New answers tagged


The general consensus is that, phonetically, early PIE had a low vowel of some sort (which could broadly be called [a]), but phonemically, it did not have a phoneme /a/ (or it had a marginal one at best). The reason for assuming a phonetic [a] is that various words have a consistent low vowel across several daughter languages, like in "before, fore, ...


The evidence for a phonemic *a in earliest PIE (before Anatolian and Tocharian broke off) is extremely lacking, it only seeming to be present in a small number of words that are likely borrowings, often present in only a small number of branches. That said, a-colouring from *h2 is attested in all branches, and so *a ought to be reconstructed for earliest ...


From what you state, it seems you have read the papers of people like Shrikant Talageri. Be aware that these people who side with the OIT (out-of-India) theory are generally completely incompetent as far as linguistics is concerned. The OIT is a politics-driven agenda that tries to find linguistic arguments. Its incompetence and hysterical politicization are ...


When a word can be reconstructed to a proto-language, it is generally assumed that there was such a word in the proto-language. Then if the meaning of the word can also be reconstructed, it is generally assumed that there is such a word with that meaning in the proto-language. Since a word meaning "axle" is reconstructable to at least late PIE, it ...


Having now confirmed that this is from the Dnghu Association 2007 update of Pokorny's Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, it appears the relevant passage you're talking about is on page 2651 which says the following under its heading for the pronoun se- "reflexive pronoun" (text in square brackets my own translation): other Zugehörigkeits- ...


It's most probably a complete chance coincidence. Words meaning "marsh" are probably substratic in light of Basque (correction not balta => sorry the right word is) baltsa "marsh, pond, also mud". The other words meaning "white" have nothing to do here.


The Germanic schwager comes from PIE swēḱurós, meaning "brother-in-law". It is a derivation of swéḱuros "father-in-law", from which also comes Proto-Slavic svekrъ. Could you lookup Wikitionary?


Aramaic gīsā is a shorter form for aḡīsā “wife’s sister’s husband”. I do not have an etymology for this, but it really does not look anything like Indo-European *sueḱuro- or any of its descendants.

Top 50 recent answers are included