, i'm well aware that Serbian as a language didn't change a lot during a long historical course, so i give myself freedom to analyze words in Serbian language.
To conclude..I'm not a diplomat and i don't want to choose if something i said would hurt someone else. If i did, i'd skip some details i consider important. History and languages should not be politicians and diplomats, but unfortunately they are. Deeply, i'm sorry if someone finds me irritating because of this and really i don't want to be hated.

For example English word *to be*- to exist is obviously very well connected to *be*at (hit/bump). Heart bumps, all of our organs bump, the whole world has a pulse (rhythm) not visible to our eye. So to be (exist), means to beat. Once you stop to beat, you don't exist anymore. Languages are the most beautiful creation of man and shouldn't be looked upon in a rigid strict way.
I'm becoming tired of this forum..


----------



## CyrusSH

Borin3 said:


> For example we also say dan for day, very similar to English. Sanskrit dahati is very similar to Serbian disati/dahtati. Dah is a breath, dahtati is a type of quick breathing, disati just to breath. The fire is very much related to breathing. It burns down oxygen to create carbon dioxide. If not enough just imagine the motion of fire and it's sound. This is enough for me to consider these two words related and analyze them further and figure out if i was right or wrong.



Serbian _dan_ is similar to Russian den and Sanskrit dina (day), it doesn't relate to Old English _dag_ (day), some Iranians also think that Persian _dei_ (Middle Persian _dig_) which means "yesterday" relates to the English word but it relates to Albanian dje and Welsh ddoe, from Proto-Indo-European *_dʰǵʰyes_ "yesterday".



> Language is not mathematics, it doesn't have strict rules. It comes from our creativity so look at it as a creation and analyze it.



I agree but if we don't use any rule then we can relate all words to each other, for example I can say Persian _dahan_ (mouth) relates to Serbian _dahtati_ because people breathe with the mouth too!



> I don't see a problem in comparing old words to modern ones. How do you think they came to that PIE root if they didn't compare modern words and older written words to get to reconstructed PIE root nobody wrote down. All of these words you wrote down are a sound way of getting to the language the word originates from and a sound way of figuring out the closest as possible shape it used to have.
> If i can find so many meanings for word sneg, and there are many more (but i didn't want to spam), that obviously all come from the same root and they all have a meaning in South-Slavic Serbian then it's obvious the word originates from Slavic languages.
> 
> What i wrote about word  *žeg*a is an analysis of what we have today, how the word functions, and whose aim is to get into the brain of language so it can be applied to how people might have thought in the history. It's obvious that Sar is both hot and cold. It's obvious that people before were same smart as they are today.
> If you think that word Bog/Bagha is just Bog/Bagha and can't be explained then you are wrong. If you think Isa or Jesus can't be explained you are wrong again. Words came first and then religions and terms for Gods.
> 
> Maybe i'm very irritating by setting examples in Serbian, but those are the only ones i can for sure say why are they like that, what is their original, deep or whatever other meaning in Serbian and see connection between those and some other Serbian or some other languages' words. Beyond that, i'm well aware that Serbian as a language didn't change a lot during a long historical course, so i give myself freedom to analyze words in Serbian language.
> To conclude..I'm not a diplomat and i don't want to choose if something i said would hurt someone else. If i did, i'd skip some details i consider important. History and languages should not be politicians and diplomats, but unfortunately they are. Deeply, i'm sorry if someone finds me irritating because of this and really i don't want to be hated.
> 
> For example English word *to be*- to exist is obviously very well connected to *be*at (hit/bump). Heart bumps, all of our organs bump, the whole world has a pulse (rhythm) not visible to our eye. So to be (exist), means to beat. Once you stop to beat, you don't exist anymore. Languages are the most beautiful creation of man and shouldn't be looked upon in a rigid strict way.
> I'm becoming tired of this forum..



What I can understand from your words is that you are actually talking about the philosophy of language, it can be an interesting topic but I think it is a very difficult issue.


----------



## Borin3

CyrusSH said:


> I agree but if we don't use any rule then we can relate all words to each other, for example I can say Persian _dahan_ (mouth) relates to Serbian _dahtati_ because people breathe with the mouth too!


 Why don't you say so?Now this is helpful. Just relate words to each other and their meanings. I also agree with you. Of course we need to follow rules as well, but not only them.



CyrusSH said:


> What I can understand from your words is that you are actually talking about the philosophy of language, it can be an interesting topic but I think it is a very difficult issue.


It is difficult, but is also the only way to really getting to something. If you really want to get to something you have to try harder.

Since talking about this i'd like to analyze some words from Serbian that are related to dahan, dahtati and generally they are 5 basic elements in the nature. I will explain why i use Serbian and hopefully you will be able to read to the end.
Basic words for the analysis:
Vas/Sav/Sve/Ves/Sva etc.- Whole/All
Div- Giant/God (notion: adjective divan-wonderful explains what Div used to mean although the meaning was forgotten)
Duh- spirit/ghost
Dah-breath
Duša-soul
Ona-She
Dar-gift

The God (Div), breath in (Dah) his living energy (Duh) into human, and that energy was later referred to as soul (Duša)

Vasiona- Space  (vas-whole, ona-she)
Svemir- Space   (sve-all, mir- peace)
1. Vazduh (s>z)- Air (vas-whole, duh-ghost/spirit)
2. Voda (a>o) - water (basically *vod *is a root for verbs and nouns connected to moving) Now reconstructed PIE root wodr and other languages imply there is more to it. Existence of river in Macedonia called Vardar in which S might have somehow gone to R implies that this river was just named after water and that original way of calling water would have been Vasdar (Vas-all, dar-gift), but was shortened later. Or maybe Svadar (sva-all, dar-gift) where both s and r got lost.
3. Vatra- fire- S got lost again so very obviously word used to be pronounced as Vastr(a..). Root *tr*a is mostly related to words that mean trace and destruction. *tr*ati-to destroy, *tr*ag- trace, *tr*gati- to rip out/tear. Following this logic it could be translated as all destruction, but since fire is also something we actually need i'd turn down this option.Another more logical explanation would be *tr*a/*tr*i (nb. three) since fire needs other three elements to exist and be powerful (air, soil, wind) so then Vastra/Vastri (Vas-whole/all, tra/tri-three; All three) S*vatra (*Sva-all, tri/tra- three)
4. Vetar- wind; Problems with S again. We still can trace that *s* sound in a piece of cloth called vesta (vesta is still a cloth today, but its meaning has been shrunk to all upper body clothes that cover the whole body. It's still a term mostly used for clothes good against wind, but not so long ago, it was only used for clothes that protect against wind. Another word- sviter (sweater). root der, tar are all related to destruction as in roots i mentioned above. trati is an infitive of this word, but through declination we get to 1. ja tarem (i tear) 2. ti tareš (you tear) 3. on/ona/ono tare (he/she/it tears) where we might have hit bull's eye with S*vetar*e which even perfectly fits the present day grammatical constuction Sve-all, tare-tears ( (he) tears all).
5. Soil- zemlja, hum, prah...??????????
5. Svet- World; First of all this word today only relates to world, not soil. On the other hand it seems to be the only possible missing piece so we have to take a wild guess and say it used to mean soil.
We'd break it into two pieces *sv et.* Why not sve(all) t? Simply because it looks and sounds ugly. sv misses *a* to complete sav (all/whole). et might need some modifications and might not. It might be that it used to mean biblical ad, because indeed we still have word *ad*a which refers to river island (that little piece of land that peaks out of river). Savad (Sav-all, ad- earth). Since Bible transcription mentions a god called *Sav*a Ot, we can also conclude that ot is a root in Serbian word *ot*ac which means father. Savot (Sav-all, ot-father). So ad (soil) is also our ot (father)
We can also maybe leave word ET alone, but it demands a bit more analysis because the most amazing is about to come:
I've not heard it only once when some older Serbian people referred to world as ETIL. Very deep word, which is so rooted in every Serb that when it's said i have a feeling like it was said through a mist.
ETIL (Ethyl)  is chemical radical of carbon and hydrogen (an integral part of many organic compounds). If it's organic it's soil.
If it's ETIL, than it's also ADIL. If it's ADIL than it's also OTIL. If it's OTIL then it's OT IL. If it's OT IL then it's OTAC IL (Father Il). If it's OTAC IL then it's our Lord, the most magnificent God, we all know by name IL.
And so Altar is actually Ildar (Il, dar-gift; gift to IL), Electron is Iltron (Il, tron-throne; IL's throne) and that is why we have word SILA-force (S-from, IL; from IL)
Ashur-etil-ilani - Wikipedia  And here we have a man who declared himself a God.
That is also why we have word Svet-Holy/Saint, Svetlo-Light
That is why Israil means: Iz-from, raj-paradise, IL (From paradise of Il) and that is why Illyria is that paradise.

And that is after all why i use Serbian to analyze words.
That is also why my post will be deleted.


----------



## CyrusSH

The fact is that not only in Serbian but in almost all other languages, people can make meanings from foreign words by monosyllabic words in their languages, for example the name of Obama (former US President) exactly means "he (is) with us" in Persian (O + ba + ma), some religious people really believe that because of this name he supports us! But I don't believe in superstitions.


----------



## Borin3

I was only analysing Serbian words.

Well, we people have free will and can choose what to believe in and what not to. It's not nice to compare my text to superstition, but it's your will, so you can do,say,think whatever you want. I don't make you to.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> The interesting thing about the proto-IE words for "cold" is that we can see a chain shift of Grimm's law:
> 
> gʰ > g > k > x(h)
> 
> *gʰel-* > *gel-* > *kel-* > *hel-*
> 
> From proto-IE *_gʰel-_ > Persian _zhale_
> From proto-IE *_gel-_ > Latin _gelū_
> From proto-IE *_kel-_ > Persian _sard_
> From proto-IE *_hel-_ > Latin _algeo_


Grimm's law applies neither to Persian nor to Latin. There is no _h_ in PIE. There were three consonants labelled _h1_, _h2_ and _h3_ of which we know nothing except that they must have existed. Any of the three may or may not have some similarity with _h_. We don't know. But they have certainly nothing to do with either the Latin nor the Germanic _h_ which developed differently.


CyrusSH said:


> It seems Persian sarma "cold" is from proto-IE *_ker-_, cognate with Latvian sarma and Icelandic hjarn.


It would be *_ḱer-_ not _*ker-_.


----------



## CyrusSH

Borin3 said:


> I was only analysing Serbian words.
> 
> Well, we people have free will and can choose what to believe in and what not to. It's not nice to compare my text to superstition, but it's your will, so you can do,say,think whatever you want. I don't make you to.



I still believe Slavic, including Serbian, is one of the oldest and most influential languages in the world but it is not the origin of all languages in the world, I see no difference between saying the name of Obama has a Persian origin and the name of Ashur-etil-ilani has a Serbian origin, linguistics is not a game.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Grimm's law applies neither to Persian nor to Latin. There is no _h_ in PIE. There were three consonants labelled _h1_, _h2_ and _h3_ of which we know nothing except that they must have existed. Any of the three may or may not have some similarity with _h_. We don't know. But they have certainly nothing to do with either the Latin nor the Germanic _h_ which developed differently.
> 
> It would be *_ḱer-_ not _*ker-_.



I don't talk about Persian and Latin but proto-Indo-European and a chain shift similar to Grimm's law, if you consider *_ḱer-_ as the correct form then it should be also *_ḱel-_ as the origin of Persian _sard_ and Latvain _salt_. But it seems proto-IE *_kel-_ also existed, as the origin of Persian kulak "snowstorm", Mazadarani koola "extreme cold", Bakhtiari kolak "snowing", ...


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I don't talk about Persian and Latin but proto-Indo-European and a chain shift similar to Grimm's law


I can't detect anything similar to Grimm's law in your examples, even if there were valid, which I am not sure of (*_gʰel_, e.g., produced English _yell_, but I don't know any Persian descendent).


CyrusSH said:


> if you consider *_ḱer-_ as the correct form then it should be also *_ḱel-_ as the origin of Persian _sard_ and Latvain _salt_.


Yes, that is precisely the reason. If a root exhibits the centum-satem shift, the PIE consonant must have been palatalised. I am not disagreeing with you.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I can't detect anything similar to Grimm's law in your examples, even if there were valid, which I am not sure of (*_gʰel_, e.g., produced English _yell_, but I don't know any Persian descendent).



That should be also *_ǵʰel_ "frost, hail", from proto-IE *_gʰel_ "shout, call" in Persian there is _ghol-_/_ghor-_ "yell, cry", and from proto-IE _*gʰel-gʰel-_, there is Persian gholghole "noise, uproar", cognate with Hittite _galgal-_ and Old Armenian _gełgełem_, ...

Therefore we have:

*ǵʰel- > gel- > ḱel- > h₂el-* "cold, frost".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> That should be also *_ǵʰel_ "frost, hail", from proto-IE *_gʰel_ "shout, call" in Persian there is _ghol-_/_ghor-_ "yell, cry", and from proto-IE _*gʰel-gʰel-_, there is Persian gholghole "noise, uproar", cognate with Hittite _galgal-_ and Old Armenian _gełgełem_, ...
> 
> Therefore we have:
> 
> *ǵʰel- > gel- > ḱel- > h₂el-* "cold, frost".


I honestly don't understand a word of what you are saying. This sequence makes no sense as all are PIE sounds. That makes no sense.

You are obviously looking for a structural analogy to one of the four chains in Grimm's law, namely
gʰ > g > k > x.

I honestly don't understand who you are trying to read this, so let me try to explain what this line means and you tell me than how this fits: Grimm's law describes the shift from one specific stage of a language to the next, namely from Pre-Germanic to Proto-Germanic. Pre-Germanic is a stage that existed after the Centum shift (that's why you don't find _ǵ_ and _ḱ_ any more) but before the Germanic shift and Proto-Germanic is the outcome of that shift.

The first element of the chains in Grimm's law is a pre-Germanic sound, the 2nd and 3rd are both pre-Germanic and PGm sounds and the last is only a PGm sound.

gʰ > g > k > x

This means:
*All* words with _gʰ_ in Pre-Germanic have _g_ in proto-Germanic.
*All* words with _g_ in Pre-Germanic have _k_ in proto-Germanic.
*All* words with _k_ in Pre-Germanic have _x_ in proto-Germanic.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> I honestly don't understand a word of what you are saying. This sequence makes no sense as all are PIE sounds. That makes no sense.
> 
> You are obviously looking for a structural analogy to one of the four chains in Grimm's law, namely
> gʰ > g > k > x.


I guess it's a suggestion about a development inside PIE or pre-PIE in which the consonant shift produced new words with certain semantic shift, leaving the pre-shift words in place. This is regardless of Germanic development.

While unable to say anything about reasonability of such suggestion, I can point out that producing new words with similar meaning by changing leading g-k-q-x happened also in Hebrew or, apparently, one of its ancestors. This produced the largest root family, the one with basic meaning of "cut".


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I honestly don't understand a word of what you are saying. This sequence makes no sense as all are PIE sounds. That makes no sense.
> 
> You are obviously looking for a structural analogy to one of the four chains in Grimm's law, namely
> gʰ > g > k > x.
> 
> I honestly don't understand who you are trying to read this, so let me try to explain what this line means and you tell me than how this fits: Grimm's law describes the shift from one specific stage of a language to the next, namely from Pre-Germanic to Proto-Germanic. Pre-Germanic is a stage that existed after the Centum shift (that's why you don't find _ǵ_ and _ḱ_ any more) but before the Germanic shift and Proto-Germanic is the outcome of that shift.
> 
> The first element of the chains in Grimm's law is a pre-Germanic sound, the 2nd and 3rd are both pre-Germanic and PGm sounds and the last is only a PGm sound.
> 
> gʰ > g > k > x
> 
> This means:
> *All* words with _gʰ_ in Pre-Germanic have _g_ in proto-Germanic.
> *All* words with _g_ in Pre-Germanic have _k_ in proto-Germanic.
> *All* words with _k_ in Pre-Germanic have _x_ in proto-Germanic.



The problem about your theory is that in almost none of Centum languages, ǵʰ and gʰ were changed to g, whereas about the second one (gʰ) we see this sound shift in the Satem languages.

Sound changes of gʰ:

Iranian: g
Balto-Slavic: g
Armenian: g
Hittite: k
Tocharian: k
Greek: kh
Latin: h
Germanic: g


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> The problem about your theory is that in almost none of Centum languages, ǵʰ and gʰ were changed to g, whereas about the second one (gʰ) we see this sound shift in the Satem languages.


This has always been your misunderstanding. Grimm's Law does not describe a general phonological law or pattern but a specific sound shift in the history of Germanic at a specific stage of its development. Other Centum language families had different shifts.

Latin, e.g., had _g>g, gh>h, k>k_ which is a completely different pattern. What Centum languages have in common is that the palatalised series of stops merged into the non-palatalised series in an earlier step.

And, by the way, it is not "my theory". I have been summarising 175 years of research since Grimm originally formulated this law. This is probably the best researched aspect of the entire field of Indo-European studies.


----------



## CyrusSH

I think it is better that we discuss about it in this thread: Ancestor of Proto-Germanic


----------



## berndf

No, I don't want you to open yet an other thread where you tell basically the same story garnished with new tweaks and ad hoc hypotheses. I am already stretching the scope of this forum to its limits and beyond to allow this discussion to take place.

The purpose of all WR forums is to serve as reference to support the dictionaries. For this forum this means that we discuss on the basis acknowledge scientific work and that this is not the place to tell that close to 250 years of Indo-European studies are all wrong and we have to start from the beginning. I let this continue nevertheless but I want this to be settled here but then the discussion has to be over once and for all.

Don't worry that this is going far beyond the word "cold". I will rearrange the thread later. The thread you have just opened has been deleted.


----------



## CyrusSH

Ok, please tell me after 175 years of research, what are sound laws of pre-Germanic (Ancestor of Proto-Germanic)?


----------



## CyrusSH

In in thread, there are discussions about *Germano-Balto-Slavic* and *Germano-Italo-Celtic* but what do you think about *Germano-Irano-Armenian*?

A possible sound law:

**p > p > f/h/v*

Iranian *p > p > f
Germanic *p > f/v
Armenian *p > h/v

--

**t > t > θ*

Iranian *t > t > θ
Germanic *t > θ
Armenian *t > θ

--

**k > s/k > x(h)*

Iranian *k > s/k > x(h)
Germanic *k > x(h)
Armenian *k > s

--

**s > s > x(h)*

Iranian *s >  x(h)
Germanic *s > s
Armenian *s > x(h)

--

**b > b > p*

Iranian *b > b
Germanic *b > p
Armenian *b > p

--

**d > d > t*

Iranian *d > d
Germanic *d > t
Armenian *d > t

--

**g > z/g > k*

Iranian *g > z/g
Germanic *g > k
Armenian *g > k

--

**bʰ > b*

--

**dʰ > d*

--

**gʰ > g*

--

The most important sound shifts are actually the last three ones.


----------



## CyrusSH

Some examples:

From proto-IE **septm*:

proto-GIA *_septn_

Avestan _hapta_
Persian _haft_
Armenian _(h)evthn_
English _seven_

--

From proto-IE **deḱmt*:

proto-GIA *_desn_

Avestan _dasa_ 
Persian _dah_
Armenian _tasn_
English _ten_ (Low German _teihn_)

--

From proto-IE **ped*:

proto-GIA *_ped_

Avestan _pad_ 
Ossetic _fad_
Armenian _het_
English _foot_ (Old Norse _fet_)

--

From proto-IE **budn*:

proto-GIA *_budn_

Persian _bada_ / _bute_
Armenian _poytn_
English _pot_

More info: Bottle

--


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> A possible sound law:


What do you call a sound law? 

I am I supposed to read this?


CyrusSH said:


> *p > p > f/h/v


----------



## CyrusSH

It is spirantization of p, what is wrong about it? f/h/v are non-sibilant fricatives from proto-IE *p (or proto-GIA *p) in  Germanic, Iranian and Armenian languages.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It is spirantization of p, what is wrong about it? f/h/v are non-sibilant fricatives from proto-IE *p (or proto-GIA *p) in  Germanic, Iranian and Armenian languages.


In what languages and under what conditions? In which sequence?

How does this relate with your substratum theory? Have you given that up?

I am only asking questions now because I want to understand your reasoning. I am not arguing yet.


----------



## desi4life

By proposing a "proto-GIA" you're ignoring the fact that Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages are more closely related and there is already a well accepted proto-IIr.


----------



## CyrusSH

Of course proto-Indo-Iranian existed, I'm talking about after its division, Iranian was not a direct descendant of proto-IIr, in fact Indian doesn't seem to be a direct descendant of proto-IIr too, we have proto-Germano-Irano-Armenian and proto-Indo-Balto-Slavic, one of the main things which makes a difference between these two, is the lack of Palatal and Palato-alveolar sounds in proto-GIA and then the process of spirantization.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Of course proto-Indo-Iranian existed, I'm talking about after its division, Iranian was not a direct descendant of proto-IIr, in fact Indian doesn't seem to be a direct descendant of proto-IIr too, we have proto-Germano-Irano-Armenian and proto-Indo-Balto-Slavic, one of the main things which makes a difference between these two, is the lack of Palatal and Palato-alveolar sounds in proto-GIA and then the process of spirantization.


If you want to be taken seriously you should take us seriously and not reply to arguments by an ad hoc assembly of technical terms. You have to give us a bit more than that. You cannot invent one split after the other just for the fun of it. Every split you postulate needs a good reason. And a split is one thing, being able to reconstruct a common proto-language another.


----------



## CyrusSH

I'm just talking about a process of simplification of consonants (voiced aspirated stops > voiced stops > voiceless stops > voiceless fricatives > h > elision) which is certainly not unique to any language but in the subgroups of Indo-European, we see this process (complete or incomplete) in Germanic, Iranian and Armenian languages, in fact it is the main reason that these languages were formed.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I'm just talking about a process of simplification of consonants (voiced aspirated stops > voiced stops > voiceless stops > voiceless fricatives > h > elision) which is certainly not unique to any language but in the subgroups of Indo-European, we see this process (complete or incomplete) in Germanic, Iranian and Armenian languages, in fact it is the main reason that these languages were formed.


You cannot simply assume the result you would like get and fill in ad hoc hypothesis to make it sound as if you had a story. If there are things you cannot explain, that is fine, but then say so. In your alternative chronology you cannot explain how Germanic is a Centum language and the IIR Satem languages. You would have to assume that the Satem merger happened after the Indic-Iranian split (otherwise Germanic could not be a Centum language) and that sounds a bit weird. You would need a very good reason for such and assumption and that it delivers the result you are hoping for is not _good_ but _ad hoc_. I don't see anything your theory explains better than the standard theory but it need a lot more assumptions to fll the holes.


----------



## CyrusSH

Proto-Indo-Iranian was actually in the process of Palatalization before the split, so for example _k_ had just changed to _ch_, not _s_, and you know the process of spirantization was not really possible without affrication, in fact _k_ couldn't be changed to _x_ directly.

k > ch > s (assibilation)
k > ch > x (spirantization)


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Proto-Indo-Iranian was actually in the process of Palatalization before the split, so for example _k_ had just changed to _ch_, not _s_, ...


It was _ḱ_ and not k that was affected by the process. And the final outcome must has been _s_ because _s_ systematically moved the  in Persia and not to [x]. Contrary to Germanic, Persian  is not an allophone of [x] but something genuinely different. PIE _k_ (or _kw_ which had merged into _k_ already earlier) moved systematically to [x]. Outside of a consonant cluster it stayed [k] whereas the shift is systematic in Germanic, compare Latin quod, English what, Persian که.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> It was _ḱ_ and not k that was affected by the process. And the final outcome must has been _s_ because _s_ systematically moved the  in Persia and not to [x]. Contrary to Germanic, Persian  is not an allophone of [x] but something genuinely different. PIE _k_ (or _kw_ which had merged into _k_ already earlier) moved systematically to [x]. Outside of a consonant cluster it stayed [k] whereas the shift is systematic in Germanic, compare Latin quod, English what, Persian که.




You are right about the sound change of *_ḱ_ to _h_ in Persian, however it makes similarities between Persian and Germanic words but those are from different rules (assibilation in Persian and spirantization in Germanic), but about proto-IE *_k_, like *_p_ and *_t_, the important point is that we certainly see the process of spirantization in the Iranian languages, so we can seek for a common origin.

About English _what_ (proto-Germanic **xwat*), in Persian there are there are که (ke), چه (che) and خواه (*xwa*).


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> so we can seek for a common origin


That precisely we can't. Spirantization is a frequent process in many languages. The fact that is is differently conditioned in Iranian and Germanic points to the opposite. Iranian _s>h_, by the way, is not a spirantization. This is a process that Iranian shares with Greek but not with Germanic.



CyrusSH said:


> About English _what_ (proto-Germanic **xwat*), in Persian there are there are که (ke), چه (che) and خواه (*xwa*).


It seems که and چه are ultimately the same word. Why? I am a bit out of my depth here. I would guess from different dialects. Maybe @fdb can help. 

I don't think that خواه is in any way related. I would think that xw is really a consonant cluster and not a reflex of a labialised k but I can't be sure.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> That precisely we can't. Spirantization is a frequent process in many languages. The fact that is is differently conditioned in Iranian and Germanic points to the opposite. Iranian _s>h_, by the way, is not a spirantization. This is a process that Iranian shares with Greek but not with Germanic.



We don't talk about other unrelated languages but Indo-European languages, it is really possible that _s>h_ in Iranian relates to the same sound change in Greek (and Armenian) but it clearly doesn't relate to Indo-Iranian.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> We don't talk about other unrelated languages but Indo-European languages, it is really possible that _s>h_ in Iranian relates to the same sound change in Greek (and Armenian) but it clearly doesn't relate to Indo-Iranian.


Some individual sound shifts happen independently in different languages. It doesn't really say much about genetic relationship. I don't know what the precise conditions are under which the shifts occurred in the two languages but I would be surprised if they were identical.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Some individual sound shifts happen independently in different languages. It doesn't really say much about genetic relationship.



The most important point is to find the reason of sound shifts, for example if you find two different reasons for sound change of *_gʷ_ to _b_ in Greek and Celtic languages then it can be said they didn't relate to each other but if we know they were changed for the same reason  then there should be a relation.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> That precisely we can't. Spirantization is a frequent process in many languages. The fact that is is differently conditioned in Iranian and Germanic points to the opposite. Iranian _s>h_, by the way, is not a spirantization. This is a process that Iranian shares with Greek but not with Germanic.
> 
> 
> It seems که and چه are ultimately the same word. Why? I am a bit out of my depth here. I would guess from different dialects. Maybe @fdb can help.





IE. *k and *kʷ become Iranian č before IE front vowels, otherwise k. Hence, in the Avesta  you have the two pronominal stems, ka- and či-. It all depends on the following vowel.




berndf said:


> I don't think that خواه is in any way related. I would think that xw is really a consonant cluster and not a reflex of a labialised k but I can't be sure.


 
Iranian xw is from IE *sw > hw > xw.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> IE. *k and *kʷ become Iranian č before IE front vowels, otherwise k. Hence, in the Avesta you have the two pronominal stems, ka- and či-. It all depends on the following vowel.


So, که is cognate to _quod _and چه to _qui _and the vowels (a and i) shifted later both to e so the original condition of the palatalisation got obscured and you end up with [ke] and [tʃʰe]. Is that the idea?


fdb said:


> Iranian xw is from IE *sw > hw > xw.


Is that a peculiarity of the cluster _hw _that _h _becomes _x _or is that a special case of a broader condition?


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> So, که is cognate to _quod _and چه to _qui _and the vowels (a and i) shifted later both to e so the original condition of the palatalisation got obscured and you end up with [ke] and [tʃʰe]. Is that the idea?



Yes, exactly. Even as late as early New Persian they are still pronounced as ka and či respectively.



berndf said:


> Is that a peculiarity of the cluster _hw _that _h _becomes _x _or is that a special case of a broader condition?



This is special to initial hw.


----------



## berndf

Thank you very much.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> IE. *k and *kʷ become Iranian č before IE front vowels, otherwise k. Hence, in the Avesta  you have the two pronominal stems, ka- and či-. It all depends on the following vowel.



Making rules and then reconstructing PIE words based on them, is not really a difficult thing to do, like the PIE words for "cold, frost" that I mentioned in this thread, or about this one:



Borin3 said:


> In Serbian _gol _means naked.



Serbian _gol_ is from Proto-Slavic *_gol-_ "bald", from proto-IE *_galw-_ "bald", cognate with proto-Germanic *_kalwaz_, but there are also Persian _kal_ and Latin _calvus_ with the same meaning, so we have proto-IE *_kalw-_ "bald" too!

This thing can even happen within Iranian languages, Avestan _suka_ "needle" is from proto-IE *_ḱukʷa-_ and Middle Persian _sučan_ "needle" is from proto-IE *_ḱukʷe-_ and Persian _kuk_ "needling" is from another root!


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Making rules and then reconstructing PIE words based on them, is not really a difficult thing to do, like the PIE words for "cold, frost" that I mentioned in this thread, or about this one:


It is not that easy. The principle methodology in reconstruction of the phonology of a proto-language is take the largest possible set of attested daughter languages and try to find the hypothetical proto-language together sets sound shift rules for each sub group and language that explains a maximum of attested outcomes simultaneously while making the smallest number of assumptions possible.

The accuracy of and the confidence in a reconstruction increases with the number, diversity and the number and range of development stages of attested daughter languages. -- But also the complexity of the task.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> It is not that easy. The principle methodology in reconstruction of the phonology of a proto-language is take the largest possible set of attested daughter languages and try to find the hypothetical proto-language together sets sound shift rules for each sub group and language that explains a maximum of attested outcomes simultaneously while making the smallest number of assumptions possible.
> 
> The accuracy of and the confidence in a reconstruction increases with the number, diversity and the number and range of development stages of attested daughter languages. -- But also the complexity of the task.



Do you agree with this sound change in the Iranian languages:

PIE > palatalization/affrication > spirantization 

**ḱ > ch > s/x*

Voiceless palatal stop > Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate  > Voiceless alveolar fricative/Voiceless velar fricative

**k > kx > k/x*

Voiceless velar stop > Voiceless palato-velar affricate  > Voiceless velar stop/Voiceless velar fricative

**kʷ > kʸ > ch/x*

Labialized voiceless velar stop >  Palatalization (back vowel to front vowel) > Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate/Voiceless velar fricative

--

And this one in the Germanic languages:

PIE > palatalization/affrication > spirantization 

**ḱ > ch > x*

Voiceless palatal stop > Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate  > Voiceless velar fricative

**k > kx > x*

Voiceless velar stop > Voiceless palato-velar affricate  > Voiceless velar fricative

**kʷ > kxʷ > xʷ*

Labialized voiceless velar stop >  Labialized palato-velar affricate > Labialized voiceless velar fricative


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> PIE > palatalization > spirantization
> 
> **ḱ > ch > s*


_*ḱ _is already palatal. That's what the ´ means. The steps are affricatisation and assibilation.


CyrusSH said:


> **k > kx > k/x*
> 
> Voiceless velar stop > Voiceless palato-velar affricate > Voiceless velar stop/Voiceless velar fricative


No, the spirantisation is conditioned, _*k_ remains _k_ in isolation and becomes _x_ in consonant clusters. Apparently proto-IIR had phonemic contrast between k and _kʰ_ and the outcome of the latter is unconditionally _x_. But IIR etymology is not something I have seriously studied. @fdb is our resident expert.


CyrusSH said:


> **kʷ > kʸ > ch*
> 
> Labialized voiceless velar stop > Palatalization (back vowel to front vowel) > Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate


No, labialised and plain stops merged very early in the IIR group.


----------



## CyrusSH

I completed my post, please reply to that one.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> PIE > palatalization/affrication > spirantization
> 
> **ḱ > ch > x*


This is wrong. The palatal stops merged into the plain stops before the Germanic sound shift. _ḱ_ did not exist in pre-Germanic. So, the sequence is _ḱ > k [> kx] > x_. The intermediate affricate stage _kx_ has not left any traces and we only assume it must have existed because this is how spirantisations usually work. But as it has left no traces it is not relevant if it existed.


----------



## CyrusSH

Please explain the sound changes of this word:

Proto-IE **kumbh-* "bowl, vessel"

Sanskrit _kumbha_
Ancient Greek _κύμβη_ (_kúmbē_)
Proto-Celtic _kumbā_
Proto-Germanic *kumbaz*
Avestan *xumba*


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> Avestan *xumba*




The classic explanation for this is to assume an IE *kʰumbʰa- > Avestan xumba. Skt kumbha- and Greek κύμβη illustrate Grassmann’s law (aspirate + aspirate > unaspirate + aspirate in Greek and Sanskrit only). Differently, Beekes thinks this is a wander word, but I do not quite follow his argument.


----------



## CyrusSH

What about this one:

proto-IE **sekʷ-* "companion, fellow"

Greek _opéon_
Latin _socius_
Germanic *sagjaz*
Old Persian *haxa*


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> proto-IE **sekʷ-* "companion, fellow"


_*sekʷ-_ is the verbal root (_to follow_). _Follower, fellow, companion_ is _*sokʷjos_ (e.g. according to Pokorny).


----------



## CyrusSH

Or this one:

Proto-IE **kerd-* "dirt, mud"

Tokharian _kärtk_
Sanskrit _kardama_
Latin _cerda_
Germanic _xarta_
Persian *xard*


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> _*sekʷ-_ is the verbal root (_to follow_). _Follower, fellow, companion_ is _*sokʷjos_ (e.g. according to Pokorny).


 
The kh in Skt. _sakhāy_, and the x in Avestan/Old Persian _haxāy_-, is now mostly explained as the result of IE *sekʷh2-oi-.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> The kh in Skt. _sakhāy_, and the x in Avestan/Old Persian _haxāy_-, is now mostly explained as the result of IE *sekʷh2-oi-.


... and the _g_ in Germanic as voicing of _x_ in between two voiced sounds (the Germanic _g_ was a fricative and not a stop).


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> _ḱ_ did not exist in pre-Germanic. So, the sequence is _ḱ > k [> kx] > x_.



_ḱ_ didn't exit in the proto-Indo-Iranian too but there was _č_, the important point is its change to _x_ in Iranian, like Middle Persian _maxš_ "fly" from proto-Indo-Iranian *_mač-_, from proto-IE *_mak'-_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> _ḱ_ didn't exit in the proto-Indo-Iranian too but there was _č_, the important point is its change to _x_ in Iranian


The important point is that _ḱ _and _k _did not merge in IIR and remained distinguishable. If became under some conditions _s_ and under other x while _k_ became under some conditions _k_ and under other _x_. What matters is where they have different outcomes not where they have the same. I merger means that they can't have different outcomes in decedent languages because the information was already lost.


----------



## Borin3

@CyrusSH Gol is a root in many words. Gol-naked, glava-head (PIE seems to be very close to this one. Obviously head is the only noticeable uncovered part of the body, during winter it is literally the only part of body that can be seen/that is naked). Gol+o+glav- without cap/hat, Gol+o+glav- bald. We have another more used term for bald though. If gol was glava then  whole last word gologlav should mean head head. Something like that happened before and not only in Serbian, but i doubt it was the meaning if checking out other words. Glad-hunger. G(o)l-naked ad-ground- Naked+ground=hunger. Naked ground means no crop, no vegetables, no harvest. That's why we say gladna godina- hungry year. Of course the year is not hungry, but we stayed hungry in it. Hlad is shade. You can find hlad under a tree that stops sun's ray from falling on ad(ground). Hladan is cold nowadays, but analyzing word hlad you can get to a conclusion that hl must have been a term for cold and that ad is ground.  People who live in village can understand how hladna godina-cold year is connected to gladna godina-hungry year. Anyway it's easy to understand these 2 are related since gol-naked is already *hl*adan-cold. Only one frost around 4-6 am during the spring can destroy almost all of your hard work in the farm. This is not the only example but there are more. golem-huge...One might think that naked has nothing to do with huge but it does in this case.
Golem - Wikipedia
As it says here Golem was made of clay and dust. He was huge, but he was also naked. Thus he got his name from being naked, but his size replaced the original meaning and that's why golem means huge today. Gol-goal has obviously the same root, but not related.

Kuka in Serbian means a hook. There are many more examples for this word related to it, but i'd rather not mention in this occasion. Suk is a root in a word like sukno-raw cloth(material not manufactured yet), suknja-skirt, shuknuti-to pull through, suknuti (describes sudden burst of fire)


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> The classic explanation for this is to assume an IE *kʰumbʰa-



Existence of *_kʰ_ in proto-IE can change many things, first we should consider Iranian as the closest language to PIE because it is the only language which has preserved the original PIE sound, second there is no reason to seek a sound law for Iranian _x_ because it could be the original PIE sound.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Existence of *_kʰ_ in proto-IE can change many things, first we should consider Iranian as the closest language to PIE because it is the only language which has preserved the original PIE sound


You have profoundly misunderstood him. The de-aspiration of _kʰ _to_ k _in this particular word is caused by the presence of a second aspirated stop in the PIE etymon (Grassmann's rule). _kʰ _in general was very much alive and kicking in Classical Greek. The spirantisation of _kʰ_ to _x_ happend only in Koine Greek.


CyrusSH said:


> second there is no reason to seek a sound law for Iranian _x_ because it could be the original PIE sound.


No.


----------



## desi4life

CyrusSH said:


> Existence of *_kʰ_ in proto-IE can change many things, first we should consider Iranian as the closest language to PIE because it is the only language which has preserved the original PIE sound, second there is no reason to seek a sound law for Iranian _x_ because it could be the original PIE sound.



Iranian didn't preserve the original PIE sound. The aspirated _kʰ _is a different sound than the fricative _x._


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> You have profoundly misunderstood him. The de-aspiration of _kʰ _to_ k _in this particular word is caused by the presence of a second aspirated stop in the PIE etymon (Grassmann's rule). _kʰ _in general was very much alive and kicking in Classical Greek. The spirantisation of _kʰ_ to _x_ happend only in Koine Greek.



You should first define sound change of *_kʰ_ in the subgroups of PIE, Greek _kʰ_ was from proto-IE *_gʰ_.

I really see a huge similarity in the relations between Sanskrit & Greek and Iranian & Armenian, in fact Armenian seems to be Grecized Iranian.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> You should first define sound change of *_kʰ_ in the subgroups of PIE, Greek _kʰ_ was from proto-IE *_gʰ_.
> 
> I really see a huge similarity in the relations between Sanskrit & Greek and Iranian & Armenian, in fact Armenian seems to be Grecized Iranian.


There is a wide consensus to reconstruct only three stops per series, _voiceless, voiced _(or _plain_, _glotalised_) and_ aspirated_, in PIE. If you write it _kʰ_ or _gʰ_ is not overly important. Proponents of the revised glottalic theory (those who reconstruct the other two as _plain _vs_. glotalised_) write it _kʰ_, proponents of the traditional theory  (those who see reconstruct the other two as _voiceless _vs. _voiced_; the majority) write it _gʰ._


----------



## CyrusSH

Sanskrit > Iranian -- Sanskrit > Greek -- Iranian > Armenian -- Armenian > Germanic 

bh > b -- bh > ph -- b > p -- p > ɸ(ph)
dh > d -- dh > th -- d > t -- t > θ(th)
gh > g -- gh > kh -- g > k -- k > x(kh)

brief:

bʰ > b > p > ɸ
dʰ > d > t > θ
gʰ > g > k > x


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Sanskrit > Iranian -- Sanskrit > Greek -- Iranian > Armenian -- Armenian > Germanic
> 
> bh > b -- bh > ph -- b > p -- p > f(ph)
> dh > d -- dh > th -- d > t -- t > θ(th)
> gh > g -- gh > kh -- g > k -- k > x(kh)


There is no such thing as _Sanskrit > Iranian_.
There is no such thing as _Sanskrit > Greek_.
There is no such thing as _Iranian > Armenian._
There is no such thing as_ Armenian > Germanic._


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> There is no such thing as _Sanskrit > Iranian_.
> There is no such thing as _Sanskrit > Greek_.
> There is no such thing as _Iranian > Armenian._
> There is no such thing as_ Armenian > Germanic._



I'm actually comparing them.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I'm actually comparing them.


Ok, > is not a good symbol then. It means "developes into" or, read from right to left, "is derived from".


----------



## eamp

fdb said:


> The classic explanation for this is to assume an IE *kʰumbʰa- > Avestan xumba. Skt kumbha- and Greek κύμβη illustrate Grassmann’s law (aspirate + aspirate > unaspirate + aspirate in Greek and Sanskrit only). Differently, Beekes thinks this is a wander word, but I do not quite follow his argument.


I don't see how Grassmann's law is of help here since it operated only after the devoicing of aspirates in Greek. So PIE /bh/ can only result in Greek /p/ or /ph/, never /b/. As no regular sound correspondences can be established between IA, Greek and Germanic we are probably not dealing with an ancient PIE word.
Perhaps the Germanic word is a late loan from Celtic, close to *_kumba_ "valley, hollow"?
In any case, this is not a great basis to establish any sound laws.



CyrusSH said:


> Proto-IE **kerd-* "dirt, mud"
> 
> Tokharian _kärtk_
> Sanskrit _kardama_
> Latin _cerda_
> Germanic _xarta_
> Persian *xard*



I don't think there is enough evidence to establish a root with this meaning yet. 
Tocharian B _kärtk_- is a verb with uncertain meaning, possibly "decay" or the like. Could be from PIE *_K(e)rT-ske-_ (K/T: any IE velar/dental) but has no clear parallels elsewhere. Then there is _kärtkālle _"swamp, mud", which looks to be derived from the verb, though Tocharian A _kärtkāl _means simply "water, pond".
Sanskrit _kardama_- "dirt, mud" is considered by Mayrhofer to be taken from a non-IE language, I don't know his reasoning.
Latin -_cerda _"feces" occurs only in compounds, possibly originally -_scerda _by wrong separation in _muscerda _"mouse droppings". Uncertain origin since it does not occur by itself and is isolated otherwise in Latin (also unclear relation to rhyming _merda_). Maybe from an original meaning "separate" to a root *_(s)ker-_ + -_d_-, but no clear parallels.
Not sure what _xarta _should refer to, maybe the *_harta_- continued in German _Harz_? This means "resin" however and is restricted to High and Low German, not found otherwise in Germanic.
I can't say much about Persian _xard_, since I couldn't find the word, what does it mean and how is it spelled in Farsi script? I can't see how it could go back to *_kerd_- in any case, even if one were to accept *_k_- > _x_-, since an original cluster -_rd_- becomes -_l_- in Persian.


----------



## CyrusSH

About the main topic of this thread, what do you think about a sound change in proto-IE within itself? 

ǵʰ- > g - > ḱ- > h₂


----------



## CyrusSH

There could be ǵ- > g - > k- > h₂ in proto-IE too.

For example about proto-IE *ǵ*, look at these Persian words:

Persian gune

meanings:

1. kind, genre

It can't be from proto-IE **ǵene-* (Germanic *_kundá_, Latin _genō_, Sanskrit _jánati_, Avestan _zanti_, Lettish _znuõts_, ...), true? It should be from proto-IE **gene-*.

2. cheek

It can't be from proto-IE **ǵenu-* (Germanic *_kinnuz_, Sanskrit _hánu_, Greek _génü_, ...), true? It should be from proto-IE **genu-*. 

The same thing can be said about Persian chane (chin), it can't be also from proto-IE **ǵenu-* but from proto-IE **kenu-*.

The Persian verb jaw- (to chew) can't be from that PIE root too.


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> I don't see how Grassmann's law is of help here since it operated only after the devoicing of aspirates in Greek. So PIE /bh/ can only result in Greek /p/ or /ph/, never /b/. As no regular sound correspondences can be established between IA, Greek and Germanic we are probably not dealing with an ancient PIE word.
> Perhaps the Germanic word is a late loan from Celtic, close to *_kumba_ "valley, hollow"?
> In any case, this is not a great basis to establish any sound laws..



So what is your opinion about the origin of Avestan _xumba_ and Persian xom (second etymology)? But about the first etymology, Persian _xam_ "bend, curve" is clearly from proto-IE *_kam-p_ "bend", but about Germanic _xampō_ (hump) and Ancient Greek _kámptō_ "bend, curve", there is again a problem about the last consonant.


----------



## eamp

CyrusSH said:


> About the main topic of this thread, what do you think about a sound change in proto-IE within itself?
> ǵʰ- > g - > ḱ- > h₂


It does not make a whole lot of sense, if one sound changes into another the unchanged version of a word does not stay around. If _gel_- changed into _kel_- already in PIE, no language could actually inherit _gel_-, since it wouldn't exist anymore. 

It's interesting though that finding a common root for PIE "cold" seems much more difficult than for "warm". 
Most widespread may be *_ḱelH _in Baltoslavic and Indo-Iranian plus probable derivatives in Germanic, but besides it there also occurs *_ḱel_- meaning warm...
_gel_- seem only securely attested in Germanic and Italic, with the formations in the two branches not matching closely.
It's unclear whether and how Slavic _*xold_- should be related to these.
Then there's *_algʰ_- only in Italic with an isolated match in Germanic, _*srīg_- in Italic and Greek and the pair *_stug_- in Greek and _*stud_- in Slavic with doubtful relation.
Also *_hₒeuǵ_- in Celtic, Baltic and Armenian and I'm sure there is more. Difficult to say much about the original PIE situation here.



CyrusSH said:


> So what is your opinion about the origin of Avestan _xumba_ and Persian xom (second etymology)? But about the first etymology, Persian _xam_ "bend, curve" is clearly from proto-IE *_kam-p_ "bend", but about Germanic _xampō_ (hump) and Ancient Greek _kámptō_ "bend, curve", there is again a problem about the last consonant.


The Iranian word must be identical with the Sanskrit one, so _x_- will derive from an aspirated _kʰ_-. Proto-Indo-Iranian had voiceless aspirated stops, so this is not very problematic, as long as one does not project them all the way back to PIE. The general opinion is that PIE did not have phonemic aspirated voiceless stops, but they might have existed as allophones in some contexts and acquired phoneme status in the early dialects. 
I can't say much about the bend words right now, but I doubt _hump _belongs with the rest, it's a late word and rhymes really neatly with bump, lump, rump so I suspect it may be a recent creation based on some kind of sound symbolism.


----------



## wiiiilmaaaa

You already, correctly, mentioned the Persian "sard" and its possible roots. 

Another word for cold that we have in Persian is "zam". This is preserved in the currently used word for Earth which is "zam" + "-in" --> "zamin", corresponding to "something that turned cold". "-in" is the modifier/ attribute suffix. 

Interestingly, e.g. in Polish/ Russian language Earth mean "Ziemia"/ "земля́", respectively, which are very similar to the Persian relatively modern designation of Earth "zamin".


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> It does not make a whole lot of sense, if one sound changes into another the unchanged version of a word does not stay around. If _gel_- changed into _kel_- already in PIE, no language could actually inherit _gel_-, since it wouldn't exist anymore.



It is a good point, there can be some other possibilities:

1. Sound changes created words with similar meanings in proto-Indo-European.
2. There was a sister language of proto-Indo-European with these sound changes, gradually they were merged to one.
3. The relation between sub-groups of PIE was huge and there was just one PIE word and other ones are loanwords from one language to another.


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> It's interesting though that finding a common root for PIE "cold" seems much more difficult than for "warm".



About "warm", I mentioned a word in the previous page:



CyrusSH said:


> Proto-IE **dʰegʷʰ-*
> 
> Italic: dʰ>f & gʷʰ>w/v
> 
> Latin foveo (warm)
> 
> --
> 
> Tocharian: dʰ>t/ts & gʷʰ>k
> 
> Tokharian tsäk (burn up)
> 
> --
> 
> Celtic: dʰ>d &  gʷʰ>g
> 
> Old Irish daig (flame)
> 
> --
> 
> Indian: dʰ>dh/d &  gʷʰ>h
> 
> Sanskrit dahati (burn)
> 
> --
> 
> Hellenic: dʰ>th/t &  gʷʰ>ph
> 
> Greek téphrā (funeral fire)
> 
> --
> 
> Germanic: dʰ>d/t &  gʷʰ>g
> 
> Old English dæg (day)



Now consider a word similar to the Greek word:

Proto-IE **tep-*

Hittite _tapassa_ "heat"
Sanskrit _tápu_ "burn"
Avestan _tāpaiti_ "warm"
Persian _taft_ "burn, warm"
Slavic *_tep_ "warm"
Germanic *_thafiz_ "smell"
Latin _tepēre_ "warm"
Celtic *_tepent-_ "hot"

In both cases the Germanic words don't have direct relations to the original meanings of the words. I know at least in Persian _dagh_ "hot" is warmer than _taf-_ "warm".


----------



## wiiiilmaaaa

CyrusSH said:


> So what is your opinion about the origin of Avestan _xumba_ and Persian xom (second etymology)? But about the first etymology, Persian _xam_ "bend, curve" is clearly from proto-IE *_kam-p_ "bend", but about Germanic _xampō_ (hump) and Ancient Greek _kámptō_ "bend, curve", there is again a problem about the last consonant.



Could be that the "xom" that you are mentioning is synonymous to the "zam" that I just mentioned CyrusSH?


CyrusSH said:


> About "warm", I mentioned a word in the previous page:
> 
> 
> 
> Now consider a word similar to the Greek word:
> 
> Proto-IE **tep-*
> 
> Hittite _tapassa_
> Sanskrit _tápati_
> Avestan _tāpaiti_
> Persian _taft_
> Slavic *_tep_
> Germanic *_thafiz_
> Latin _tepēre_
> Celtic *_tepent-_



1) Very nice. "tapaiti" in Avestan means "he/ she/ it is hot". "Tap" in Avestan means hot. This is also preserved in the modern Persian designation of the sun "âftâb" stemming from "âp tap" which means "hot water" as the sun looks like a shimmering or glistering circle of liquid.
Also "tab" is fever in modern Persian.

2) On another note, can I please ask you for your opinion on this simple thought I just had:
If I take the Persian "*s*a*r*d" and do the simplest well-known PIE sound changes, from "s" to "k" and "r" to "l", then I'll come up with "*k*a*l*d", which in many IE languages means cold (English), kalt (German), хо́лодно (Russian, pronounced "kolodna"), gelido/ gelida (Italian), gelado/ gelada (Portugese)

3) In Polish cold means "zimno" which is very similar to the aforementioned Polish "Ziemia" - Earth. "Zamin" in Persian means Earth, too, and "zam" means cold. So "zam" + the suffix "-in" is a "place turned cold".


----------



## CyrusSH

wiiiilmaaaa said:


> You already, correctly, mentioned the Persian "sard" and its possible roots.
> 
> Another word for cold that we have in Persian is "zam". This is preserved in the currently used word for Earth which is "zam" + "-in" --> "zamin", corresponding to "something that turned cold". "-in" is the modifier/ attribute suffix.
> 
> Interestingly, e.g. in Polish/ Russian language Earth mean "Ziemia"/ "земля́", respectively, which are very similar to the Persian relatively modern designation of Earth "zamin".



Persian _zem_ (_zemestan_) actually means "winter", it is from proto-IE *_ǵʰeim-_, cognate with Slavic _zima_, Latin _hiems_, Sanskrit _himá_ and ancient Greek _khiṓn_, if we consider a proto-IE similar to the Greek word, like *_kʷein_ then Germanic _win-_ (winter) could be from this root.

The Persian/Slavic word for "earth" has a very different origin but there is clearly ǵʰ>z sound change in them.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It is a good point, there can be some other possibilities:
> 
> 1. Sound changes created words with similar meanings in proto-Indo-European.
> 2. There was a sister language of proto-Indo-European with these sound changes, gradually they were merged to one.
> 3. The relation between sub-groups of PIE was huge and there was just one PIE word and other ones are loanwords from one language to another.


You are trying what is called an _internal reconstruction_ beyond PIE into the past. That is a very tricky business and I am afraid for what you are trying to establish there is way too little information. At your very liberal use of the concept of "similar meaning" you could easily come up with hundreds of competing theories with no way of deciding.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> You are trying what is called an _internal reconstruction_ beyond PIE into the past. That is a very tricky business and I am afraid for what you are trying to establish there is way too little information. At your very liberal use of the concept of "similar meaning" you could easily come up with hundreds of competing theories with no way of deciding.



I'm actually trying to know why there are strong semantic connections between the words in my native language Persian, like _sard_ & _kulak_  or _sar_ & _kalle_, ... without considering them as loanwords.


----------



## wiiiilmaaaa

Borin3 said:


> Proto Slavic _žeg__*t*__*i*. _ ti looks like an inflect which creates a verb or in some rare case an adjective. Where did you find this original word?
> Anyway you said yourself that Slavic words are usually more original to PIE root. What is a PIE root? How does PIE root get reconstructed? Who managed to trace it with such precision and could say it's 100% sure?
> 
> Your notion about similarity of words djeg (Albanian) and dagh (Persian) is very logical since Albanians originate from Caucasus and Persians influenced the area. They who didn't call themselves Albanians till recently but Sqipetars (which is similar to Slavic/denotes people who speak the same language; they still call themselves like this, as well as Albanian) came to Balkans from what was Arabian Sicily in 11th century, brought by a Greek Georges Maniakes (who was a marshal leader of Byzantine forces in a war against Arabians) to help his manpower in his greedy conquest on the Byzantine throne. They left their trace in Sicily in a shape of blood revenge. A tradition that is still not rooted out in Albania and was present in Sicily for a long time (i don't know if still practiced). Before Sicily they lived on Caucasus. It can be easily traced down. Thus i suppose they have plenty words similar to Persian.



I share your sentiment very strongly that philology and etymology cannot be simply practiced as in e.g. the science of physics or mathematics. There is no doubt about the fact that it helps in philology to have some common rules and algorithms to trace back and understand circumstances like letter changes and trace words back to possible common roots, however, languages are still first and foremost very closely related to historic events, human life, culture, religion, way of life, etc. etc. This may change drastically and chaotically. Which may also change word's meanings etc. Or you come about similarities, congnates etc. where you would never expect it and which don't make a lot of sense on the first sight. You cannot simply use algorithms and change vowels and consonants and be happy with what comes out. Neither can you simply try to explain word similarities and derivation by only regarding historic or cultural facts. The truth may lie somewhere in the middle or, unfortunately, may no longer be accessible at all for us... 
We can only strive and try to converge to a closest possible truth, however, we should be aware to possibly, in many cases, never be able to get anywhere near it in many cases.

E.g. the Iranian languages and especially Avestan cannot be researched without a profound knowledge about its twin relative Sanskrit. Iranian languages cannot be understood and researched without knowledge about the Iranian mythology and cosmogony, the Avesta, Firdowsi's national epic "Shâhnâmeh" and to try to achieve as much knowledge as possible about the Aryan ancestors of the Indians and Iranians. This profound knowledge is hard to obtain and doesn't make it easy.

But, otherwise, without that knowledge you will never be able to understand e.g. why "deva" is positively connotated in Indian languages and culture while "diw" is something very negative in Iranian/ Persian language and culture. And where the connection to "devil", "Deiwel"/"Deibel"/"Teufel", "diabolus" may be.

I guess you can see that I am no overly fervid or ardent advocator of the PIE language theory, altough, it has its merrits and can help. However, please don't be quick to denigrate others that try to make some actual sense about words and their origins and who are no big fans or supporters of the PIE theory. 

After all the ominous "Proto-Indo-Europeans" are prehistoric inhabitants of Eurasia who allegedly spoke a common language designated as "PIE" (Proto-Indo-European), according to linguists and their theories.
All these various "Urheimat" hypothesis are not convincing. I'd personally be super happy to see these PIE hypothesis confirmed but I don't see it.

Thus, we should remain without ideologies when debating languages and word ancestries and benefit from our mutual knowledge and intuition to maybe obtain a clearer picture. As you see with the deva / diw example, there may be no single truth but multiple facets instead.


----------



## wiiiilmaaaa

CyrusSH said:


> I'm actually trying to know why there are strong semantic connections between the words in my native language Persian, like _sard_ & _kulak_  or _sar_ & _kalle_, ... without considering them as loanwords.



Yes, this is something that drives me kind of crazy as well and I cannot come up with a satsifying reasonable explanation to be happy with. Would be great if someone came up with a theory.


----------



## CyrusSH

wiiiilmaaaa said:


> 2)3) In Polish cold means "zimno" which is very similar to the aforementioned Polish "Ziemia" - Earth. "Zamin" in Persian means Earth, too, and "zam" means cold. So "zam" + the suffix "-in" is a "place turned cold".



This similarity exists in other Indo-European languages too, for example as I said the Latin word for "winter" is _hiems_ and Latin _humus_ means "earth", if there is a relation then it should be in proto-Indo-European.


----------



## wiiiilmaaaa

CyrusSH said:


> This similarity exists in other Indo-European languages too, for example as I said the Latin word for "winter" is _hiems_ and Latin _humus_ means "earth", if there is a relation then it should be in proto-Indo-European.



Yes, this is a very interesting observation made. Not sure, though, if any rhyme or reason can be added to it. Not sure we should call it PIE but at least very ancient.


----------

