DISCUSSION: Another root that is similar but differentiable from #533, *mon-, is #549:

First, we may notice that Starostin's website does not have Dravidian *mun.t.ay- but only *mot.-, 'egg', but I will provisionally accept it. The retroflex *n.t. indicates that the Nostratic vowel following *n was *o.

We mentioned under root #534, revised Nostratic *monat?s-, 'breast', that Nostratic *t?s (PL *T?SA, 'body') is a frequent component of terms for parts of the body; and in the IE cognate, as exemplified by Slavic, and in the Dravidian cognate, if it be properly reconstructed, we see it again as IE *dh/d and as Dravidian *t., which has been retroflexed from **t by contact with retroflex *n (*n.): Nostratic *monot?s.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *MO-*NO, 'flesh-basket' = 'testicle'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(549)PN *mon^w- "testicle"; "egg" > PIE in **mon-dh/d- "testicle" in Common Slavic *moⁿdo- "testicle"; PU *muna- "egg, testicle"; PD in *mun.t.ay- "egg, testicle" (source: PL *MO-NO)

A common terminology for 'egg' and 'testicle' is documented for the earliest period.

Based on IE *med-, which, in Pokorny, is incorrectly glossed as "schwellen?", 'testicle', and Dravidian *mot.-, 'egg', to which we were introduced above, we can reconstruct PL *MO-(*T?O), 'flesh-lump' = 'testicle'.

The Egyptian biliteral for mt depicts a 'penis and testicles'. Though it is not attested in the meaning 'egg' or 'testicle', it is recorded as meaning 'bolus'. In addition, mt.wt means 'semen'. I conclude that the value of mt that explains both usages satisfactorily is 'testicle'. This conclusion is supported by mt-Hn.t, 'concubine', where Hn.t probably means 'one occupied with (feminine)'. Egyptian t and Dravidian retroflex *t. specify the final Nostratic vowel as *o.

It is important to remember that, in the case of both *mon^w- and *mod^w-, the primary meaning, as revealed by the analysis, is 'testicle'. This is reciprocated in, e.g. modern German Eier, which is primarily 'eggs' but secondarily 'testicles'.

(Addition AV)PN *mot?^w- "testicle"; "egg" > PIE *med-/*mod- "testicle"; PAA **mat- in Egyptian mt "**testicle, bolus"; PA possibly in *ùmu-tki- (if segmentable as *ù-mut-ki-[?]) "egg"; PD *mot.- "egg" (source: PL *MO-T?O)

DISCUSSION: A root the full significance of which Bomhard has not grasped is:

First, we may notice that Starostin's website does not have Dravidian *mari- but only *marran-, 'kind of relative'. I presume that this is the root which Bomhard has in mind; and I agree that *mar- may be abstracted from it. The alveolar *r indicates that the Nostratic vowel following *r was *e.

In another publication, Bomhard lists a number of, which I do not doubt, Afrasian cognates but none I can see are relatable to simple *mar-; all seem to derive from *mar?-.

The operative idea of this root seems to be separation, and the idea of 'young' is an integral part of the meaning, which shades into 'new' in Egyptian m3, 'new', a basal form of the word frequently read as m3(-)wy. In a period when the pronunciation of 3 as [r] had been lost, this word was borrowed into Egyptian as mr(|)yn(3) ([mar(i)yâna]), 'Syrian warrior', which corresponds quite closely with Dravidian *marran-; and represents Hurrian mariyanni-, '(young) charioteers'.

In view of this new analysis of the base meaning of the root, I think it likely that it can also be found in IE (6.) *mer-, 'forget, neglect', i.e. 'be separated from by the passage of time'.

Quite probably, this is also cognate with Sumerian amar, 'calf', the sign for which has the additional reading mar₂, to which, in this usage, I would amend it.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *MA-*RHE, 'breast-fall' = 'fall from the breast' = 'be weaned, be young (but not infantile)'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(522)PN *mar^y- "be weaned, be young" > PIE in **mer(-)yo- "young man"; (6.) *mer-/*mor-/*mR- "to forget, to neglect"; PAA in *mara?- "young man"; Egyptian m3 "new"; PD in *mar(-)i "young of animals; husband, man, son"; S amar (for **mar₂) "calf" (source: PL *MA-RHE)

DISCUSSION: A root which Bomhard has incorrectly reconstructed is:

First, we may notice that Starostin's website does reconstruct Altaic *m[iu]ti-, 'know, believe', from which is derived Mongolian *mede-. In another publication, Bomhard does classify *mede correctly as Mongolian so its inclusion under the heading "PA" is presumably just a careless mistake.

Starostin's website also lists Dravidian *mat.-, 'level, measure', which is almost certainly cognate.

Kartvelian (Georgian) mat'-, 'augment, increase', is preferentially very probably related to the IE root *mad-, 'fat, fatten' (PL *MA-*?A-*T?A), 'full-stative=(ness)-give' = 'fat(ten)', a root not found in Bomhard's dictionary. This is simply an extension of the root previously discussed as #422.

We have already learned above that the Egyptian sign depicting 'penis and testicles' represents mt. It is used in the spelling of mt(-)y, 'precise', which we would interpret as 'measured'.

On the basis of Egyptian t and Dravidian retroflex *t., we are obliged to reconstruct the final vowel of the Nostratic root as *o.

In another publication, Bomhard names the associated Semitic root as *mT, though, as we have seen above, Semitic emphatic *T can only go back to Nostratic *THO. Therefore, Semitic *T corresponds perfectly to Egyptian t and Dravidian retroflex *t..

The great majority of Semitic derivatives of *mT- have to do with 'stretching' though Geez evidences maTTana, 'measure'. I believe that the term probably originated as a method of counting livestock by congregating it but was transferred to measuring distances, which, in ancient times, was accomplished with a cord which was repeatedly pulled taut. In this usage, 'count'='measure' became synonymous with 'stretching (the cord)'. However, a vestige of the earlier usage may be preserved in tamaTmaTa, 'become thick, coagulate'.

In another publication, Bomhard translates his idiosyncratic IE *met'-/*mot'- into a form with which most of us are more familiar: *med-, 'measure'. However, IE *d cannot correspond to Semitic *T (only to Semitic *t or *D), to which rather IE *t corresponds. Under IE (3.) *me:-, 'measure', a form is given as *met-; and, I believe this is the proper correspondent; and that it is a root separate from and unrelated to *me:- though I will not dispute that the roots may have been conflated and confounded.

The root underlying IE (3.) *me:-, in my opinion, can be seen in Arabic ?amma, 'direct one's steps towards (a place), propose'; and ?âmma, 'agree with (= 'be of the same measure')' but even more clearly in derivatives like ?amata, 'measure', which would correspond to IE **Hemed-. Now, although the IE root is listed as *med-, it has forms like *me:dos, 'estimation', and *me/e:d-, 'physician', which are seen in finite forms as well: Greek médomai, 'be intent on something'; and mé:domai, 'devise'. I believe, in view of the many attested forms with *e:, the root should, first of all, have been reconstructed as *me/e:d-. Rather than the more frequent circumstance of a following "laryngeal" lengthening a Nostratic vowel and preserving the vowel-quality into IE (though it may subsequently be shortened), this is a case of a preceding "laryngeal" doing the same thing. And the forms preserved suggest strongly that the second component of this root was PL *ME, 'call out', a verbal idea closely associated with the process of measurement. For a similar development, one might compare *we/e:r- (which I would prefer to emend to **wa:r-) from *awer-

As for the first element, we know only the consonant from Arabic: ?: what the Nostratic vowel-quality might have been can only be a good guess.

We, therefore, will provisionally reconstruct PL *?E-*ME-(*T?A), 'out-call-out(-give)' = 'call out [measurements]('measure')'.

The Egyptian sign portraying a sickle (Gardiner's U1) can be related to IE *ame:-, and alternate form of (2.) *me:- attested in Greek amáo:, 'mow'. In my opinion, this establishes the possibility of an alternate reading for the 'sickle' as **jm representing PL *?A-*MHA-, 'plant-top-bite-off' = 'reap, mow'. Accordingly, I would emend the alternate IE form to **a(:)ma:-. If we can allow an Egyptian reading of **jm for the 'sickle', Egyptian m3', 'true', written with the 'sickle' and only rarely with 3, becomes of interest in this context. This word, which is attested as me, 'truth', in Sahidic Coptic, I believe should be emended to **jm' (the sometimes written 3 being a late indication of simple vowel length). Egyptian ' represents Nostratic *t?so and *thso, and since I can find no Arabic cognate, it seems impossible to specify which might be involved though Balto-Slavic *mato-, 'perceive', if related, might point to Nostratic *thso (representing PL *THSO-, 'go around').

Accordingly, we add:

(Addition AW)PN *?em^y- "to call out (measurements)" > PIE (3.) me:- (from **Heme-) "to measure"; in **me/e:d- (from **H(e)med-) "to measure"; PAA in *?amat- "to measure"; in Hebrew ?emeth "true"; possibly in Egyptian m3' (for **jm' [cf. Balto-Slavic *mato:- "to perceive"]) "true"; PA possibly in or related to mià(-)l'i- "to measure"[?] (source: PL *?E-ME[-T?A])

To return to the previously discussed root, we, therefore, reconstruct PL *MA-*THO), 'full-move-together' = '(cause to) congregate (for counting)'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(527)PN *math^w- "to (cause to) congregate (for counting), to add up" > PIE in **met-/*mot- "to measure", listed incorrectly under (3.) me:- ; PAA in *maT- "to thicken" in Arabic tamaTmaTa, "to become thick, to coagulate"; in Egyptian mt(-)y "accurate, precise"; PD in *mat. "level, measure"; S perhaps in mad "land (if = "measure of land"[?])" (source: PL *MA-THO)

DISCUSSION: A root which finds wide employment in Nostratic roots is *T?SO, 'arm, hold (in)'.

We have discussed many of the cognates of the root above under #146, which Bomhard reconstructed as *d^yi-/*d^ye- but we amended to *t?a-(y-). However, we will add to #146: PK *da "and"; PC *d6 "with, and"; and Elamo-Dravidian: Elamite da "also, too, as well, likewise; to, therefore, consequently, accordingly, hence, thereby, thereupon".

In my opinion, this is an attempt by Bomhard to explain the Greek suffix -thi which, I believe, properly means 'inside of, held by' rather than 'with' — a small but important difference. Greek th is IE *dh, and is in turn Nostratic *t?s. I believe we find this word in the Egyptian phrase m-', literally 'in the hand (of)'. This specifies the Nostratic vowel as *o.

This phrase appears to be a very old formulation, and it may be the basis for IE *N-dhi as in Old Persian adiy, 'in', if the **M of an original **M-dhi was assimilated to the following apical. The earliness of this construction is confirmed by IE *M-bhi-, 'on both sides' (listed under *ambhi), which is probably a compound of PL *MHA, 'occupy' = 'on' + *P?FE-(*¿E), 'foot/toe-like' = 'around'.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *T?SO-(*¿E), 'hold-like' = 'inside of'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(89)PN *t?so(y)- "inside of" > PIE in *dhey/*dhoy/*dhi "inside of"; PAA *Za; in Egyptian m-' "in the hand, possession, charge of; together with; from" (source: PL *T?SO(-¿E)

DISCUSSION: Three PL elements were involved in roots that are involved with the idea of 'giving': 1) *T?A, 'hand', narrowly means 'tear off' for the purpose of sharing; 2) *T?SE, 'finger', narrowly means 'extend' for the purpose of indicating an offer to give and facilitating a transfer of possession; and 3. *T?O, 'torso', narrowly means 'put together with', i.e. 'put into contact with' for the purpose of indicating a completed transfer of ownership.

All three of these elements were primarily combined with three very common inflectional elements: 1) *?A, stative, which created a "noun" with the property of the verbal action; 2) *¿E, '-like', which created an "adjective" describing the actor of the verbal action; and 3. *FA, 'do repeatedly', which created a "frequentative verb", which was interpreted as indicating that the action would be repeated until a certain goal was reached.

A common result of these combinations is *T?A-?A, 'torn (thing)', which Bomhard incorrectly reconstructs in:

First, we may notice that Bomhard specifies the Arabic cognates he has in mind for this root in another publication, of which Arabic TaHTaHa, 'break, shatter, smash (something)', is normative. None of the roots mentioned convey the idea of 'sharing' which is integral to this root when properly analyzed. And yet, from the Semitic cognates, it is clear that a Nostratic root may be postulated meaning 'beat' of the form *thohh-.

In addition, as we have repeatedly seen above, Arabic emphatic T is equivalent to Nostratic *tho (PL *THO, 'compact').

Though Dravidian cognates cannot be presently identified, quite surprisingly Altaic provides *t'ók'u-, 'beat', and *t'ut'i-, 'beat'. We would normally expect Nostratic *th to result in Altaic *t but what seems to be displayed here is a progressive assimilation of glottalization. Presumably, we are dealing here with an earlier **tók'u- and **tut'i-, both meaning 'beat'.

And to add to the data, we have IE *(s)teu- in *(s)teug- and *(s)teud-, both meaning 'beat'; as well as *sta:i-, 'compress, press together, stop up, thicken, clot, curdle', which should be amended to **(s)to:i- (if for no other reason than the existence of *ta:i-, 'melt, loosen', with exactly the opposite meaning to this s-mobile form); and *stew6, 'thicken, ball up'. And, from Arabic Tawâ (T-w-y), 'roll up, fold up', and taTauwâ, 'coil up (serpent)', we can see another root: T-w, which, I would suggest, is cognate with *t-w in *(s)teu-.

And finally, we have Egyptian thm, 'knock on a door', which, if it is cognate, would narrow the final Nostratic vowel to *o.

What shall we make of these data?

It seems to me that we have established two roots:

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *THO-*HHO-???-(*¿E-), 'compact-move-down-to' = 'be beaten down (intransitive)'.

and

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *THO-*FHA-, 'compact-do-repeatedly' = 'beat down'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(Addition AX)PN *thohh^w-(/ *thohhoy-) "to be beaten down (into a compact mass) [intransitive]" > PIE in *(s)ta:i:- (for *(s)to:i:-) "to be being beaten down (into a compact mass)[intransitive]"; in PAA *Tahh- in Egyptian th(-)m "to knock on a door" (source: PL *THO-HHO-(¿E-])

and

(Addition AY)PN *thowa:- "to beat down" > PIE *(s)teu- "to beat"; in *(s)teug- "to beat"; *(s)teud- "to beat"; PAA *Taw- in Arabic Tawâ (T-w-y) "to roll up, to fold up"; in taTauwâ "to coil up (serpent)"; PA in *t'ók'u- (for **tók'u-)"to beat"; in *t'ut'i- (for **tut'i-) "to beat" (source: PL *THO-FHA-)

To return to the previously discussed root, we, therefore, reconstruct PL *T?A-*?A-(*¿E), 'tear-off-for'-stative('-like')' = 'torn(tearing)'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(130)PN *t?a?-[ay] "to tear (torn)[tearing] (for the purpose of sharing), to allot, to apportion" > PIE *da:- "to tear (torn)"; to divide; to cut apart, rip apart"; in *da:y- "to tear (tearing)"; PAA *ta(?-)(ay-) in Egyptian d(j) "to give"; in d(j)j(.w) "provisions = allotments" (which is written with a triangular section of flatbread, into which the beginning of a central tear at the bottom has been made: Gardiner's X8, 'conical loaf'); in d(j)(w) "to give"; possibly in wd(j)j "to put, to place"; PU probably in *taje- "to break"; PD *ta- "to bring, to give (to 1st or 2nd person)"; in *ci:- "to tear" (*t?a?ay-); S di (for dê, which pictures a loaf torn into three parts) "to judge = to make an apportionment" (source: PL *T?A-?A-(¿E-])

When we try to reconstruct a Nostratic root based on *t?o, we run into problems establishing cognates in more than a few Nostratic-derived languages.

Bomhard has this very unusual entry:

So far as I am aware, no IEist has ever proposed that IE *ow can resolve itself in IE to *o or *o:. This is pure fantasy on Bomhard's part. There is also no data to support that Nostratic *u/ow becomes Uralic *G (Bomhard writes this with a gamma) or *x [see below].

Sammallahti reconstructs the Finno-Ugric root as *toxi- (Rédei: PU *toGe-), which represents any Nostratic apical stop + 'laryngeal'.

IE *o: results from a Nostratic *Co preceded or followed by any 'laryngeal', and since IE *d is the result of Nostratic *t?, the Nostratic root has to be reconstructed as *t?o?/h/¿/hh-. This means that it cannot be represented by Egyptian d or dw since Egyptian d can only represent Nostratic *t?/tha/e.

Bomhard is not the only historical linguist who evidently prefers to advance an improbable or even impossible "explanation" when the data does not allow a probable one; it is, unfortunately, all too common.

There is no attestation of this root in Arabic unless ?aDHâtu-n (D-H-w), 'ewe offered up as a sacrifice', may possibly be related but, in my opinion, is doubtful enough that we cannot base a reconstruction of Nostratic *hh upon it.

I can find no Dravidian, Altaic, nor Sumerian cognates, so, at the very least, we must admit that this root is attested only in the north.

We, therefore, quite unsatisfactorily, reconstruct PL *T?O-???-(*FA) , 'put-together'+???(+'do repeatedly') = 'give'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(121)PN *t?o(???)-[Vw] "to give" > PIE *do:- "to give"; in *do:w- "to give (repeatedly)"; PU *toxi- "to give" (source: PL *T?O-?/H/¿/HHV-[FA-])

DISCUSSION: The fallacy of Bomhard's correspondences is again illustrated with the comparison of two roots that Bomhard reconstructs with Nostratic *d:

and

Here, Bomhard repeats the mistake that he made in root #121 with another set of vowels: again, so far as I am aware, no IEist has ever proposed that IE *ey can resolve itself in IE to *e or *e:. This is more pure fantasy on Bomhard's part.

IE *e: results from a Nostratic *Ce preceded or followed by any 'laryngeal', and since IE *dh is the result of Nostratic *t?s, the Nostratic root has to be reconstructed as *t?se?/h/¿/hh-. However, Bomhard is correct in reconstructing an Afrasian initial *d.

Again, there is no attestation of this root in Arabic unless daHâ (d-H-w), 'extend', or DaHâ (d-H-y), 'spread out', may possibly be related but, in my opinion, these are doubtful enough that we cannot base a reconstruction of Nostratic *hh upon them.

Afrasian *day- in Geez wadaya, 'put, place', mentioned by Bomhard in another publication may belong to this root but Egyptian wdj cannot.

There does appear to be a likely Sumerian cognate: zî, 'stand firmly', would be the expected result of Nostratic *t?seh/h/¿/hh-(Vy-), and has the additional advantage of appearing also as zig/k₂, which might be correlated with the attested stem *dhe:ka:- of IE dhe:-. The sign which is used to write it portrays what appears to be a stalk implanted in a body of water.

I can find no Dravidian nor Altaic, so, at the very least, we must admit that this root is spottily attested.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *T?SE-???-(*¿E), 'extend+???(-'ing') = 'set up'.

Root #90 is somewhat more straightforward. And we can add IE *dew-, 'make', as attested by Germanic *taujan, 'make'.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *T?O-*FA, 'heap-do-repeatedly' = 'construct'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(70)PN *t?se(???)-[Vy-] "to set up (cause to extend)" > PIE in *dhe:(y)- "to set, to place, to lay"; PAA *da???ay- possibly in Geez wa(-)daya "to put, to place"; in Egyptian (r)D(j) "to give, to put, to place" (cf. IE *re:dhy- "to bring about" [from **rédhe:y-{?}]); S zi (for **zî) "to stand firmly"; in zig/k₂ (for **zîg/k₂) "to stand firmly" (source: PL *T?SE-?/H /¿/HHV-[¿E-])

and

(90)PN *t?ow- "to construct" > PK *dew-/*dw- "to lay, to put, to place, to set, to lie"; PIE *dew/*dow-/*du- "to make" in Germanic *taujan "to make"; S du (for **dû) "to do, to make; to build; to set up, to establish"; du₆ (for **dû₆) "heap" (source: PL *T?O-FA-])

DISCUSSION: Another root that is similar in form to #90 is:

First, let us be candid. In the case of the root above, I agree with Bomhard's assignment of *a to the root syllable however in the absence of a cognate in a language like Dravidian, in which the vowel may be unambiguously indicated, this assignment must be a pure guess on Bomhard's part and a probabilistic guess on mine. In the root above, based on Egyptian dw3, which I do accept as a cognate, I can only restrict the choices to Nostratic *t?/tha/e. IE *dew- narrows the Nostratic reconstruction choices to *t?a/e; but, in order to propose to assign *a, I must compare the basic meanings of Nostratic *t?a and *t?e with the semantics of the root, and attempt to understand the basic significance of it also. In this particular case, it seems probable that the meanings associated with PL *T?A, 'tear off (for the purpose of apportioning)', are more appropriate than those of PL *T?E, 'spin around, twist off'; however, this is a judgment call rather than something that can be absolutely demonstrated. In my opinion, this proves the value of having assigned meanings to the PL monosyllables but, in Bomhard's position, since he does not acknowledge even the existence of the Proto-Language, one wonders on what basis he has chosen *a rather than *e or *o. He also would not be willing to accept that Egyptian d restricts the choice (also taking into consideration IE *d) to Nostratic *t?a/e. So, in summary, I must admit that, I am guessing with some probable cause, and Bomhard, as far as I can see, is just purely guessing.

If, on the other hand, Bomhard is assigning *a to this root based on its meaning then it appears that he is tacitly acknowledging that a segment as small as *CV is a primary determinant of meaning for Nostratic, which is, of course, my position.

Bomhard in no publication of which I am aware discusses this question or makes explicit his criteria for assigning Nostratic vowel-quality in a case like this.

We, therefore, provisionally reconstruct PL *T?A-*FA, 'tear-do-repeatedly' = 'pay tribute'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(120)PN *t?aw- "to pay tribute" > PIE in (2.) *dew-/*dow-*du- "to honor, to grant"; PAA *taw- in Egyptian dw(-)3 "to worship (= "to venerate by paying tribute")" (source: PL *T?A-FA)

DISCUSSION: Another root that seems to support an interpretation of 'tear' for Nostratic *t?a- is:

First, on the basis of Sumerian dar and Dravidian *tar-, we can confidently reconstruct Nostratic *t?/thar-, which IE *der- narrows for us to Nostratic t?ar-. We are lucky to have a Dravidian cognate since the alveolar *r indicates Nostratic *r/rhe; and, in fact, Starostin's website reconstructs *tare-. Because of the frequency with which a reconstruction of *re, 'apply', seems to make more sense in reconstructions than *re:, 'fall', we will opt for *re.

Bomhard offers no Afrasian cognate for this root but Arabic tarra, 'be severed', is in the form (t-r) which I would predict, and is semantically close. There is an Egyptian d3, 'become loose, wobble', which may be related if it properly means 'come loose' but it also may be just another application of d3, 'shake, tremble' (IE (3.) *der, 'tremble').

Before we summarize our findings, there is another Bomhard root which must be investigated:

This is clearly the same root as #116; and in the Dravidian form, we simply see the palatality transferred to the following element (*c) while the Altaic cognate is in the expected form (for which, Starostin's website has *t'iòra). The image here is cultivating stripping the skin from the earth.

We, therefore, provisionally reconstruct PL *T?A-*RE, 'tear-apply' = 'make a tear'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(116 & 114)PN *t?ar^y- "to make a tear" > PIE in (4.) *der-/*dor-*dR- "to flay, to pull off the skin, to split off, to split": PAA *tar- in Arabic tarra "to be severed"; possibly Egyptian d3 "to (be)come loose"; PA *tari[Starostin: *t'iòra] "to till (land); to plow; to sow, to harvest"; PD *tar- "to lop, to chop off, to cut (off), to strip off"; in *tarc- "to scrape"; S dar "to split" (source: PL *T?A-RE)

Because of the close similarity of the roots in form, we will now look at the Nostratic root behind Egyptian d3, 'tremble', and IE (3.) *der(6)-, 'tremble', which Bomhard has incorrectly reconstructed as:

Bomhard has presumably reconstructed *hh for the Nostratic form to account for IE forms like *dra:-, 'tremble', and *dra:-, 'work'. Rather than accounting for the IE long vowel with a 'laryngeal', I believe it can be better explained by assuming that the Nostratic final consonant was *rh which, when it lost its aspiration, lengthened the following vowel, thus producing the same effect as if the vowel had been followed by a 'laryngeal'.

We, therefore, provisionally reconstruct PL *T?A-*RHA, 'hand-fly' = 'tremble, shake'.

If we, therefore, reconstruct an IE *dera:- for this Nostratic root, we can imagine that its durative (*'CVC) form would be *dér6-, with the *6 representing a stress-unaccented long vowel while the punctual (CV'C) form would be *drá:-; and these are the exact forms reconstructed for IE der6-/*dra:-, 'work', which I would emend to 'shake with exertion'. Now *dra:- is also reconstructed for 'tremble' although Pokorny reconstructs *der- for the durative form. However, forms like Old Indian dáridra:ti, 'roams around', suggests that this root, also, should be reconstructed as **dér6-.

Interestingly, a similar IE root can be reconstructed showing the effects of Nostratic *re: (PL *RHE, 'fall'): *dre:-, 'sleep', which I reconstruct as *T?A-*RHE, 'hand-fall' = 'fall asleep'. This root does not seem to have been noticed by Bomhard. Armenian tartam, 'sleepily', shows that this root also had a durative, which we would reconstruct as **dér6-.

Finally, in another publication, Bomhard has mentioned the alleged Semitic cognate which correlates with his Afrasian reconstruction of *t'ar-ahh-: Hebrew Ta:raH, 'toil, be burdened'. We have repeatedly shown that Semitic T derives only from Nostratic *tho, which would appear as IE *t. Accordingly, a Nostratic root of the form *thorVhh- would show up in IE as *terV:- or *trV:-. Though I cannot find a simple form of this root in IE, a root with s-mobile and the suffix *-i, *stre/e:i- in AS stri:d, 'effort', and other roots indicating maximum exertion, may be distantly related to the Semitic root Bomhard mistakenly assigns to this Nostratic root (*thorehh-[?]).

Accordingly, we amend:

(122)PN *t?ara:- "to tremble, to shake (with exertion)" > PIE in (3.) *dér6-/*drá:-/*dr6-'- "to tremble"; dér6-/*drá:-/*dr6-'-, "to work (better "to shake with exertion, to exert one's self strenuously"); PAA *tar- in Egyptian d3 "to tremble"; d3 "to copulate ("to shake with exertion")" (source: PL *T?A-RHA)

DISCUSSION: A root related to #133, that I cannot find in Bomhard, is Nostratic t?e?-, 'wound around'.

We include this root as an addition to illustrate the slightest different responses to Nostratic *t?e? as against *t?a?. And, subsequently, we will discuss the root *t?ey-, 'spin around, go/do fast', to show that the radical *t?e carries this meaning in various combinations.

The first root is suggested by IE *de:, 'bind'. The long *e: implies a Nostratic *e, and IE initial *d always derives from Nostratic *t?: hence, *t?e. The lengthened vowel can only come from a 'laryngeal'; and, if we allow that Arabic ta?ta?a, 'stutter, stammer', is related, which I think moderately likely, we have the 'laryngeal': t?e?. We have reconstructed *?a, the stative suffix, for a number of roots; and this seems to work well here.

The second root is implied by IE *dey6-/*dya:-, 'move quickly, whirl around, hurry, pursue, strive'. The forms that are listed in Pokorny to support a reconstruction of *a: like Attic Greek ze:téo:, 'strive toward', can just as easily support a reconstruction of *e:; and we emend the IE form to *dye:-. We may first notice Uralic in Finno-Ugric *chej3-, 'run, hurry'. Normally, we would expect Nostratic *t? to appear in Uralic as *t but apparently, Nostratic *e produced a palatal glide (*^y), which has developed, as in many languages, to [tsh].

However, it is also clear that the IE form has a final 'laryngeal', which accounts for the length of **e:. We can find no cognate in a related language that can specify the exact nature of the 'laryngeal' though a pure guess on a semantic basis would suggest PL *HE, 'move across from', or PL *HHE, 'move up from'.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *T?E-*?A(-*¿E), 'wind (verb)'-stative('-like') = 'wrap(ping) by winding'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(Addition AZ)PN *t?e?-/?ay- "to wrap by winding" > PIE *de:-/*d6- "to bind"; in *de:i-/*di:- "to bind"; PAA *ta?- probably in Arabic ta?ta?a "to stutter, to stammer"; in Egyptian dj.w (variant of d3j.w) "loin-cloth"; PA perhaps in *ch'a[k]a- "to wrap, to tie"; S in te (for **dê₄< = *t'e?ay-) "to bind" (source: PL *T?E-?A-[¿E-])

and, we also reconstruct PL *T?E-*¿E(-*HHE), 'whirl-like'='fast'+'come'='move fast'.

(Addition BA)PN *t?ey-(yehh^y-[?]) "to be whirling(, to be moving or doing fast)" > PIE in (2.) *dey6-/*dye:- "to move quickly, to whirl around"; PAA *ta?- probably in Arabic ta?ta?a "to stutter, to stammer"; PA perhaps in *Zí(-)gu- "to hurry, to run"; PU *chej3- "to run"; S in di₆ (for **dî₆) "to come (if = "to hurry")"; zi . . . di₆ "to seek refuge (= "to run for one's life"[?])" (source: PL *T?E-¿E-[HHE-{?}])

go to Part Four

go to Nostratic Table of Correspondences ?

PL MORPHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS IN NOSTRATIC

press here to see

to investigate these phonological correspondences in detail, see

TABLE OF PL / IE / AFRASIAN CORRESPONDENCES
TABLE OF PL / IE / ALTAIC CORRESPONDENCES
TABLE OF PL / IE / DRAVIDIAN CORRESPONDENCES
TABLE OF PL / IE / SUMERIAN CORRESPONDENCES
TABLE OF PL / IE / URALIC CORRESPONDENCES

the latest revision of this document can be found at

HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Forum/2803/NostraticDictionary-3.htm

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947

PROTO-LANGUAGE@email.msn.com