Nostratic has come to mean a language super-family from which a number of other language families are believed to be descended.

In 1996, Allan R. Bomhard published a book, Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis (Studia Nostratica I), which included a 652-item dictionary of Nostratic roots and supporting data from various language-families and languages.

I have been following Bomhard's publications for some years, and have had conversations with him regarding the details of some of his reconstructions.

There are, of course, differences of opinion between us.

I do not subscribe to Bomhard's

1. reconstruction of the vowel inventory of Nostratic. He asserts a basic vowel system (Bomhard 1996:81) consisting of:

i a u
with allophonic variants: e 6(schwa) o

I can see no credible evidence for such a reconstruction. The legitimate reflexes in the presumably related languages do not require more than a three-vowel system, in my opinion, consisting of one front, central, and back vowel — of whatever height (degree of open/closed-ness). The questionability of his reconstruction is highlighted by the table of conversions he provides (Bomhard 1996: 87):

Nostratic i = Indo-European i, e
Nostratic e = Indo-European e
Nostratic 6 = Indo-European e, a, 6
Nostratic a = Indo-European a, o, 6
Nostratic u = Indo-European u, o
Nostratic o = Indo-European o

I assert that there is no purpose in reconstructing Indo-European i or u since i is always clearly derived from Indo-European y and w is always clearly derived from Indo-European w in avocal environments (as attested by correct cognates in Afro-Asiatic languages, in which we find consonantal y and w corresponding).

And to suggest that Nostratic 6 can result in Indo-European e, a, and 6 is, in my opinion, only an attempt to make questionable cognates correspond (is there even an Indo-European 6 that is not a reduction of a "laryngeal"?). One might ask: why not Nostratic 6 = Indo-European o as well if close 6 can apparently appear as open a/e?

2. reconstruction of the consonant inventory of Nostratic. He asserts a basic consonant system (Bomhard 1996:81) consisting, in part, of triads of voiceless obstruent with optional aspiration, voiced obstruent, and glottalized obstruent: e.g. t[h], d, and t'.

And, in the apical series (but not labial or dorsal), corresponding affricates: c[h], Z, and c'.

I would rather reconstruct, based on differential responses in Egyptian and Sumerian correspondences, affricates in each series (labial, apical, and dorsal). Those differential responses will be noted below as they occur in examples. For an extensive discussion of my ideas on the sound-system to be reconstructed for Nostratic (and beyond), see my essay.

Bomhard and I participate in two e-mail language discussion lists: the Indo-European List and the Nostratic List. When I have attempted to bring up related matters in the past, Bomhard has chosen not to respond in defense of his reconstructions, except in the most general terms. Since this dictionary is, in effect, a critique of his views, I offer him, or anyone else who subscribes to his views, the opportunity to have his comments published here in the appropriate manner.

After I announced the completion of some 200 pages of critique, I wrote to the Nostratic List (and to a second Nostratic List) announcing the availability of the material for comment.

Bomhard responded with: "My reaction to Pat Ryan's alleged critique of my Nostratic dictionary is that it simply contains too many factual errors, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings to merit a detailed rebuttal."

What is not widely known is that this dictionary is a vanity press production. Secondly, no accredited scholars previewed or refereed this work. Thirdly, Bomhard, to my knowledge, has noformal linguistic training; and I do not think he has ever formally studied any language besides English. Fifthly, whatever the value of this critique, it is, after all, a critique. To characterize it as "alleged" shows the same coarse insensitivity to meaning that Bomhard has consistently shown in analyzing the semantics of the roots he has investigated in this dictionary. I will not dispute that there may be factual errors in my critique; if anyone will point them out, I will correct them immediately. I deny categorically that I have intentionally misrepresented anything. If any misrepresentation is brought to my attention, it will be immediately removed. As for misunderstanding, who is Bomhard to be the judge? He has no formal credentials that would entitle him to such authority.

Concerning a rebuttal, it has been my experience that any real scholar has no hesitation in defending his views; and Bomhard's refusal to expose his thinking in detail is symptomatic of the weakness of his position.

In the Table of Correspondence found after the listing of lexical cognates below, the column entitled PROTO-LANGUAGE shows the earliest syllables before vocalic contrasts were replaced by a contrast of glides and no glide (during the Pontic stage) in some language-families.

After each entry, I will fully explain my reasons for the proposed reconstruction. The numbers employed will be the roots as numbered in Bomhard (1976:141-235), which reconstructions will immediately follow.

(535)-[(529)]PN *mal-*m6l- "honey" > PIE *mel-i-t[h]- "honey"; PAA *mal-/*m6l- "honey"

DISCUSSION: Only two language-families have been cited: IE and AA. Out of considerations of space, Bomhard presents no reflexes in individual IE or AA languages. However, in another publication, The Nostratic Macrofamily, of which I have only a draft copy, Bomhard mentions (p. 393) several AA cognates, e.g. Proto-East Cushitic *malab "honey", and several more in which the root vowel is -a- (exception: Dahalo móla [meaning ?]), for which Ehret is cited as the source. However, in Christopher Ehret's Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian) — Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary (1995), no mention is made of a root PAA *mal-/*m6l- "honey". Ehret does mention (p. 306) a root *mal- "to flow" (#587), with which he makes no connection to the AA-derived words cited by Bomhard. Note also that Ehret specifies one vowel (-a-) rather than pairs of Abläute (-a-/-6-) as does Bomhard. If we might assume that this root is Ehret's basis for the forms cited by Bomhard, the first observation we would have to make is that Ehret does not fully support Bomhard's reconstruction of *mal-/*m6l-; or even, in the work cited, assign to it a meaning of 'honey'; secondly, Ehret's inclusion of an Omotic *mol, 'fish' being derived from this root (meaning 'flow') does not inspire much confidence in Ehret's sensitivity for reasonable semantic linkages.

In any case, Bomhard who describes an Afro-Asiatic vowel system of

Nostratic i = Afro-Asiatic 6
Nostratic e = Afro-Asiatic a
Nostratic 6 = Afro-Asiatic 6
Nostratic a = Afro-Asiatic a
Nostratic u = Afro-Asiatic 6
Nostratic o = Afro-Asiatic a

can hardly use a in Ehret's Afro-Asiatic *mal- (if this is the simplex for the forms cited) to support his reconstruction of Nostratic *ma(/6)l- when, according to Bomhard, Nostratic e, a, and o, all result in Afro-Asiatic a. So, if Ehret's *mal- were the correct Afro-Asiatic form, it could just as easily derive from Nostratic *mel as from *mal or *mol.

Ehret offers a Table (4) of Afroasiatic (Afrasian) Vowel Correspondences on p. 57 in the cited book which consistently shows a reflex of a for AA a in Proto-Cushitic, Proto-Chadic, and North Omotic, which would tend to support Bomhard's reconstruction of Afro-Asiatic *ma(/6)l-, at least, partially; however, as is known, Ehret's work has not been particularly well received; and frankly, I do not have complete faith in many of the conclusions he has drawn from the data.

In my opinion, the evidence from Indo-European and Afrasian allows us only the inference that for the word "honey" in some branches of Nostratic, the consonantal structure in Nostratic, was basically m-l-(+y-/-b-).

My first reaction to these facts is to question whether or not a root of the form m-l- without extensions can constitute a reconstruction for the meaning 'honey'. It would appear to mean, based on the data presented by Ehret via Bomhard, and by the IE data, that m-l- should be interpreted as something perhaps related to the idea of 'honey' but that it apparently needs a root-extension (IE -y[-t-] or AA -b- ) to be specified to 'honey'.

How, then, can we arrive at a reconstruction of, at least, the root-vowel in this word? I believe there are two potential methods: 1) find a daughter-language which preserves the earlier vowel quality in an unambiguous way; and 2) reconstruct the semantically appropriate full Proto-Language form of the word. There does not seem to be a daughter-language in which the vowel-quality can be predicted based on differential reflexes of PN m.

Indo-Europeanists might think of *mels-, 'taste (of), sample', as possibly related; and Czech mlsati, 'lick, eat sweet things', suggests the connections among 'sweet-honey-lick'. On the basis that IE roots are all originally of the form CVC-, this suggests strongly that we are dealing with a root, *mel-, which has been extended by -s-. If we apply this conclusion to *mel-i-t-, it is natural to analyze -*i- as an avocalic form of -*y-, the former of which is acknowledged in IE as "a primary suffix . . . found in substantives and adjectives [emphasis added] (A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages, II, §93, Karl Brugmann)".

If *mels- can be legitimately connected with m-l-, I suggest that the semantic element in common is 'lick'. In which case, *mel-i- would be the equivalent of 'licky', meaning 'sweet', a development seen in German lecker, 'delicious, tasty'. The -*t- would then be a nominalizing suffix transforming 'tasty' into 'tasty thing', i.e. 'honey'.

At this point, I would like to hazard a try at a Proto-Language cognate source for IE **me/ol/L-, 'lick'. This is actually not at all difficult to do. PL *ME is identified as meaning 'tongue', and PL *NHA, as 'move back and forth'; 'tongue' + 'move back and forth' seems to me to be a rather semantically appropriate way to describe 'lick'. PL *NHA, which phonetically represents [n^ha], becomes [l] in almost all the language-families for which I have determined correspondences except Egyptian, where it is written /n/ but must have been pronounced [l] in many words (at least in some dialects).

To strengthen the argument for a proposed Nostratic *mel-, 'lick', one might want to consider Arabic malaqa, 'suck (of child)', and maliqa, 'flatter'. In view of Russian molsát_b, 'suck, gnaw', from IE *mels-, 'suck' would seem to be a reasonably related semantic idea. In the case of 'flatter', 'licking' has been a frequently employed hyperbole for 'influencing by sweet measures' in many languages.

If these Arabic words may be related semantically to 'lick' as I believe they should, then we may abstract a Semitic (and possibly an AA) *mVl-, 'lick'. It has been well established in AA studies that the overwhelming majority of triliteral roots are a result of biliteral roots plus extensions.

There is a final bit of possible evidence: the Basque word mili-ka-tu, 'lick'. Professor Larry Trask, an eminent Vascologist, was kind to address the origin of this word in an email, a copy of which is here linked.

To briefly summarize his position (I hope, accurately), he believes, for a number of standardly held reasons, that the word is "expressive" in origin, i.e. neither old nor potentially relatable to words in language-families or languages.

He also rejects the idea that non-borrowed, non-expressive (native) Basque vocabulary has any relationship to any other language-family or language, a position against which I have argued in PROTO-LANGUAGE PHONEMES in IE and Basque.

He also argues that the basal semantic significance of the element mili- is "'picky, finicky, fussy'" however I do not believe that is a definitive argument when IE *mels-, which surely contains the root *mel- has the meaning 'taste (of), sample', with derivatives meaning 'lick'. I believe we must consider what is the more reasonable semantic development: 'lick' -> 'picky', or 'picky' -> 'lick'? For me, the former is greatly more probable.

Still, the coincidence of a Basque mili- connected with 'lick' is striking and suggestive though not without minor phonological problems. I believe the medial i of *mili is possibly due to assimilation from **meli- (I would expect Basque e to reflect PL E generally), and that the original underlying form is from *ME-N[H]A-¿E, with *-¿E corresponding to Basque adjectival -i. Thus, we would have an adjective that might be related to the underlying *mel-i- of IE *mel-i-t-, 'honey'.

Also, in A Caucasian Etymological Dictionary (Sergei L. Nikolaev and Sergei A. Starostin, 1992), on page 145, we find an entry *melci (with breves over both vowels and a dot under the 'c'), 'tongue', from which we can surely abstract a basic *mel- . While a Caucasian root may not have much direct bearing on Nostratic, it does have potential significance for the reconstruction of roots in the Proto-Language, which, I would claim, is the ultimate source of Nostratic roots.

As additional data suggesting a Proto-Language origin for, at least, the root ME-NHA, it should be mentioned that Sergei Starostin's website, Etymological Databases, lists an Altaic malV, 'honey, plant oil'. I presume that the unspecified final vowel (V) is serving the same purpose in narrowing the meaning to 'honey' that is accomplished by the IE elements -y[-t-] and AA -b-. And, also, at the same website, we find Dravidian *ma:l-, 'liquor, toddy (fermented palm sap)', which may, in view of the early use of fermented honey as an intoxicant, be of some interest.

However, Nostratic *e should appear as *e in Altaic and *i in Dravidian; and it is, therefore, probable that these both are derived from Nostratic *ma?-, 'full, ripe', which we will investigate in due course.

In a related connection, we may also note that Larry Trask informs us: "By the way, in a part of the French Basque Country, <-milikatu-> has a local variant <-mihikatu->, a folk-etymology resulting from contamination from the local word <-mihi-> 'tongue'." Now there is no more semantically sound connection than between 'lick' and 'tongue', which we colloquially call a licker in English.

Although I believe a prima facie case has been made for a Nostratic root of the shape *mel-, 'lick', which is based on PL *ME-NHA, one set of circumstances needs to be addressed in more detail.

The sign (Jaritz 889), which means 'tongue, speak' in Sumerian, is usually read as eme; it also reads mi₃. I believe a distinction may be made between mi₃, 'tongue' (which I believe reflects PL ME), and eme, 'speak' (which I believe reflects PL ¿E-ME with assimilation from **emi; Nostratic *yem-). Both e and i are front vowels in these, I would claim, related words; and I believe it is preferable, in the absence of demonstrated vowel shifts, to suppose that they both originated from a front vowel, which, in this case, would be the E of my reconstructed PL *ME-NHA- (Nostratic *mel-).

Should we be troubled when Sumerian does not display a me/il meaning 'lick'? Well, interestingly, no word for 'lick' is known in Sumerian — currently; will one be eventually found?

To summarize: I believe the vowel quality of the element *ME, 'tongue', is shown by Sumerian with fair certainty, and possibly by Caucasian *me(lci); I believe that the root *m(a)l- can be shown to have the primary meaning 'lick' in Afro-Asiatic; I believe that IE *mels- can be plausibly analyzed as consisting of *mel-, 'lick' + a root extension -s- (ME-NHA-SO, 'pull [back] with the tongue' = 'taste?'), which is possibly related to or is a source of borrowing for Basque mili(s/z)-ka-tu; and finally that a Proto-Language *ME-NHA source for Nostratic *mel- is indicated by Caucasian *melci, by Altaic *malV, and by analysis of the constituent Proto-Language elements.

Bomhard has another entry, 529, which reads: "PN *mal-*m6l- "good, pleasant" > PIE *mel- /*mol- "good, pleasant"; Afroasiatic: Semitic malîH "good"; Ugaritic mlH "good, pleasant"". I presume, though I do not know certainly, that this is Bomhard's interpretation of the root listed in Pokorny as 4. (*)mel-, 'stark, groß'", though Bomhard cites no source for it.

Forms like Greek mâllon (> *Mlyén[?]), 'more', and Latin melior, 'better', suggest to me that the underlying IE form may be *meli- rather than *mel- though some of the forms listed there may better be related to Pokorny's "8. (*)mel-, 'hervorkommen, erscheinen, hochkommen; Erhöhung, Wölbung" — in the sense of 'outstanding'.

In any case, Bomhard's assignment of a/6 to the Nostratic form seems unjustifiable in view of the cognates cited (see above).

A shift of meaning from 'licky-sweet' to 'better' seems quite natural to me; and would further support the arguments advanced above.

Finally, Bomhard has another entry, 528, which reads: "PN *mal-*m6l- "to fill, to be or become full, to increase" > PIE *mel- /*mol-/*mL- "much, many, very much"; PAA *mal-/*m6l "to fill, to be full"; PD *mal- "to increase, to abound, to be plentiful, to be full; (n.) abundance, wealth, strength, greatness"". I presume, though I do not know certainly, that this is Bomhard's interpretation of the root listed in Pokorny as "4. (*)mel-, 'stark, groß'", though Bomhard cites no source for it. I may mention that I consider it questionable for Bomhard to assignment new meanings to IE or AA forms without a justifying explanation.

Here we may have some reason to assign a Nostratic a to the root based on the Dravidian form with a. Bomhard asserts, and I would provisionally concur, that Dravidian a arises as a reflex of Nostratic a. It should be noticed as significant that Bomhard is not able to cite a Dravidian form for either his root 529 or 535, which might support his reconstruction of Nostratic a.

Since I have identified a PL *MA, which means 'full', my inclination is naturally to accept Bomhard's reconstruction of "PN" a for this root.

But, I must, in fairness, mention, that Bomhard is inconsistent here. In his root 518, "PN *mul-/*mol- "to rub, to crush, to grind"", he includes as a reflex "PD *mel- "to be or become thin, weak, lean; (adj.) soft, tender, thin"" even though, in his table on page 88, Dravidian e is listed only as a reflex of Nostratic (his "Proto-Nostratic") e. If this is not merely an inadvertent error, the discrepancy should have been explained.

I will address the questions raised here by Bomhard's 518 and related questions in greater detail below.

One of the meanings I have identified for PL *NHA, is as an ingressive, possibly inchoative formant of "animate", i.e. intransitive verbal ideas. If this assignment of meaning has validity, then PL MA-NHA (Nostratic *mal-) would be simply interpreted as 'become full', a meaning which seems to be semantically appropriate.



For all these reasons, I would amend Bomhard's entries to read:

(535)PN *mel- "to lick" > PIE *mel/*mol/*mL- "to lick"; PAA *mal- "to lick" (source: PL *ME-NHA)

and:

(529)PN *melay- "licky=sweet" > PIE *me/oley- "sweet"; PAA *malay- "sweet" (source: PL *ME-NHA-¿E)

as well as amend:

(528)PN *mal- "to become full" > PIE *me/ol- "to become full"; PAA *mal- "to become full"; PD *mal- "to increase, to abound, to be plentiful, to be full; (n.) abundance, wealth, strength, greatness" (source: PL *MA-NHA)

DISCUSSION: Although Bomhard possibly relies on the Pokorny entry "1. (*)mel- . . . 'zermalmen, schlagen, malen', speziell Korn; aus 'zerrieben' auch 'fein, zart, weich' und 'aufgerieben, schwach'", I believe both Bomhard and Pokorny have erred in assigning this meaning ('tender, soft, weak') to this root 'to crush (by rubbing)' while 'fine' might well be a legitimate derivation from 'rub apart'.

This should have been clear to Bomhard on the strength of the vowel in Dravidian *mel-, which does not, according to Bomhard's own table of correspondences, originate from Proto-Nostratic u/o.

Accordingly, the Dravidian root relates to another yet to be reconstructed Nostratic form, presumably with e, which is unlikely to be Nostratic *mel-, the form identified in 535: 'lick'.

It was because of circumstances like these that I felt compelled to reconstruct aspirated liquids and nasals like MH for the Proto-Language. In this particular case, I believe the appropriate first PL element leading to IE *mel-, 'soft, tender' and Dravidian *mel- , 'to be or become thin, weak, lean; (adj.) soft, tender, thin' is *MHE, 'eel, thin, soft, smooth, gentle', which evidently has a reflex of me in Dravidian (I will argue below for a more consistent reflex of mi) but, I would assert, me: in Indo-European.

I would, therefore, reconstruct a Nostratic *me:l-, 'soft, tender', which led, among other derivations to IE *me:l-, 'soft, tender', and Dravidian *mel- , 'to be or become thin, weak, lean; (adj.) soft, tender, thin'. I would also suggest that features like vocalic length (in IE, and perhaps in Dravidian) were generally maintained only when they served to maintain semantic integrity. In the case of a theoretical IE *me:l-, the most usual derivates in this meaning have the further root extensions of *-d, *-dh, and *-(H)k, which make vocalic length redundant to specify the semantics of the stem, and so had a tendency to allow disappearance of the formerly distinguishing feature of vocalic length.

On the other hand, we have Pokorny's 7. (*)mel-, 'wool, woolen clothing', for which 'soft thing' probably makes some semantic sense. Its abstraction as *mel- rather than *me:l- can possibly be attributed to its frequent appearance with *-n, which again made vocalic length redundant (see previous paragraph) to specify the meaning.

A more interesting example in this context is IE *me:l-o-, 'smallish animal'. In this case, *-o was apparently not sufficient to specify the meaning 'soft, tender', since the hypothesized long vowel was retained. One major characteristic in common of smallish animals is that they are generally 'soft, tender' in terms of edibility.

In spite of the non-determination of the Nostratic vowel quality by the reputed Dravidian cognate for Bomhard's PN *mul-/*mol- "to rub, to crush, to grind", I do accept provisionally that "PU *mola- "to rub, to crush, to break, to smash"" is somewhat persuasive grounds for assuming a Nostratic *mol- (Bomhard's "PN *mul-/*mol-") , 'to crush by rubbing'. However, it should be noted that Uralic "[mola]" is reconstructed by Décsy (which Bomhard and I have apparently used as a primary source: The Uralic Proto-Language: Comprehensive Reconstruction, Gyula Décsy, 1990) but designated by him through the brackets as "uncertain"; Ante Aikio, a Uralic scholar, informs me that the only branch of Uralic that could occasion such a narrowly based reconstruction is Sami, which has moallu, 'crumb'. Normally, of course, one would hope for an attestation from more than one branch; and it might have been advisable for Bomhard to so notify his readers.

In this connection, we should probably also notice Bomhard's root 526 (*mur-/*mor "to crush, break, destroy"), in which Bomhard also cites "PU *mura- "to break, to shatter"; PD *mur_- "to crush, to break, to cut", *mur-, "to break, to crush, to destroy"; S(umerian) mur, "to crush, to grind"".

To begin with, to my knowledge, Sumerian mur is not recognized in the meaning 'crush, grind'; however, the sign for which mur is a possible reading, HAR, is recognized for this meaning as har. This is not an insuperable obstacle for me in accepting this equation however its originality should have been acknowledged (if that is really the case), and explained. Also, again according to Ante Aikio, the most current Uralic theory would prefer to reconstruct *muri rather *mura for Uralic. The various meanings derived from this root suggest to me that the base meaning is 'crumble by rubbing', and that we are dealing with PL *MHO, which I have identified as meaning 'rub'. The second element may be * RA, 'loose', so that the PL reconstructed form would be *MHO-RA, 'loose through rubbing' = 'crumble(d)'.

I also have no problem with Dravidian *mur_- and *mur- although the alternation between alveolar /r/ (r_) and non-alveolar, tap /r/ (r) may be of some significance.

Of real interest is the Uralic form *mura- or *muri-, in which, apparently, Uralic shows a potential differential reflex for Bomhard's PN u than it does for Bomhard's ablautend PN o, as evidenced by *mola above.

First, we should notice that the primary difference between o and u is vocalic height.

Second, I would like to propose the hypothesis that, at least some instances of alternation between e and i, and o and u, in Uralic and Dravidian in response to Nostratic e and o are due, not to "PN" e/i and o/u Abläute as, I believe, Bomhard would have it, but rather to differential allophonic responses conditioned by preceding aspiration, or some other distinguishing consonantal feature which has subsequently disappeared (consonantally).

Since aspirated /m^h/ is not recognized by any other Nostraticist than myself as a Nostratic phoneme, it would be less convincing to presently suggest this as an explanation however I have found examples of such a variation that may be somewhat more persuasive.

I will discuss two roots which may show the influence of preceding aspiration on vocalic height in Uralic and Dravidian:

1. (290)PN *k'ur-/*k'or- "crane" > PIE *k'er- /*k'R- "crane"; PU *korka- "crane"; PD *korku- "crane"

At the outset, we might notice that Décsy, which Bomhard utilizes as a source for PU, does not have *korka-, 'crane', but *korka, 'kind of wild duck or seagull'; for 'crane', Décsy has rather karka. This is a discrepancy that Bomhard might want to address. Since I believe Dravidian *korku- does correctly register the Nostratic vowel, I am willing to provisionally assume that Bomhard had what he considers to be a better source than Décsy, and would be glad if he would specify it.

Bomhard's PN k' is a glottalized voiceless dorsal stop, equivalent to my Nostratic and Proto-Language K?. If I assume, as Bomhard apparently does, that Uralic o and Dravidian o indicate a Nostratic o (Bomhard's PN o), then the first component of this word may be reconstructed as *K?O, a PL word which I have identified as meaning 'neck'. I have also found that a rather common component of bird-names in IE is the final -r, which I have interpreted as a reflex of PL *RHA, and which means, simply, 'bird'. Accordingly, I would reconstruct the underlying PL root as K?O-RHA, 'neck-bird' = 'crane', an unpoetic but somewhat apt description of one of the defining characteristics of long-necked cranes.

As the IEists among our readers will know, what Bomhard notates as "PIE *k'er-" appears in Pokorny as "2. (*)ger-, in onomatopoeic words, especially for 'cry hoarsely'", with many derivates listed under "B. Hereto names for the crane". Whether the root for 'crane' is onomatopoeic, as Pokorny seems to have suggested, or descriptive, as I would suggest, may be judged by pondering whether PL hearers might have been able to imitate crane's cry in such a penultimately accurate way that in, at least, four cultures, the words for 'crane' are those we should expect if the postulated sound-laws operated on the Ur-onomatopeia; or, should we consider that four language-families, represented the crane's cry so phonologically similarly on an independently originated basis — bearing in mind, of course, that Greeks would have had to have heard gére:-n, Armenians kru-nk, Old High Germans kra-nuh, and Latins grû-s, and that, just coincidentally, this interesting alternation of [k]/[g] corresponds exactly to the variation we would expect in non-onomatopoeic words in those languages derived from an earlier IE *ger-?

One of the key differences between Bomhard's correspondences and those I would suggest is that Bomhard's PN k' becomes conventionally represented IE g and Semitic q while my Nostratic k?, though it becomes IE g (Germanic k), corresponds to Semitic k.

If Bomhard had utilized my Semitic correspondence, he might have wanted to add to this entry:

PAA *k'ar-/*k'6r "crane"; Arabic kurkîy-un, 'crane'

Unless we assume that Arabic kurkîy-un is the result of a loan from some other language, its existence by itself casts some doubt on Bomhard's system of correspondences.

It should also be noted that Pokorny under *ger- lists a number of IE forms with the root extension -g though these seem to be connected with other birds not readily apparently relatable to cranes.

2. (235)PN *gur-/*gor- "to rumble, to roar, to growl, to gurgle" > PIE *g[^h]ur- "to rumble, to roar, to growl, to gurgle"; PK . . . ; PAA *gar-/*g6r- "to rumble, to roar, to growl, to gurgle"; PD *kur- an imitative sound: "to bark, to snore, to snarl, to growl"; Altaic . . .

Another major difference between Bomhard's method and my own is his insistence, based, I think, on typological considerations, on reconstructing Proto-Nostratic (PN) *g, a voiced dorsal stop, while I assert that the better reconstruction is a Proto-Language *K?X and Nostratic *k?x, a glottalized voiceless dorsal affricate, which shows a differential reflex in Egyptian (*k?xo -> x [hook-h; *k?xa/e -> H [dotted-h]). As the IE reflex of his PN *g, Bomhard assigns *g[^h], by which he intends to indicate a voiced dorsal stop, optionally aspirated. Of the many disagreements I may have with Bomhard, this is one that I regard as the most pronounced. To my knowledge, Bomhard nowhere defines the conditions in which aspiration shall or shall not be actualized. While this may be no apparent problem on the Nostratic level, on the Indo-European level, it leads one to wonder how and if conventionally represented *g and *gh were effectively distinguished. And, if they could not be, how they occasioned differential reflexes in the IE daughter-languages. As a consequence of this and other problems, I must simply reject Bomhard's substitution of *g[^h] for conventional *g since, if for no other reason, in languages that have /*g^h/, the aspiration is definitely not optional.

Since I would, however, agree that Bomhard's PN g and my Nostratic k?x result in Afro-Asiatic (PAA) g, we can readily see that Arabic jarjara, 'gurgle, growl', is a likely derivation. Now, for those who would argue onomatopeia again for this root, I can grant that /gor/ may sound like growling to me personally but that if a dog mouthed /dzhar/, I would not be similarly alarmed. If onomatopeia played a major part in the formation of this word, it must set back to a very early time.

And, when the question is considered, a descriptive derivation that does not seem to me to be even slightly forced should be also seriously considered: *K?XO- RHA, 'fly from the throat' = 'growl'.

Among the other many matters mentioned, it may be well to recall the major point of this digression: namely, that PL/Nostratic aspiration occasions a lengthening of the vowel in pre-Uralic and pre-Dravidian, and a raising of the height of the root-vowel in Uralic and Dravidian so that a Nostratic word with o, in the absence of aspiration, appears as Uralic and Dravidian o but originating from a PL root with initial aspiration, as u.

Thus Nostratic k?o occurs in Uralic and Dravidian as ko while Nostratic k?xo, with elimination of glottalization and substitution of aspiration for the fricative, becomes first pre-Uralic and pre-Dravidian /k^ho/ then /ko:/; and finally Uralic and Dravidian /ku/.

If we can provisionally entertain this explanation, we can return to the problem which occasioned it.

I have already foreshadowed a portion of the to be proffered explanation by suggesting that Proto-Language MHO-RA should be reconstructed for Bomhard's 526, which would produce an entry, as I would amend it:

(526)PN *mo:r- "to crumble by rubbing" > PIE *me:/o:r- "to disintegrate"; PU *mura- (or *muri-[?]) "to crumble"; PD *mur_- "to crush, to break, to cut", *mur-, "to break, to crush, to destroy"; S(umerian) mur(?), "to crush, to grind" (source: PL *MHO-RA)

In the case of Bomhard's 518, the vowel of PU [*mola-], if a justifiable reconstruction, would indicate Nostratic o, and Proto-Language O, leading to a reconstruction of PL *MO-NHA, 'move back and forth on the surface' = 'rub over (and crush by implication)', and Nostratic *mol-;

which would result in the amendment:

(518)PN *mol- "to crumble by rubbing" > PIE *me/ol- "to rub, to crush, to grind"; PAA *mal- "to rub, to crush, to grind"; PU *mola-[?] "to crumble" (source: PL *MO-NHA)

Other amendments would be:

(290)PN *k?or₁- "crane" > PIE *ger/or- /*gR- "crane"; AA *kar- "crane"; PU *korka- "crane"(?; or karka); PD *korku- "crane" (source: PL *K?O-RHA)

and

(235)PN *k?xor₁- "to rumble, to roar, to growl, to gurgle" > PIE *gher-/*ghor- "to rumble, to roar, to growl, to gurgle"; PK *gRgwin- "to thunder, (n.) thunder", *gurgwal-, "to thunder, to rumble, to roar, (n.) thunder"; PAA *gar- "to rumble, to roar, to growl, to gurgle"; PD *kur- an imitative sound: "to bark, to snore, to snarl, to growl"; Altaic: Manchu (possibly in) gur seme "snarling, growling, talking too much" (source: PL *K?XO-RHA)

DISCUSSION: A major disagreement that I have with Bomhard is his unusual failure to reconstruct a dorsal fricative for his Proto-Nostratic, thus projecting the odd typological system of Indo-European back into Proto-Nostratic. Odder still is his reconstruction of Afroasiatic without either a voiced or voiceless dorsal fricative although Ehret (op. cit. p. 174) posits four: /G, G^w, x, x^w/. And Moscati (An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of The Semitic Languages, 1969) posits two: /G, x/ for Proto-Semitic. Now his Proto-Kartvelian has /G, x/; Proto-Uralic, according to Décsy has /G/; according toSammalahti, /x/. Sumerian has /x/, written h (at least; and, I would add, /ç/, written š). Eskimo-Aleut has /G/. For Elamo-Dravidian, according to McAlpin, when referring to [h]: "The exact nature of the sound is an open question". So , apparently, every language family being compared has, at least, one dorsal fricative but Bomhard has chosen to eliminate it or them from Afroasiatic — in opposition to standard opinion — and pattern his Proto-Nostratic with Proto-Indo-European, which, apparently, attests none. At the very least, this unusual procedure requires an explanation; and frankly, because I do not think it could possibly be satisfactorily explained, I reject Bomhard's scheme; and posit two dorsal fricatives for Nostratic: X and XH, between which the contrast may have been aspiration as my notation would suggest but also possibly voicing of the non-aspirated member of the pair.

One of the circumstances that, in my opinion, may have led him to this erroneous conclusion, is the fact that /w/ is oftenest classified as a "glide" so that, e.g. in Indo-European, no fricative is reconstructed for the labial series, though it should be. And, for Afroasiatic, also. Strangely, Bomhard does reconstruct Afroasiatic /f/ (p. 73), which I seriously doubt is anything but a reflex in individual languages of his correctly reconstructed Afroasiatic /p^h/, but, in the tables (Nostratic Sound Correspondences; pp. 84-88), Bomhard does not show /f/ as an Afroasiatic reflex of any Proto-Nostratic consonant; notwithstanding, on page 201, his example 560, PN *nap[^h]- "to breathe, to blow", shows a PAA *naf- "to breathe, to blow". Rather than metathesis, I would also suggest the better IE cognate is *s-nap-, listed incorrectly in Pokorny under *sna:-, 'flow, dampness'. Of course, Bomhard is best equipped to explain these discrepancies but I would hazard the guess that Proto-Nostratic f should not have been reconstructed.

The unnatural classification of /w/ leads to the appearance of a typologically more unusual system than is actually the case; and, I will attempt to show that the reflexes of Nostratic x and xh are generally what one would expect from a non-velarized dorsal fricative, which provides the dorsal complement to labial w and apical s fricatives.

But, for Indo-European, the reflexes are, admittedly, somewhat unusual. I believe that it can be shown that Nostratic x and xh are seen in IE conventional g^w and k^w though, in view, of the Germanic responses, I am not adverse to accepting an earliest Indo-European k'^w and k^hw (for Bomhard's k^w[^h]). In the other Nostratic languages, the reflexes are more straightforward: AA š from /ç/; Sumerian h (/x/) before a and u, š (/ç/) before i; and Dravidian k, which seems to have simply defricatized the dorsal fricative to a stop: k. I have no materials to evaluate Eskimo-Aleut examples or phonology.

In the example given above, I believe it is likely that the cited PFU *kurk3 is a Germanic loanword, and no Uralic cognates are given by Bomhard in the other roots cited with initial q'^w (360; 362-64) except PU *kola- "to die" under (359) q'^wal-/q'^w6l- "to strike, to hit, to cut, to hurt, to wound, to slay, to kill", which is an imaginative set of meanings for the root which provides IE "1. (*)g^wel-, 'stechen'; 2. '(stechender) Schmerz, Qual, Tod'". Since PL XE is identified as meaning 'prick(le)', we can reconstruct the underlying PL word as *XE- NHA, 'moving back and forth with a prick(le)' = 'continual pain'. Though we cannot find an Arabic cognate to support this, there is Egyptian šn-j, 'suffer', in the expected form. And, more speculatively, Sumerian has šil (also the expected form), a reading of TAR (Jaritz Sign 13) that portrays a branched stick, and means 'aloe' (from its very prickly leaves[?]), and 'weapon', which we assume to have been a 'dart' (cf. Greek bélos, 'dart', derived from IE 1. (*)g^wel-).

While PD *kola may be remotely related, the more obvious PD choice as a cognate is Starostin's *kel-, 'feather', which shows the correct vowel, and which would relate to IE 1. (*)g^wel-, 'prick', etc., which also includes derivatives meaning 'feather(-quill)'. Temporarily, I will eliminate the reputed PED cognate, which does not display the expected vowel.

Accordingly, I would amend as follows:

(359)PN *xel- "to be in pain" > PIE * k'^wel-, "prick, piercing pain, suffering, death(-agony)"; PK *q'wal- "to slay, to kill"; PAA *šal- in Egyptian šn-j, "to suffer"; PD *kel- "feather"; (source: PL *XE-NHA)

Instead of assuming, as I believe Bomhard does, that a PK cognate with q'w indicates a Nostratic q'^w, it is just as logical to assume that pre-PK k'w + a/o was backed to q'w while k'w + e remained k'w; and I consider this the preferable solution.

We may now return to 361. I assert that the primary meaning of this root is 'swallow', and, on the basis of Sumerian har, 'chew', which I believe to be related through a natural shift in meaning, I reconstruct PL *XA- RHE, 'come through the slit' = 'be swallowed'.

Bomhard's Jibbâli k.erd "throat" and Mehri k.ard "voice, throat", I consider to be possibly related to this root but in an indirect fashion since some IE languages do seem to show forms extended by an apical root-extension but I believe the evidence for an AA reconstruction of šar is overwhelming, and negates a direct development.

Instead of Bomhard's PD kur-al-, "neck, throat", which would not conform to an expected **kar-, we will substitute PD *kar.d-, "neck", which does, and is the form found on Starostin's Etymological Database.

Therefore, we will amend:

(361)PN *xar^y₂- "to swallow" > PIE * k'^wer-/*k'wor-/*k'wR-, "to swallow, (n.) throat"; PK (*q'warq'- >) *q'orq' "throat, gullet" (cf. OHG qwerka, "throat"); PAA *šar- in Arabic šariba, "to drink"; Egyptian š3š3.t, "throat", š3b.w, "food"; PD in *kar.-d "neck"; Sumerian har, "to chew" (probably, better, "eat" from "swallow"); (source: PL *XA-RHE(-P?FO, 'place' = 'eating place'; cf. Egyptian š3b, "table with food"; and .IE ghrebh-, "grub", incorrectly listed under 2. (*)ghrebh- [for correct *g^wrebh-], "scratch, score, dig")

DISCUSSION: One of the serendipities of these comparisons is that a very similar root, Bomhard's 339, with the unrelated meaning 'weight', can also be compared. The chances against this as a coincidence in multiple language-families are extremely high, I hope all can agree.

A look at the sign meaning 'heavy' in Sumerian, dugud, even though it is not recorded with the expected reading of har(u), may suggest to some that our analysis of the semantics is correct. It seems to be an object, the weightiness of which is suggested by several parallel counting marks.

It is interesting to see the similar marking to dugud (a variant also has five vertical lines) of the sign for har: This root, har is known to mean 'quern', which is also a derived meaning from the cited IE root. Could the famous city of Harran (har-ra-an) be simply 'The Mill' in Sumerian?

In view of my interpretation of the Sumerian signs and the existence of Egyptian š3w, "weight, worth, value", it is advisable to for me to consider a Proto-Language form incorporating XA, 'labia majora, slit'; and reconstruct, with a basal semantic determination of "value": PL *XA- RE-( FA), 'scratch slit(s)' = '(indicate) value'(+'do again' = 'weight[y]').

Another IE root which must be involved if our analysis of the semantics involved is correct is 4. (*)g^wer(-H)-, 'raise the voice', especially 'praise, welcome' but also 'scold, grumble'. The basic semantic idea seems to be 'evaluation'; and Arabic šarra, 'defame', correlates with 'scold' though a thoroughly convincing Arabic example from this root, with no root extensions, conveying 'positive value' cannot be found at this time (but consider šarâ [š-r-y], 'purchase, sell').

Perhaps it is now appropriate to notice that the PD cognate offered by Bomhard conforms to what we should expect if r.., which is in Dravidian a retroflex approximant, has been backed from r. (what I propose to be the normal Dravidian reflex to PL R[H]E) under the influence of a now missing -u: *kor..- "to grow thick, solid, fat, stout". And, in fact, Starostin, on his website, reconstructs PD *kor.v-, 'fat'. I provisionally accept this proposed cognate but will assume that the a in the earlier predicted form, *kar.v-, has been backed to o by the retrograde influence of the root-extension -v.

The explanation for a rejection of Sumerian gur is quite involved; and I hope readers will be able to bear with a lengthy digression.

Archaic Sumerian gur is written with a 'reed basket':

And, in fact, one of its primary meanings is, in fact, 'reed basket'.

Bomhard acknowledges this meaning for gur in his entry 239: "PN *gur-/*gor- "to turn, to twist, to wind, to wrap, to roll"". No IE cognate is given. But he provides a PAA cognate: "*gar-/*g6r- "to roll, to revolve"".

In entry 293, "PN *k'ar-/*k6r- "to twist, to turn, to bend, to wind; to tie (together), to bind (adj.) curved, bent, crooked"", he lists "PIE *k'er-/*k'or-/*k'R- "to twist, to turn, to bend, to wind, to tie together"". No PAA cognate is given.

Though it is not obvious to Bomhard, many readers, including myself, will find it obvious that by distinguishing PN g and k', Bomhard has separated what is unifiable under one rubric. This one example dramatically illustrates the mistake Bomhard has made in reconstructing voiced stops for his Proto-Nostratic.

PAA "*gar-/*g6r- "to roll, to revolve"" and "PIE *k'er-/*k'or-/*k'R- "to twist, to turn, to bend, to wind, to tie together"" belong under the same entry! But the problem is that Bomhard has accepted from whatever source a PAA form *gar, 'turn' (it is not in Orel-Stobova), which does not exist as far as I can see in Arabic, for which we should expect jar-. However, Arabic karra means 'come back, follow by turns, be wound' (cf. also kurrâ, 'sphere, globe'. But Bomhard cannot have PAA *kar- under PN *k'ar- because he mistakenly assumes that PN k' becomes PAA q (i.e. /K/, back-k) rather than k. On the other hand, my Nostratic k' becomes IE k' (conventional g) and AA k, a perfect fit for the data.

Ante Aikio has again come to my aid in connection with the suggested Uralic cognates. Though Décsy proposes a *kura for 'basket', Ante informs me that the better reconstruction, based though it is on limited distribution, would be *kori. I would analyze this as reflecting PL *K?O- RE, 'twist-apply' = 'plait' (probably better 'braid'). This is reasonably the source for those words and roots meaning "plaited basket".

Therefore, we amend to:

(293)PN * k?or^y₂- "to plait, to braid[?]" > PIE *ger-/*gor-/*gR- "to plait, to tie together (by plaiting)"; "basket" with -bh- extension; PAA *kar- "to (re)turn"; PU *kori, "basket"(limited distribution); *kori-, "to plait" (based on Finnic-Samic *kuri- "to stitch, tie together"); S gur, (n.) "basket"; "to wind, to turn" (probably phonetic only for "to wind, to turn"; see 239) (source: PL *K?O-RE)

Now the second Sumerian gur₍₄₎ which Bomhard cites depicts a circle. And obviously is designed to graphically display the idea of 'turning'. Since *K?O-RE and *K?O-RHE would have the same result in all of the languages we are comparing, it is only through the Sumerian archaic signs that we can see that they should properly be distinguished. Accordingly, I have marked PN *k'or- with ₁ for "crane" *k'or- with ₂ for "to plait" and * k'or- with ₃ for "to (re)turn". I would analyze PN * k'or₃- as *K?O- RHE, 'twist-come' = '(re)turn'.

Although Bomhard includes the Altaic form *göre, 'turn, twist, wind, wrap', I can find no trace of it at Starostin's website. I will include it as doubtful.

Accordingly, I amend:

(239)PN *k?or^y₃- "to (re)turn" > PIE *ger-/*gor-/*gR- "to turn, to wind"; PAA *kar- "to (re)turn"; Egyptian T3(w) [bar-t], "don a garment" [ = "to wrap (repeatedly)"]; T3, "pellet"; s-T3, "roller for moving a ship, dung (fecal cylinder)"; PA *göre, "to turn, to twist, to wind, to wrap"[?]; *guri- "wide, broad, thick"; S gur, "to wind, to turn" ("basket"; probably phonetic only; see 293); better gur₄, "to turn, to roll over"; gur₂, "ring"; gur, "hefty"; gur₄, gur₁₃, gur₁₄ "thick; to be or make thick" (source: PL *K?O-RHE)

Now we may come to the probably long-forgotten point of this long digression.

Above we showed that Bomhard claims that Sumerian gur, "hefty"; gur₄, gur₁₃, gur₁₄ "thick; to be or make thick"; should not be included as Sumerian cognates under his entry 339, PN *k'^wer-/*k'^wor- "to be heavy, solid, bulky". But the correspondences which I have developed indicate that the anticipated Sumerian form should be *har(i). There are two Sumerian words, the meanings of which are currently unknown, which may have a bearing on this question: išhara and hara₅. Both have as a second element the sign which reads gur₄, 'thick; to be or make thick'. Sumerian išhara has, as a first element, a sign which reads eš and iš₃, and means 'much', and possibly also reflects Hebrew ?îš, 'man'; hara₅ has, as a first element, a sign which rads lu and means 'much' and 'man'. I propose that gur₁₃, which means 'fat', and gur₁₄,which also reads har, and means 'heavy', as gur should be understood as a Sumerian equivalent to English 'roly-poly', and are based on the root found in 239: PN * k'or₂- "to (re)turn". And that the proper Sumerian cognate for PN *k'^wer-/*k'^wor- "to be heavy, solid, bulky" is har(a) seen as an alternate reading of the sign for gur₁₄, and in the compounds iš-hara and hara₅, which we surmise to have meant 'fat person' or 'very heavy'.

Therefore, we will amend:

(339)PN *xar^y(u)₁- "value" (+"repeatedly" = "weighty") > PIE * k'^wer-/*k'^wor-/*k'^wR-*k'^w_er-H-, "value"; * k'^weru-/*k'^woru-/*k'^wRu-; *k'^w_er-ù-s, "heavy"; PAA *šar(u)- possibly in Arabic šarra, "to defame [if = "value negatively"]"; in Egyptian š3, "assign"; š3w, "weight, worth, value"; PD *kor..- "to grow, thick, solid, fat" (from [Starostin:] *kor.v-, "fat"; earlier *kar.v-[?] ); S *har(u[?]), "heavy" (= gur₁₄)[?]; hara₅, "heavy, fat"(?); in iš-hara, "heavy [person]" or "very heavy"(?); (source: PL *XA-RE[-FA, 'do again' = 'weighty'])

There is another very fine example of Nostratic x(e) = AA š = IE k'^w (conventional g^w) = Dravidian k = Sumerian š, namely Bomhard's root 314, in which we, once again, see him attempting to incorrectly distinguish his PN g^(w) and k'^(w):

The first thing we may notice is that Bomhard apparently is combining two roots separately listed in Pokorny: (*)g^^wer(H)-/(*)g^^wor(H)-, 'to illuminate and be hot', and (*)g^wher-/(*)g^whor-, 'hot, warm'.

Secondly, readers will note than I here propose Sumerian š rather than h as an equivalent to Nostratic xe. Nostratic x apparently had two major allophones: /x/ before a back vowel; /ç/ before a front vowel. Before a central vowel, normally /x/ or something intermediate that has not maintained a separate reflex in any derived language was realized.

Accordingly, Nostratic xa appears in IE as g^w and Sumerian /xa/, written ha. However Afro-Asiatic seems to have merged all C + a into C + e so that any former Nostratic Ce shows up as a palatalized C^ya. Therefore, in Egyptian and AA, Nostratic xa shows up in the form expected for Nostratic xe, i.e. /ç/, which becomes š. Nostratic xe, therefore appears as IE g^^w, Sumerian š, and AA š.

On the other hand, Nostratic xo appears in IE as g^w, Sumerian as h(u), and AA as /x/, written X (i.e. bar-h) in Egyptian; however, in Arabic, because Nostratic k had the Arabic reflex /x/, AA /x/ from Nostratic xo was merged into the reflex of Nostratic xa/xe, and appears as š. A important corollary of these developments is that IE palatalized dorsals are normally a result not of a following IE e or i but rather the manifestation of a palatal glide (^y) retained from the Nostratic form C + e. E.g. PL *XE- ¿A, 'body-hair+all' = 'fur', leads to IE *g^^wey-, found in Pokorny under (*)g^we:i, 'skin, pelt'. With an additional PL *NA, it can be seen in Old Indian ji:na-, 'leather sack', Ossetic Gun, 'hair', Egyptian š(j)n.w, 'hair'; and, as the initial component of Arabic ša¿a-r-un, 'hair'.

Now, to come back to Bomhard's entry 314, I find it very doubtful that Manchu guru- "to redden, to become inflamed" is the result of an Altaic cognate, which, on the basis of the cognates suggested below and based on previous work done in Altaic reconstruction, I would assume to have a form like **cer-. In addition, the major semantic component seems to be rather 'red' than 'radiate', which I would connect with IE 6. (*)ker-, 'red', and 5. (*)ker(H)-, 'burn, glow, heat', based on PL *KHO- RHA, 'child-color' = 'bloody-red'.

Accordingly, I will reconstruct the root found in 314 as *XE- RHE, 'come as bristles' = 'radiate (like hair standing on end)'.

Therefore, we will amend:

(314)PN *xer^y- "to radiate" > PIE * k'^wer-/*k'^wor-/*k'^wher-*k'^whor-, "to radiate (heat or light)"; PAA *šar- probably in Arabic šarra, "to be ill-natured [if = "to be hot"]"; šarra, "to expose to the sun [if = "to warm or heat"]"; širrâ, "anger [if = "heat"]"; in Egyptian š3-m, "to be hot, burn"; PD *ker- "to warm by the fire"; S *šir, "light"; (source: PL *XE-RHE)

This still leaves the problem of how to account for the dual forms
* k'^we/or- /*k'^whe/or- , "to radiate (heat or light)" in IE. While it may be possible to suspect a PL *XE- ¿A- RE, 'fur-apply' = 'warm' — and 'hair' as 'warmer' — it is a bit of a stretch; and I cannot find any evidence beyond mere speculation to support it at the moment.

Another example of Nostratic xa = Arabic š = Egyptian š = Sumerian h is PL *XA-NHA, 'move back and forth at the slit' = 'drip'. It can be found in Sumerian hal, 'excrete, flow rapidly'; Arabic inshalla, 'dash forth (torrent), fall in large drops (rain)'; shalshala, 'fall in drops, drip'; IE *g^wel-, 'drip down, run over, well up'; and finally Egyptian šn-y.t, 'storm'. There is also Egyptian Xnm, 'well'; it is known that this word was spelled with š in earliest Egyptian; if we correct to *šn-m, 'well', we have an exact cognate with IE *g^wel-m-, 'water-vapor', significantly close to Modern German Quelle (probably from *g^wel-n-). I am currently unable to find this root (xal) in Bomhard's dictionary so there will be no specific amended entry at present.

Starostin's website has Dravidian *Z^al-, 'spring, to leak', which certainly looks like it should belong here though the correspondence cannot be otherwise verified.

(Addition A)PN *xal- "to drip, emit drops" > PIE *g^wel-, "to drip down, to run over, to well up"; PAA *šal- "to drip, emit drops"; PD *Z^al- "(n.) spring, to leak"[?]; S *hal, "to excrete, to flow rapidly"; (source: PL *XA-NHA)

DISCUSSION: A further indication of the inadequacy of Bomhard's theoretical reconstruction of the Nostratic sound-system is to be found in his entries 219 to 240 (beginning with g), 22 entries, of which only two entries have Sumerian cognates. In addition, entries 349 to 352, beginning with G (presumably back g), four entries have no Sumerian cognates. If Sumerian is a Nostratically related language, this seems remarkable.

The problem is that Bomhard believes that his Nostratic g and G give IE g^[h] and Sumerian g. I have already shown above that one of these, 239, the Sumerian cognates (gur, gur₂, gur₄) are better related to IE forms beginning with g, i.e. derive from Nostratic forms beginning with Bomhard's PN k' and my Nostratic k?, which yields IE g and Sumerian g.

Let us look at the remaining example for which Bomhard provides a Sumerian cognate: 219, "PN *gub-/*gob- "highest point, summit, top" > PIE *g^[h]eb^[h]- "gable, head, pinnacle"; PAA *gab-/*g6b- "highest point, pinnacle"; PD *kop- "topmost part"; (?) S gub "to stand, to erect"".

I presume that Bomhard is himself not totally convinced of the relatedness of Sumerian gub, and that this is the occasion for the question mark. And, we will see below, that there is a possibly preferable candidate for a Sumerian cognate: kap.

First, in checking Starostin's website, I can find only Dravidian *kop-, 'topknot of hair', so that it appears Bomhard has emended the definition to a more general form. After looking at the derivations in related languages, I can find no derived word that would justify this emendation; the closest would be 'heap, stack' but most entries indicate a 'chignon, bun'. A much likelier IE candidate for cognation would be *keub/bh/p-, which is used for hemispherical protuberances of various kinds, including small 'heaps', derived from Pokorny's "2. (*)keu- . . . 'biegen'", for which I can find no entry in Bomhard's dictionary. Accordingly, I do not believe Dravidian *kop- should be included under this root entry. Unfortunately, I cannot find a better cognate.

Since we have rejected both the Sumerian and Dravidian "cognates", the vowel quality of this root becomes an open question.

The AA form, *gab-, can be verified, and this, in my opinion, conforms the IE form as *ghebh-, which leads back to Nostratic k?x, a dorsal affricate.

I will explain first, and attempt to substantiate as we proceed, that Nostratic k?x becomes IE gh, and AA g. In Egyptian, we have two reflexes: H (dot-h) if the Nostratic form began with k?xe or k?xa; x (hook-h) if the Nostratic form began with k?xo. We should notice at this point that the differential reflexes of Egyptian suggest that earliest AA maintained some of the vowel quality differences of Nostratic before Egyptian branched off. For Sumerian, my studies indicate that the difference between Sumerian voiced and voiceless stops is based on (former) affrication so that Sumerian g can represent both Nostratic k? and kh while Sumerian k represents Nostratic k?x and khx. Accordingly, I would expect a Sumerian word corresponding to Nostratic *k?xVp?f- to have the form kVp.

If fact, there is a Sumerian kab/p that means 'overpower (be on top[?])' that may be related. The Egyptian form we would expect from Nostratic *k?ap?f- would be Hb, which does have the rare use of 'triumph'. In addition, the more common usage of Hb, written with a sign which portrays a festival tent, is to mean 'festival'. Can this be understood as the 'high point'? This line of speculation is supported somewhat by the attestation of Arabic jabba, 'overcome'.

We can even propose a PL etymology: *K?XA-P?FO, 'hair-place' = 'top (of the head)', i.e. Nostratic *k?xap?f-. Accordingly, I amend:

(219)PN *k?xap?f^w- "top" > PIE * ghe/obh-(el-), "gable, head"; PAA *gab- probably in Arabic jabba, "to overcome"; in Egyptian Hb, "to triumph"; S *kap, "to overpower"; (source: PL *K?XA-P?FO)

DISCUSSION: Another interesting root in the same series illustrates the point that IE palatalized dorsals are due to Nostratic forms containing dorsal + e, and that the IE Ablaut e/o is immaterial to the phenomenon of palatalization:

Rather than Bomhard's PD *kir-, 'to scratch, scrape', Starostin's website has only *ci:r- and *ker-, 'to scratch'. It seems again that there is a discrepancy between Bomhard's data and that of other researchers. It is a well-known phenomenon in Dravidian for k before a front vowel to be palatalized to c (/tsh/). I would therefore prefer *ci:r- in spite of the unexplained length of the vowel; it is, of course, possible that *ker- is an alternative form prior to palatalization.

In the case of PAA *gar-, Arabic jarra, 'drag along (cause to scrape over[?])', may be differently interpretable but jarida, 'be bare', and jarrada, 'bare, shave', show conclusively that jar- contains the idea of 'bareness'.

Now that we are pointed in the right direction, we can find an appropriate PA cognate: *k'ìr(-)ga-, 'scrape, file'.

IE *g^her, 'scratch, engrave, scrape', is, of course widely recognaized; and we should see the palatalizing effect of the Nostratic e persist even in forms derived from *g^hor-. A notably 'bare' place is the 'face', and, we have Czech zra-k, 'face', to formalize the semantic relationship.

The Sumerian facts are quite interesting. Although we have the anticipated form, kir₍₄₎, it is currently considered to mean 'nose' by Sumerologists. John Halloran, at his Sumerian Lexicon website, even has the entry "kiri₄-zal: noun, joy ('nose' + 'to be full, abundant')". While zal may be understood as 'full', it also means 'bright'. A 'full nose'? Mir ist die Nase voll! To characterize 'joy'? I think a 'bright face' would be much more appropriate in most cultures. Sumerian also has kir₃ usually translated as 'nip off', with reference to detaching a piece of clay from a lump. It is not a wide jump to suspect that the idea of 'scratch, scrape' is just as appropriate to describing this action.

In conclusion, we can analyze the forms, and propose a semantically appropriate Proto-Language form: *K?XE-RE, 'bare-scratch' = 'make bare (by scraping/scratching)', i.e. Nostratic *k?xer-.

so we amend:

(223)PN *k?xer^y- "to make/be bare (by scraping)" > PIE (2.) *g^her-/*g^hor-, "to scratch, to engrave, to scrape"; PAA *gar- "to make bare by scraping"; Arabic in jarjara "to drag"; in jarasha "to throw off slough (snake)"; in ?ajraza "to be barren"; in jarana "to grind"; in jarada "to strip a branch of leaves"; in Egyptian H3, "to run aground"; in H3-y, "to be naked"; in s-H3-j, "to strip"; PD *ci:r- (possibly also ker-) "to scratch"; PA in *k'ìr(-)ga- "to scrape, to file"; S *kir(i)₃, "to pinch off (better: "to scratch/scrape off[?]")"; *kir(i)₄, "nose (better "**face")" (source: PL *K?XE-RE)

DISCUSSION: This is, by far, the most objectionable entry that I have encountered in Bomhard's dictionary. It seems to me that Bomhard has totally failed to grasp the basic semantics of this root, which can be seen clearly in the IE root and its derivatives: exactly what Pokorny has correctly identified, 'stick out'. It is not 'swelling' nor 'aging' nor yet 'rising' but simply 'projecting a point'.

Accordingly, most of Bomhard's entries are, at best, wishful thinking. His PAA *gar-/*g6r-, 'to grow old', is better related to IE *g^er-, 'age'; his PD *kar..- 'to swell, to rise, to increase, to grow thick . . .' is better related to IE "4. (*)ger-", 'to grow'; and his PY *q6R-, 'height', is better related to IE "1. (*)k^er"-, 'peak' (Egyptian q3-j (dot-k), 'tall, high').

We will now see if we can do better. The Sumerian cognate is rather obvious: kur, 'mountain(-peak)'. Now kur is also used with regard to the 'rising' of the sun, which, may be related to the idea of 'sticking out' over the horizon. However, there is another kur(2) which is written with a sign that means 'sprout' and 'grow' though, in these meanings, it is currently read as dim₄. There is also a reading of bulug[~]₃, 'large', and pa₄, 'big'. Though kur₂ is currently understood as 'be different'; and perhaps we will be permitted to speculate that this might be interpreted semantically as 'stand out'. This understanding would link it with both 'sprout' and 'grow'.

The Proto-Language etymology we propose for this root is: *K?XO-RHE, 'come from a hole' = 'sprout', i.e. Nostratic *k?xor-.

Thus, we can replace the "cognates" found by Bomhard with more appropriate ones; and we amend:

(225)PN *k?xor^y₂- "to stick out"; IE *gher-/*ghor- "to stick out"; in *ghre:-ti- '**mountain' (cf. MHD gra:t, "fishbone, plant-spike, pinnacle, mountain-ridge"; PU possibly in *kura- "thicket, underbrush"; PAA gar-, "to stick out", in Arabic jarra, "to leave the spear in the wound"; possibly in Arabic jarura, "to be courageous, bold-spirited"; in Egyptian x3-w, "plants"; in Egyptian x3-s-t, "hill-country" (cf IE *gher-s- in Greek khérs-os, "dry, barren, waste, hardened {i.e. mountainous[?]}"); possibly in s-x3, "to 'remember (cause to stick out[?])"; PD *ko/o:r.- "sprout"; *kùr_-(*d_-), "name of a mountain tribe", "**mountain" (cf. Malayalam kur_ icci, "hill country"); Altaic *kuri, "hill"; S kur "(n.) mountain", "rise up[?]"; kur₂ "to be different (= to stand out[?])", "(n.) sprout[?]" (source: PL *K?XO-RHE)

DISCUSSION: Another word employed for 'mountain' has the IE conventional form *g^wer-, 'mountain', of which Pokorny considers *g^weres- to have been the original form.

Bomhard has this in his entry 363:

Bomhard is right to flag his Sumerian entry kur, 'mountain', with a question-mark; we have seen above that it and PD *kur_- properly belong to 225, k'xor. However, there is perhaps a proper Sumerian cognate for this Nostratic root (xor): hur, usually interpreted as 'mountain' in the compound hur-sa(n)g[~], where sa(n)g[~] is 'head, peak'.

With regard to the Kartvelian entry, *q'ur-, 'edge', it is possible though not really convincing to me that a root with means 'point' should develop into 'edge'; they seem to be contradictory concepts. However, one thing emerges here, I believe. It appears to me that Bomhard is basing his reconstruction of back dorsals (G/q) for his Proto-Nostratic on alleged Kartvelian cognates since no difference in reflex between back and normally velar dorsals is demonstrated for any other language-family (with the exception of PAA, to be discussed below). This seems insufficient grounds for reconstructing back dorsals for Nostratic (Proto-Nostratic) since backing of dorsals could be a specific Kartvelian allophonic response to a dorsal before a back vowel (and that is what I suspect strongly it is). Since Kartvelian is characterized by vocalic Ablaut, the proposition that dorsal backing in any root is due to a back vowel (originally, at least) cannot be disproved by back dorsal + front vowel just as an IE form reconstructed as g^/k^/g^hoC is possible and attested. Once fronting or backing has occurred, it is not affected by the presence of new allophonic variations.

Bomhard reconstructs PAA *k'^war-/*k'^w6r- for this root. In the The Nostratic Macrofamily, he illustrates what the Semitic result of k'^w will be: namely, q, (dotted-k). His first example is PN (291) *k'^wul-/*k'^wol-, 'to strike, to hurt, to wound, to slay, to kill', which he links to Arabic qatala, 'to kill'. Metathesis is a recognized phenomenon, of course, but examples like these are much less than decisively persuasive. The IE root cited is k'^wel-, which we have already met in his presently discussed root 359, where it, mirabile dictu, now has the form *k'^wal-/*k'^w6l-. Well, we are all improving things over time as we can.

Next root (292; which shows up as 360 in the present work being discussed, with the same vowel change as 359) has exactly the same form but here means "to throw, to hurl"; Bomhard does write: "(probably identical to the preceding)". Here he offers, among other PAA entries, Arabic miqla:¿(-un), 'slingshot, sling, catapult'. In Pokorny, *g^wel-, in the meaning 'throw', is linked with *g^wel-, 'drip down', in the nuance 'shoot out (liquid)'. And some readers might remember that I have shown that IE (2.) *g^wel-, 'drip down', is likely to have derived from Nostratic *xal while IE *g^wel-, 'stick', most probably had the form *xel.

The root of Arabic miqla:¿(-un) is q-l-¿, the main semantic significance of which seems to 'pluck up', which is natural since the basis for it, qalla, means 'lift, raise'. In my opinion, the proper IE cognate for the basis q-l is IE *ke/ol-, 'rise up, high (lift)'.

It is my belief that the integrity of the phonological system that I have reconstructed for the Proto-Language and Nostratic require the presence of a dorsal nasal in two varieties: voiced or simply unaspirated Q and voiceless or aspirated QH, which, initially, are denasalized in IE but are both maintained as q in Afro-Asiatic.

Finally, in IE roots, these appear as ng or nk. In Egyptian, both show up as g when derived from Nostratic q(h)o but as q when derived from Nostratic q(h)e/a. It is arguable that this proposed Nostratic root, *nkhVl is represented in Egyptian qnjw, 'palanquin, portable shrine', which would correspond nicely with a proposed AA qal, as represented in Arabic qalla.

Bomhard originally constructed a PN phonological system without dorsal nasals. Over the years, I attempted to persuade him of the necessity of their reconstruction for Nostratic; and finally he has reconstructed PN ng as a final but has yet to recognize an aspirated dorsal nasal phoneme, and that both of them can appear initially or finally.

Starostin provides the Altaic *kel-, 'rise', but Mongolian (*kali-) and Turkic (*Kal(y)- suggest to me that **kal- might be another possibility.

There are no obvious Uralic, Dravidian, and Sumerian cognates.

I would therefore propose a Proto-Language root of *QHA-NHA, 'to be high-(ingressive)' = 'start to be high' = 'rise', i.e. Nostratic *nkhal-.

It appears to me that Bomhard's assigned meaning, "to throw, to hurl" is properly simply "to cause to rise (in an arc)".

and we amend:

(360)PN *nkhal- "(to cause) to rise (in an arc)"; IE *kel-/*kol- "to rise up"; AA qal-, "to rise", in Arabic qalla, "to lift, to raise"; in Egyptian qn-jw, "palanquin, portable shrine"; Altaic **kal- (Starostin has *kel-), "to rise" (source: PL *QHA-NHA)

So, there is very little of substance left in Bomhard's entry 363 except PAA *k'^war-/*k'^w6r- "highest point, top, peak, summit, hill, mountain, horn".

I have no reason to doubt that PAA *qar- means 'be high' since Egyptian q3 is 'tall, high'; but PAA "*k'^war-/*k'^w6r-", '*be high' (he gives no examples of the simplex in this meaning), in qar-n-un, 'horn, summit', should result in IE (conventional) *g[w]er-(n)-. The problem is that IE 'horn' is clearly *k^e/or-(n)-; and Egyptian (Late) has kr-tj, 'pair of horns'. It does not seem reasonable to combine these two meanings under one rubric. And, while Bomhard's proposed *k'[w]er- (i.e. conventional *g^wer-) might work in IE for 'summit', he can offer no PAA derivative of it meaning 'peak'.

Because of the deficiencies of this entry, I will propose another set of cognates to replace them. Admittedly, my interpretation of the data must be classified as speculative.

IE has, in conventional format, the root *g^wor-g^w(or)o-, 'filth, manure'; and Egyptian has X3-t (bar-h), 'corpse', which may refer to the pervasive odor of a decaying body, further reinforced by X3-yt, 'heap of corpses'; X3-t, 'marsh', may lead in the same direction since marshes are notoriously fragrant. If we can connect the Egyptian words with the IE root, the Nostratic form predicted will be *xor.

If there is a Nostratic root *xor, 'malodorous', the predicted Dravidian form would by *kur./r/r_/r..-, and, on Starostin's website, we find *kur.-, 'rot', which not implausibly can be connected with 'malodorous'. On the basis of the Dravidian alveolar (I believe this is the interpretation of Starostin's notation) /r/ (r.), we would reconstruct Proto-Language *XO-RHE, 'come from below (anus/intestine)' = 'malodorous', i.e. Nostratic *xor-.

If this is the correct Nostratic reconstruction, it would lead to Sumerian hur. The Sumerian sign which reads hur pictures viscera, and, among its various meanings are 'be unclean, impure; smell', although these meanings are usually assigned to the reading ur₅. In view of the etymology of PL XO-RHE, and the nature of the depiction (viscera), I believe it is possible to speculate that the meaning may also be associated with the reading hur; and that ur₅ may be either a taboo deformation or a dialectal variant of hur.

But, of course, we must consider IE *g^wer-, 'mountain'. How could 'malodorous' and 'mountain' possibly tie together? Perhaps from the noxious fumes of a volcano? If the Rift Valley was home to earliest man, volcanoes would not have been unfamiliar; and the name for them may have later been transferred to inactive volcanoes or mountains that had never been volcanoes. Speculative though it may be, that is what I will tentatively propose — fully aware that critics will focus on this one example as an instance of unfounded reconstruction and careless speculation.

It is tempting to include Uralic *kura, 'body' (Décsy), since the form is reasonably close to that anticipated but this would imply 'body' = 'corpse', for which I have no present proof; nonetheless, I will include it provisionally.

If our reconstruction is correct, and our correspondences are accurate, we should expect a PAA form **šar meaning 'malodorous'. The facts are questionable. There is šarra itself which means 'to be ill-natured, wicked'. This might be 'to (make a) stink'. There is also šarrara, 'to defame' ('cause to stink[?]'). And šurru-n, 'disagreeable thing' ('something that stinks[?]'). But I can find no Arabic derivative that points indisputably to 'malodorous'; I will include it only as a possibility. However, Nostratic *xor- would appear in Egyptian as X3; and there is an interesting set of words of the form X3.t in Egyptian which all seem to be easily relatable to 'malodorous': 'corpse, heap of corpses, disease, marsh'.

There is even an Altaic form which probably belongs here: *k'o:rV-, 'dung, excrement'; and, although I cannot presently explain its form conclusively, I will include it;

so we will amend (with caution):

(363)PN *xor^y- "be malodorous"; IE **g^wer-/g^w or- "malodorous" in *g^wor-g^w(or)o- "filth, manure"; **g^wer-/g^w or- "malodorous" > *g^wer-/g^wor- "volcano" > "mountain"; PU *kura, "body (= corpse[?])" ; PAA šar-, "be malodorous[?]", in Arabic šarrara, "to defame (if = "to cause to stink[?]")"; in Egyptian X3-t, "corpse"; PD *kur.- "to rot (be malodorous[?])"; Altaic *k'o:rV-, "dung, excrement"; S **hur[?] for ur₅, "to be unclean, impure; to smell"; hur "**malodorous[?]" in hur-sa(n)g[~], "malodorous peak" = "volcano[?]" (source: PL *XO-RHE)

DISCUSSION: Some of the data we rejected from 363 becomes much more understandable when placed correctly in Bomhard's 200:

I can find no reference to Altaic *kir-, 'mountain(-side), edge', at Starostin's website but if it be a proper reconstruction, it would probably relate nicely to IE *k^e/or, 'highest point, top, summit, head, peak, horn', the palatalization of the dorsal of which points to a Nostratic vocalization of e as would the Altaic -i-.

Bomhard relates PAA *tl[h]ar- to Arabic šar- in the meaning of 'honorable' but we have seen that Arabic šar- is better related to Nostratic *xar(u)₁-, 'value', above, which subsumes 'honor' semantically quite plausibly.

Though Bomhard does not include 'horn' as a part of the meaning of the Nostratic root he postulates, I believe this meaning is the key to understanding the significance of the root so that 'highest point, highest rank' should be understood as 'horn(-tip)' and 'horn(ed)'.

I have hypothesized that Nostratic nkh becomes Sumerian n initially, which I note personally as ñ. And, in fact, Sumerian can provide nir, 'prince, lord', which I would note to **ñir.

The sign used to write **ñir, which pictures 'two trees', also reads nar₃; and additionally means 'high'. I propose as a hopefully somewhat persuasive possibility that nar₃ (**ñar₃) is the Sumerian reflex of Nostratic *nkhar(₁), 'summit', reflecting PL *QHA-RA, 'high-back' = 'summit'; the first element of which is also seen in Sumerian na, 'high' (**ña; contrasting with na, 'stone', written with the same sign). We see *nkhar also in Egyptian q3(j), 'tall, high'; in Arabic ma-qar-â (q-r-y), 'summit of a hill'; and in IE *ka(:)r-, 'height', a variant form of *ker- (sic!: no palatalization), 'head', which has been almost hopelessly mixed with *k^er-, 'horn'. A rather similar Nostratic *nkhar, 'elevate, praise', existed, which can be seen in IE (2.) *ka(:)r- (it is my belief that aspiration occasionally caused lengthening of a vowel in IE, which caused the Nostratically inherited vowel quality, in this case a from nkha, to be retained), 'praise'; Egyptian s-q3, 'exalt, extol'; and in Sumerian nar (**ñar), 'sing'; these are the result of PL *QHA-RE, 'high-apply' = 'elevate' (Nostratic *nkhar₂).

These forms must be separated (though, with difficulty) from those derived from PL *QHE-RA, 'wriggle-back' = 'rippled' = 'horn' (Nostratic *nkher); IE *k^erei-, 'ram', 'the rippled one', referring to the coiled visual effect of its horns, contributes to the plausibility of this line of speculation. This root is found in IE *k^er-, 'horn, peak'; in Arabic qar-n-un, 'horn, summit' (probably better 'peak'); additionally in qari-¿-un, 'hero of his time' and qirrî-¿-un, 'chief, hero'; corresponding to Sumerian **ñir, 'prince, lord'; and perhaps to Dravidian *cir_-, 'to be eminent, illustrious; to surpass; to be abundant; pre-eminence, abundance, wealth'. No one who is the least familiar with Middle Eastern religious iconic representation will doubt the intimate connection between 'horns' and 'exalted status'.

Let me mention as an addendum that I believe the Sumerian sign conventionally transcribed KAL, and which portrays a 'horn[?]' and 'pointed stick[?]', is probably the earliest sign for **ñir; and it has the reading nir₆, and many of the meanings we would associated with it: 'esteemed, prince', but also interestingly, 'push' = 'butt[?]', an activity one might expect to be associated with caprine horns. This would that the sign picturing 'two trees' is probably the better choice for **ñar; and, in fact, it does read nar₃. Equally suggesting we were correct in separating Nostratic *nkhar₁- and *nkhar₂- is that Sumerian nar meaning 'singer' is written with a separate sign, which pictures a 'jackal', indicating to me that at some point before the finalization of the glyphs, there was a difference in pronunciation.

Just as I believe that Bomhard errs in attributing back dorsals to Nostratic based, I think, solely on the Kartvelian evidence, I also believe that Bomhard errs in attributing laterals to Nostratic based, I think, solely on the Afro-Asiatic evidence.

One way of describing the function of laterals in Afro-Asiatic is to say that they have been generally reconstructed to explain "emphatic" consonants in Arabic (except q) and allegedly related developments in other languages. Thus, according to Ehret, /dl/ = Arabic d.; / / = Arabic /š/; tl' = Arabic s.; according to Bomhard, there are only two Nostratic laterals: /tl^[h]/ = Arabic /š/ and tl' = Arabic s.. But, there are four Arabic "emphatic" consonants (excluding q): d.,t., z., s. in the apical series. And Moscati informs us that while the nature of emphasis in many AA languages may be glottalization, there are indications that in Arabic, "emphasis" is better related to velarization.

The question is whether "emphasis" is originally velarization, i.e. backing and rounding, or glottalization. In my opinion, the evidence favors velarization so that the essential nature of AA emphasis is an approximation of retroflexion in contact with a Nostratic back vowel, i.e. o. Thus, I attempt to demonstrate in my essay on Afrasian (Afro-Asiatic), that PL T?A/E = Arabic t but PL T?O = Arabic d..; PL THA/E = Arabic th but PL THO = Arabic t.; PL T?SA/E = Arabic d but PL T?SO = Arabic z.; PL THSA/E = Arabic dh but PL THSO = Arabic s.. It is my opinion that retroflexion in (Elamo-)Dravidian stems from the same circumstances: apicals in (former) contact with a back vowel.

Thus, I believe that "laterals" in AA are conditioned allophones of Nostratic phonemes that represent the apical series of obstruents and that, after vowel qualities were leveled to a in, only then did they become phonemic in AA. Therefore, it is not necessary to reconstruct laterals for Nostratic (or Proto-Nostratic).

Thus, any Nostratic form with a lateral reconstructed by Bomhard is, prima facie, incorrect. And we have seen above that his 200 is much better reconstructed as Nostratic nkher. In Afro-Asiatic, Nostratic nk and nkh were both resolved into Semitic q, which shows up in Arabic as q.

Accordingly, we amend:

(200)PN *nkher- "horn, highest point" > IE **k^er-/k^or- "horn, highest point"; PU *kura, "body (= corpse[?])" ; PAA qar-, "horn, highest point", in Arabic qar-n-un "horn, summit" (probably better "peak"); additionally in qari-¿-un "hero of his time" and qirrî-¿-un "chief, hero"; PD *cir_- "to be eminent, illustrious; to surpass; to be abundant; pre-eminence, abundance, wealth"; Altaic *kir- "mountain(-side), edge" ; S **ñir[?] for nir "prince, lord" (probably **ñir₆ "esteemed, prince") (source: PL *QHE-RA)

It will be noticed that we have not offered an Egyptian cognate for Nostratic nkher. Yet we mentioned Egyptian kr.tj, 'pair of horns', above. I confess that I am unable to explain this form satisfactorily at this time; and Egyptian k3, 'bull', is probably going to be a part of the eventual explanation...

We may add the additional roots we identified above:

(Addition B)PN *nkhar₁- "summit" > IE *ka(:)r- "height" (a variant form of *ker- (sic!: no palatalization) "head"); PAA qar-, "horn, highest point", in Arabic ma-qar-â (q-r-y) "summit of a hill"; Egyptian q3(-j) "tall, high"; PD *cir_- "to be eminent, illustrious; to surpass; to be abundant; pre-eminence, abundance, wealth"; Altaic *kir- "mountain(-side), edge" = "summit[?]"; S **ñar₃ "high" (source: PL *QHA-RA)

and

(Addition C)PN *nkhar^y₂- "to elevate" > IE (2.) *ka(:)r- "praise"; PAA qar-, "horn, highest point", in Arabic qar-n-un "horn, summit" (probably better "peak"); additionally in qari-¿-un "hero of his time" and qirrî-¿-un "chief, hero"; in Egyptian s-q3 "praise, extol"; S **ñar[?] for nar "sing" = "praise[?]" (source: PL *QHA-RE)

DISCUSSION: One way in which an attempt to make a correct assignment of the correspondences of the Arabic emphatics may be approached is to inspect a selection of ⁽³⁾ Arabic geminated simplexes with meanings (where available), and to show how these correspond semantically with IE roots with initial apicals (d, dh, t, (and th, which I postulate as the IE response to Nostratic ths), and with appropriate Egyptian and Sumerian cognates ⁽³⁾.

DISCUSSION: This is an odd entry in many ways. Bomhard's normal practice is to include his proposed Ablaut grade-variations for IE roots; without explanation, he fails to show *b[h]el-, a grade, at least, suggested by Watkins' *bhelu-, 'to harm', which Bomhard nevertheless cites. In addition, he cites a form originated by Illich-Svitych (for a short listing of these proposed Nostratic roots with some discussion), *baHli, 'wound, pain', though, apparently, he does not consider the "laryngeal" there proposed as a valid part of the Nostratic root. At the Illich-Svitych website, an IE form (*bheh^l-) and Altaic root (*ba:li) is listed, which corresponds roughly to *byá:l^y(ch)a (with changes in orthography for the web), 'harm, wound', listed at Sergei Starostin's website.

The reason that all these scholars cannot agree is because they are conflating several roots of somewhat similar meanings.

I believe it is through correctly reconstructed Dravidian cognates that we can bring some order to this confusion.

Bomhard, in an earlier publication, lists Tamil pular, 'become weak, fade', as a cognate of this root, for which he, in the Nostratic dictionary under discussion, lists a PD form *pul- while Starostin lists the same Tamil word under Dravidian *pol-, "to perish, to be weakened". Starostin is almost certainly to be preferred if, on no other basis, he is a professional specializing in this area.

We may immediately notice Egyptian fn, 'be weak, faint', which corresponds to my AA *bal-. If I am correct in assuming that Egyptian f can arise only from Nostratic *p?o or *pho, then fn reconfirms the quality of the stem-vowel indicated by Dravidian *pol-. If I am correct in attributing the raising of Dravidian o to u, as discussed above, under the influence of a foregoing aspirated consonant, *pho- would result in Dravidian *pu-; since the form we find is *pol-, the Nostratic reconstruction to be preferred is *p?o-.

The commonest Nostratic formant leading to final -l in all derived languages is la; accordingly, we hypothesize a Nostratic root of the form *p?o-la, the result of PL *P?O-NHA, 'cheek+move-back-and-forth' = 'puff/pant'. Thus, the primary semantic idea of this root is 'be exhausted as evidenced by panting'.

It is immediately obvious that it is highly improbable that Altaic *ba:li-, 'harm, wound', is related to this root. If there were a reconstructible Altaic root related to *p?o-la, it should have the form **bol(a)-, which unfortunately cannot be found with a suitable meaning except that *bo:lo/e-, 'to be', may be related if it can be construed as a result of 'becoming, growing').

Having determined the semantic realm of the root, we can now connect Sumerian bul, 'blow', since 'panting' is closely related to 'blowing'.

Much ink has been spilt of the rarity of IE b. One important impetus for the development of the Glottalic Theory (which Bomhard outlines on pages 47-51, op. cit.), to which I generally subscribe, was this fact. But though Bomhard includes p' in his IE phonological inventory, he has not one single entry with p' as an initial. This is, of course, quite strange.

Bomhard does have his series of roots with initial b^[h]; and in the case of the root we are investigating, he reconstructs IE initial b^[h], which corresponds to his PN b. I first suggest that Nostratic *p? (Bomhard's PN *p') should replace his PN **b. IE bh, on the other hand, should normally be reserved as the reflex of Nostratic *p?f.

An oddity is that, although Bomhard lists a series of "Nostratic Sound Correspondences" on page 84 of the work being discussed, which includes an entry with equivalents for PN p', there are no entries in his dictionary beginning with PN p'. One can only wonder how equivalencies were determined! This, if no other circumstance, would make Bomhard's theory of voiced stops (optionally aspirated), contrasting with voiceless aspirated stops and voiceless glottalized stops, very suspect.

IE *b is so rare because the normal reflex of Nostratic *p? is *w (including after s-mobile), except in certain phonological environments. When pre-IE *b came into direct contact with a following liquid (l) or vibrant (r) as a result of the rightward shift of the stress-accent upon the addition of root-extensions, it appears as IE bh.

The root we have been discussing, Nostratic *p?ol-, therefore shows up in IE in two places: as (2.) *swel-, 'smolder', i.e. 'give off puffs of smoke'; and with suitable root-extensions, for example Germanic *k, gives us German welken, 'fade', which is related through the simplex to Dravidian in pular, 'fade, become weak'. Exceptionally, it also occurs rarely with Nostratic *p? retained as IE *b in (2.) *bel-, 'strong'.

When root-extensions have shifted the stress-accent off the root-syllable, as with the addition of imperfective FHA as a root-extension rather than an inflection, we get IE *bhle/o- from PL P?O-NHA as in (2.) *bhle:u, 'weak, wretched (sick)' [pre-IE **béle + u: -> *bhlé:u-]. That '(persisting in a state brought about by) panting' is the basal meaning of *bhle:u- is further confirmed by the adjective *bhle:-w-o-s, 'blue, gray', the color associated with exhaustion and shortness of breath ('blue in the face').

However, it should be borne in mind that Nostratic *p?ol- had a wider semantic range than just being restricting to 'being weak through panting', and the closely related 'blow' (Sumerian bul); it also encompassed the related idea of 'swelling up through puffing'. As a consequence, on the Nostratic level, *p?o-la also mean 'grow (through puffing up)'.

This meaning can be seen in Germanic *swaljan, which would go back to IE **(s)wel-y-, 'swell' as well as (2.) *bhlei, 'blow up, swell' with the continuative formant ¿E; and in Dravidian *pol-i-, 'increase'. The ultimate identity of these forms is confirmed by Sumerian bulug[~]₃, 'grow', which corresponds to IE *bhleu(-i)-, 'blow up, swell', with the formant F(H)A(-¿E), 'again', which produced a frequentative ('swell again and again' = 'grow').

I hope it has been shown probable to most readers that, for Nostratic, the ideas of 'puff (be exhausted), puff (blow)', and 'puff up (grow)', should all be subsumed under *p?o-la so that #14 should really include the nuances (except "to overflow") in #10 ("(10) PN *bul-/*bol- "to swell, to expand, to spread out, *to overflow, to puff up, to inflate"):

so we will amend:

(10 & 14)PN *p?ol- "to puff (up)"; PIE **bel-/*bol- "to puff", (2.) *bel-, "strong"; also occurring in (3.) *bhel-, "to blow up, to swell up, to grow", with derivatives in -u(:)(-i) and -i: *bhlei, "to blow up, to swell", and *bh(e)leu-, "to be weak, to be sick"; and in (2.) *swel-, "to smolder"; PAA in *bal-aH- "to become worn out"; in Egyptian fn, "to be weak, faint"; PD *pol- "to perish, to be weakened"; *pol-i-, "to increase"; Altaic *bo:lo/e-, "to be (as a result of "becoming, growing[?]"; cf. Mongolian *bol, "to become")"; Sumerian bul, "to blow"; bulug[~]₃ (assimilated from **bulag[~]₃), "to grow" (source: PL *P?O-NHA)

DISCUSSION: I think it is obvious that this is a separate root from #10/#12 on semantic grounds alone and the quality of the vowel seems fixed by Altaic *búli-, 'stir', the form found at Sergei Starostin's website. Since this root also was the basis of color-adjectives describing the hue of standing water when stirred, it also has the meaning 'muddy', i.e. 'dingy' or 'brownish'. We can relate Dravidian *pul-, 'dirty', to this secondary meaning. Now, on the basis of what has been argued above, we should expect Altaic **bol- and Dravidian *pol- if they were normal reflexes of Nostratic *p?o-la. Both Altaic *b and Dravidian *p can represent Nostratic p? and p?f; and in this case, I believe the affricate has developed into an aspirate, that, as we have hypothesized above, is responsible for raising *o to *u. Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FO-NHA, 'stick+move-back-and-forth' = 'stir'.

The IE cognate for this root is, as Bomhard surmises, similar to what Bomhard has specified. But rather than *b[h]lend[h]-, which, as we have seen above does not accurately reflect the initial consonant, we would write *bhlendh-. The formation is rather analytically transparent. A verb, pre-IE *p?fál(a)-, when attached by the individualizing suffix *-n, has become deverbalized to *p?flán-, 'a stirring-utensil', which, in turn, has been denominalized to *p?flándh- with the addition of a suffix related to IE *dhe:-, 'place, put' (PL *T?SE, 'extend') = 'extend a stirring-utensil into' = 'stir':

so we will amend:

(12)PN *p?fol- "to stir (up)"; PIE **bel-/**bol- "to stir", from which *bhlendh-/*bhlondh-/*bhlNdh- "to mix, to blend"; PAA *bal(-bal-) "to mix, to mix up, to confuse"; PA *búli-, "to stir"; PD *pul- "dirty"; Sumerian **pul₃, "to revolve" (a sign conventionally reading bala, and meaning "to revolve", also reads pul₃[?]); **pul(-pul), "to stagger" (a sign conventionally reading bul(-bul), and meaning "to stagger", also reads pul[?]) (source: PL *P?FO-NHA)

DISCUSSION: Several of the cognates suggested by Bomhard have already been assigned to different roots The key to decoding this root is Sumerian b/pil₂, 'to sprout'; and Dravidian *pil.-, 'crack, burst', which makes the semantic range precise. Rather than a 'swelling', we have a 'bushing out'. Even though we have the retroflex l. in Dravidian (from the backing effect of u in a form analogous to IE *bhleu-, 'swell'), I believe that the semantics of term require a reconstruction with PL NHE, 'worm, little'; and so we will reconstruct PL NHE rather than the now familiar NHA. Unfortunately, no suitable Uralic or Altaic cognates can be found at this time.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FE-NHE, 'extend-around+worm' = 'sprout':

so we will amend:

(11)PN *p?fel²- "(to) sprout"; PIE (4.) *bhel-/*bhol- "to shoot up, to sprout luxuriantly"; (1.) *(s)p(h)el- "to burst"; PAA *bal- "to bear fruit (?aballa)"; PD *pil.- "to crack (open), to burst (open)"; Sumerian **pil₂, "to sprout" (a sign conventionally reading bil₂, and meaning "to sprout", also reads pil₂[?]) (source: PL *P?FE-NHE)

DISCUSSION: We have seen above (#10 & #14) that when s-mobile is prefixed to a Nostratic root with initial p?, the normal IE reflex is w even though stress-de-accented forms show bh ((3.) *bhel-, "to blow up, to swell up, to grow", with derivatives in -u(:)(-i) and -i: *bhlei, "to blow up, to swell", and *bheleu-, "to be weak, to be sick"; and (2.) *swel-, 'smolder'). When s-mobile is prefixed to a Nostratic root with initial p?f, for which the normal IE reflex is bh, the s-mobile devoices bh to ph, usually written p(h): (1.) *bhel-/*bhol- "gleaming, white" and (2.) *(s)p(h)el- "to gleam, to shimmer". This is, of course, also the case with #11: ((4.) *bhel-/*bhol- "to shoot up, to sprout luxuriantly"; (1.) *(s)p(h)el- "to burst"). The retroflex l. of Dravidian *pal.- suggests a final of Nostratic lo, and, on semantic grounds, we will reconstruct lo. No suitable Uralic cognate could be presently found.

It is highly probable that the meanings under Bomhard's #13,

(13)PN *bal-/*b6l- "to be or become dark, obscure, blind" > PIE *b[h]lend[h]-/*b[h]lond[h]-/*b[h]lNd[h]- "to make blind, to blind"; PAA *bal-/*b6l- "to be blind"; Altaic: Mongolian balai "dark, obscure, ignorant; intellectually or morally blind; stupid", balar "dark, obscure, blind, unclear, ignorant; primitive, primeval, dense, impenetrable"; Manchu balu "blind"

are all ultimately relatable to #11. In many cases of blindness, there is a cloudy whiteness of the eye so that a blind eye might be termed a white eye. The pre-IE root *bhál(a)-, 'white', when combined with the individualizing suffix *-n (PL NA), would have produced *bh(a)lán-, 'the white one' = 'blind eye'. IE *-dh (PL T?SA) is recognized as a formant of bodily parts (Greek ár-th-ro-n, 'joint, limb'; óuthar, 'udder' ) so its usage with *bhlán(dh)- would be normal.

While a blind eye is often 'white' in appearance (frequently from cataract), of course, its effect is to darken, obscure, or eliminate vision. Therefore, to have had one's eyes/vision 'whited' would have meant obscured or 'darkened', in a sense. And a key to understanding this tangled web is the reconstruction of Altaic *balu, 'sable', a very dark animal (the possibility that this term might have been transferred from the ermine whose transformation from summer brown to winter white mimics the progressive degeneration of the color of the eye in cataract blindness). However *balu is the form we should expect Nostratic *p?fal(o) to have had in Altaic. I conclude provisionally that this is the case, and that a term, which originally meant 'white (eye)' in Altaic has been transferred to darkened vision, hence 'dark'.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FA-NHO, 'prominent-stripe' = 'ray':

so we will amend:

(11 & 13)PN *p?fal^w- "(to radiate) ray(s)"; PIE (1.) *bhel-/*bhol- "gleaming, white"; (2.) *(s)p(h)el- "to gleam, to shimmer"; PAA *bal- "to shine, to be bright"; PD *pal.- "to shine, glitter"; PA *balu- **"dark" (from **"white" = "blind") (source: PL *P?FA-NHO)

DISCUSSION: Both Pokorny and Bomhard have been misled into thinking that the semantic association of "to overflow" is with "to swell up" when it is properly related to "to dampen". As a consequence, I have assigned Bomhard's root #10 the specialized meaning of "(to) damp(en)" since #14 is the proper placement for the other meanings of #10.

The Dravidian form, *pe:l.-, 'to defecate', probably is cognate through **'urinate', and the retroflex l. suggests a PL final of NHO. The expected reflex, **pil.- has probably been supplanted by an alternate form analogous to IE *bhlei-, 'overflow', when the following y dipthongizing the i to e and lengthening it to e:. No suitable Uralic cognate can be found at present.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?E-NHO, 'pour-out+slack' = 'damp':

so we will amend to replace #10:

(10)PN *p?el^w- "(to) damp(en)"; PIE **bel-/**bol-; (3.) *bhel-/*bhol- "**to overflow", incorrectly inferred from *bhleu-/*bhlou- "to blow up, to overflow, to flow"; back formation (which retained bh), probably *bholo- "steam, mist"; **wel-/**wol- "to dampen", in (2.) *welk- "moist, wet"; PAA *bal- "to dampen (balla)"; PD *pe:l.- "to defecate"; PA *byalu "dirt (probably better "mud")"; Sumerian cf. bi "to pour out" (cf. Dravidian *pi:- "excrement"; bid₃ "to defecate, to urinate"; biz "to pour out") (source: PL *P?E-NHO)

DISCUSSION: For reasons not to be understood, Bomhard has omitted a very well distributed root meaning 'to split'.

In a rather recognizable form, it can be seen in Sumerian bal, 'dig up', which is, of course, 'splitting the earth'.

The most straightforward reflex in IE is *wel-, 'wound'. In addition, there are the now familiar reflexes of the form *bh()l- plus root extensions derived from pre-IE **bel-. We are fortunate, in this case, to have an exceptional example of Nostratic *p? being retained as IE *b in Pokorny's (1.) *bel-, 'cut out, dig out, hollow out' (better 'split off').

The expected Dravidian reflex is *pal-; and, in fact, we do find this root in the meaning 'tooth'. Now, a tooth can be considered a 'splitter'; and what further suggests that it might be so semantically based is that derivatives of the root mean 'pickax' and 'harrow', both implements for splitting.

Uralic has *pala, 'bit, bite, to eat', which is the expected form; and *pala, 'spear, spit', which could also be justified semantically.

Now Altaic does have *pala (which apparently has the variant form *p'ala = **bala[?]), 'tooth' but the form we should expect is **bala. This might be a taboo deformation, or possibly the result of an influence from Uralic *pala; but, in any case, the discrepancy cannot be presently satisfactorily explained. In terms of semantic appropriateness, it is probable that Altaic *ba:li-, 'harm, wound', belongs here also since what are most wounds other an 'splits' in the flesh? It should be noticed that the length of the vowel is unexplained by this linking to Nostratic **p?al.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?A-NHA, 'split'-ingressive = 'start to split':

so we will amend to include an entry for 'to (begin to) split':

(Addition D)PN *p?al- "to (begin to) split"; PIE **bel-/**bol-; (1.) *bel-, "to cut out, to dig out, to hollow out"; (1.) *bhel-/*bhol- "flake", incorrectly inferred from *bh(e)leu-/*bh(e)lou- **"to split (cf. Old Icelandic blegdhe, "wedge")"; and *bhle/e:i-/*bhlo/o:i-/**bhli:- "**slit" in Russian blizná "break of threads in fabric", and Polish blizna "scar"; and *bhle/e:u-/*bhlo/o:u-/**bhlu:- "**flake" in Latvian blu:zga "skin which is becoming unattached"; back formation (which retained bh), probably *bholo- "flake" in Greek pholís, "scale"; (8.) *wel-/**wol- "wound"; PAA *bal- "to split (balata, balaga, balaqa, balâ)"; PD *pal- "tooth (if "splitter")"; possibly in *pa:>l- "seedling (if "splitter"[?]), from Sergei Starostin's website; PA *p/p'ala "tooth (from **bala, influenced by Uralic *pala[?])"; *ba:li- "harm, wound"; in *pà:li- "to be separated, divided"; Uralic *pala "bit, bite, to eat"; *pala "spear, spit"; Sumerian *bal "to dig out" (source: PL *P?A-NHA)

DISCUSSION: In order to explain IE *bheh^l-, 'evil', it will be necessary to digress shortly.

Bomhard characterizes this root as meaning 'say, speak' but the derivatives make clear that the additional nuance of acoustic volume is what distinguishes it from other roots that do mean simply 'speak', i.e. Egyptian j, 'say'; Sumerian e, 'speak'. This can be demonstrated first by Arabic bahala, 'curse', the extended form of **baha- on which Bomhard bases his comparison. 'Cursing' is not usually done sotto voce. And though Arabic does not display the simplex **baha-, it is the basis for Egyptian bjbj, 'acclamation', another vocal activity characterized by loudness. Even IE *bha:- (*bhaH-) suggests loudness by being associated with public meetings and public announcements. It should be noticed here that the "laryngeal" lengthens a preceding a without "coloring" it. However, the added qualification of loudness is not immediately detectable in Sumerian be₂ (for **pê₂; it is my belief that Nostratic affricates yielded Sumerian aspirated voiceless stops while simple stops became voiced stops; Sumerian e, i.e. **ê is a result of a/â+i), 'speak, say', a derivative of Nostratic *p?fahey-, 'shouting' (IE *bha:i- [Anglo-Saxon bo:ian, 'speak']). One can also wonder if the English interjection bah, signifying contempt or disapproval, is somehow distantly related (see below under *p?fahel-)

Though we are unable to find the simplex in Dravidian, a *pa(:)-, 'be loud', may be possibly be analyzed from *pan.-, 'command, speak, send', which is cognate with IE *bhen-, 'command', listed (incorrectly) as a derivative of *bha:- ( see below). It will be noted that commands are frequently given in a louder than normal voice (Nostratic *p?fah(y)n-; PL *P?FA-HE-NO; 'be loud' + NO = '(what is) put in' = 'content of being loud, command'.

There is an Altaic root, *bája, 'happiness, joy', that may be related as denoting 'loud celebration', but this is far from certain.

No suitable Uralic cognate can be found at this time.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FA-HE, 'prominent'+'move-across-from' = 'to leave prominently, be loud':

so we will amend #21:

(21)PN *p?fah^y- "to shout"; PIE (2.) *bha:- (*bhaH-) "to speak (publicly)"; PAA *bah- "to shout (bahala "to curse")"; in Egyptian bjbj "acclamation"; PD **pa(:)-, "be loud"; PA perhaps in *bája "happiness, joy (="loud celebration"[?]); Sumerian pa₁₀ "speak loudly" (the sign reading ŠI also reads pa₁₀, and means, among other things, "speak"); in be₂ (for **pê₂ [another reading for the sign read be₂] from PN *p?fahey [PL P?FA-HE-¿E]), "to speak, to say" (source: PL *P?FA-HE)

DISCUSSION: Now we may finally make an attempt to analyze the concepts involved in the proposed IE *bheleu-, 'evil', which, on the Illich-Svitych website referenced above, is reconstructed as *bheh^l-. We have already seen above that the reputed Altaic cognate root, *ba:li, or *byá:l^y(ch)a (with changes in orthography for the web), 'harm, wound', as Sergei Starostin would have it, probably belongs better under (Addition D) PN *p?al, '(begin to) split', discussed above.

We will propose for Illich-Svitych' Nostratic *baHli, 'wound, pain', as a basis for IE *bheleu-, 'evil', rather Nostratic *p?fah^(y)l-, 'curse', with the addition of Nostratic *-u (PL *FHA-, frequentative: *p?fah^(y)lu-, 'repeatedly curse(d)'.

The Sumerian situation is less straightforward. The phrase aš₂ . . . bal means 'to curse'; interestingly, aš₂ is written with a combination of two signs, the first of which reads pa₁₀, and the second reading bal/pal. I think it quite likely that the reading aš₂ should be amended, in such contexts, to pal_x meaning 'curse'. And the sign reading bal/pal also means 'sacrifice, speak', the former of which is a context that, at least, suggests 'loud speaking'. Note also, that the second word of this phrase is bal, which, among other things, means 'pour out'. Now the phrase could be paraphrased as 'pour out a curse'; or, perhaps we should read pal (probably better **pâl), and paraphrase 'curse a curse'. Surprisingly, John Halloran does not include a reading for pal at his Sumerian Lexicon website; nor, for that matter, for pa₁₀, which we have theorized above may be the Sumerian reflex of Nostratic p?fah^(y)-.

No suitable Uralic, Dravidian, nor Altaic cognate can be found at present.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FA-*HE-NHA, 'prominent'+'move-across-from'+ingressive = 'start to leave prominently, start being loud = to curse':

so we will amend to include an entry for 'to be cursed, evil':

(Addition E)PN *p?fah^(y)l(u)- "to be cursed, evil"; PIE **bhe(:)lu-/**bho(:)lu-, with transferral of the stress-accent: (2.) *bhle:u-/*bhlo:u-/*bhlu:- "weak, wretched" ; PAA *bahal- "to curse"; also, probably with deletion of the medial h: balâ "to afflict" ?a-ball-un, "wicked"; in Egyptian bjn "evil"; Sumerian **pâl "to curse" (source: PL *P?FA-HE-NHA(FHA))

DISCUSSION: One of the purposes of these last few examples is to illustrate the inadvisability of following Bomhard's proposal that IE voiced stops should be considered to have been optionally aspirated. It has been shown that Nostratic *p? normally yields IE w while Nostratic *p?f normally has IE bh so that Bomhard's reconstruction of PN b for both makes no sense. This distinction is discernible in Egyptian as well where Nostratic *p? yields Egyptian p or f while Nostratic *p?f always has Egyptian b. This root is a perfect example of this since Nostratic *p?en (Bomhard's PN *bin^y-) is found in Hittite wen-, 'have intercourse with'; and Arabic banâ, 'inseminate', suggests strongly to me that the basic semantic concept here is 'production by (conjugal) fertilization'.

A possible cognate in Sumerian is pin, an alternate reading of apin, 'seeder plow'; could the pin-element mean simply 'inseminator'?

Bomhard cites a Dravidian form *pin.- "to unite, to tie, to fasten; to twist or tie together", which cannot be found at Sergei Starostin's website. It appears, however, that Starostin reconstructs *pon.- for the meaning 'join', also with derivatives meaning 'copulate'. In view of Uralic *puna-, 'plait', I believe we are dealing with yet another root evidenced by IE *wen-, 'swelling', and (1.) *wendh-, 'plait', that has as its basis a Nostratic root of the form *p?on- (PL *P?O-NO, 'swell+store' = 'swelling', that referred to the ripples on the surface of a plaited fabric. This is the basis for Bomhard's root #28, which we will treat below.

Bomhard's inclusion of *pinn-, ' plait, braid, twist together', should also be noticed. Firstly, Bomhard does not include an underlined [n] among the phonemes to be reconstructed for Dravidian so this notation is enigmatic; especially so, as Bomhard has refused to discuss or defend his work. However, McAlpin, whom Bomhard cites as a source, uses [n] to indicate an "alveolar (n) variant which may be partially in contrast" with dental [n] and retroflex [n.]. The doubled phoneme indicates, most likely, a phoneme which has been assimilated to the preceding [n]. Hittite wen-, 'have intercourse with', mentioned in the next paragraph, has a variant went-, which indicates an apical formant that may represent IE -dh. If this is correct, then Dravidian *pinn- would represent *pin.- + -t, and the apical quality of -t may have modified the retroflex -n. to an alveolar -n position; in which case, Dravidian *pinn- would be an analogous formation to IE *wendh-, 'plait'. We can believe that IE *wendh-, in addition to being derived from Nostratic *p?ol(o)-t?s, meaning 'plait', also represents Nostratic *p?el(o)t?s-, and designated 'sexual intercourse' in Hittite; and was a metaphor for the rhythmic insertion that characterizes 'plaiting' as well. In this connection, it might be prudent to notice IE *bend-, 'jutting point', which is the basis for words meaning 'penis' (e.g. AS pintel); this might mean that Hittite went- is derived from this root. Of course, this is all the purest speculation; and it seems wise, in the absence of evidence that would help us achieve some higher probability for our guesses, to not rely heavily on this entry.

As for a relationship with IE *bhendh-, 'bind', I am very skeptical. Although there are derivatives that are associated with the bond of marriage, it seems to me that Bomhard is here confusing the preliminary event with the final outcome. Also, I can see no justification for Nostratic p? appearing in this instance as IE bh. I think it is safest to connect this root with IE *wen (from **ben-), as evidenced by Hittite wen(t)-, 'have intercourse with'.

No appropriate Uralic or Altaic cognate seems to be presently available.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?E-NO, 'pour-out+put-in' = 'inseminate':

so we will amend to replace #26 rev.:

(26 rev.)PN *p?en^w- "to inseminate"; PIE **ben-/**bon-; (1.) *wen-/*won- "to inseminate", in Hittite wen- "to have intercourse with"; PAA *ban- "to construct, to build, to erect (a house), to inseminate (banâ)"; PD *pin.- "to entwine, to twist"; *pinn- "to plait, to braid, to twist together"[?]; Sumerian possibly in pin (for **bin_x) "to inseminate[?]", an alternate reading or element of apin "seeder-plow" (source: PL *P?E-NO)

DISCUSSION: One of the clearest examples of PL *P?A, 'split', is in its simplest (stative) form: *P?A-?A, 'separate, apart'.

No suitable Uralic cognate can be found at this time though *pacha, 'separate', may be related through another suffix or element, the nature of which remains to be determined.

In the sense of 'deprived ('separated from something necessary')', there is IE *wa:i-, 'weak, wretched', which is simply an adjective from *wa:-; this root also provides, with the addition of a deprecative suffix, the basis for Welsh gwael, 'poorly, low' (Nostratic *p?a?y l^y-); and, with an iterative suffix, perhaps (1.) *wa:t-, 'emotionally excited (Nostratic *p?a?t-), which may be reflected in Arabic ba?at.a, 'recline quietly on one's side, neglect (if 'be repeatedly separated from')'.

It is likely that Dravidian *pi:l-, 'weak', represents Nostratic *p?a?yl^y-, corresponding to IE *wa:il-.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?A-?A, 'split'+stative = 'separated, apart':

so we will amend to include Addition F:

(Addition F)PN *p?a?- "to be separated"; PIE (2.) *wa:- (*waH-) "to be separated, to be apart"; in *wa:i- (*waHy-) "weak, wretched", and with the further extension -l: *wa:il- (*waHyl-) "weak, poor"; *wa:t-, "to be emotionally excited (if "to be separated from")"; PAA **ba?- "to be separated" (Akkadian bî?a, "hole"; in Arabic ba?îl-un "small, wretched, paltry [if "to be deprived of"]"; ba?aTa "to recline quietly on one's side, neglect [if "to be disassociated from"]"); PD in *pa:j- "to separate, to part, to comb"; *pi:l- "weak"; PA in *p'a:ji "part"; Sumerian ba "piece; to divide"; in be₂ (for bê₂ = PN *p?a?y-) "to diminish, to lessen" (source: PL *P?A-?A)

DISCUSSION: After having finally acknowledged a dorsal nasal for Nostratic, it seems Bomhard is still reluctant to use it in a Nostratic reconstruction. Starostin reconstructs Dravidian *pong-, 'swell', with no segmentation; and this is almost certainly a better reconstruction than Bomhard's *pon^.(-)k- . And his segmentation of IE *bhen(-)g^h- is unsupported by any IEist of whom I am aware. The final proof of this mistake is Arabic baqbûq-at-un, 'bubble, blister', which shows the underlying Nostratic root is *p?ong-; and I reconstruct PL *P?O-QO, 'swell-ball' = 'blister, boil'.

The form we would expect in Egyptian for PL P?O-QO is **fg, and Egyptian fg-3, 'defecate', may be related as a 'letting fall' (*RHE) of something on the order of 'road-apples'.

Bomhard's PFU *pungka, *pongka, 'rounded protuberance, lump', is provisionally acceptable (though I cannot locate a source for it) for Nostratic *p?ong- but not for *p?on- (Bomhard's *bun-).

If we are correct in reconstructing this additional root as Nostratic *p?ong-, its anticipated IE form would be **weng-, which is probably represented by Pokorny *we-n-g-, 'be bowed', which provides Albanian vegëlë, 'handle'. And in this context, Uralic *pang(ka)-, 'handle', may be of interest even though the anticipated form would be **ponga, perhaps related to Bomhard's *pongka.

Bomhard's PD *ponk- (which Starostin's website has as *pong-), 'increase, swell, expand', is probably cognate with this root; also, there is Dravidian *pong-, 'smoke', may be — in the sense of 'billows'.

So far as I have been able to determine, there is no Sumerian bun₃ however bun and bun₂ both are attested in the meaning 'blister' along with the commoner meaning 'bellows' and 'be swollen'. However, we would expect Nostratic final ng to show up in Sumerian as g so this word must be referred to Nostratic *p?on-, 'swelling', discussed below; leaving no suitable Sumerian cognate.

On this basis, we must amend by including an entry for this Nostratic root:

(Addition G)PN *p?ong^w- "blister, boil"; PIE *we-n-g- (for *weng-) "be bowed"; note Albanian vegëlë "handle" ; PAA *baq- "blister"; possibly in Egyptian fg-3 "defecate"[?]; PD *ponk- (which Starostin's website has as *pong-), "to increase, to swell, to expand"; *pong-, "smoke"[?]; Uralic *pang(ka)- {for **ponga[?]}"handle"; PFU *pungka, *pongka "rounded protuberance, lump" (source: PL *P?O-QO

But, of course, it would be pleasant to be able to account for IE *bheng^h-, 'fat, thick, dense'. First, we may notice Arabic and baqq-un, 'stout, broad'. And Egyptian b3g, 'thick (of fluids)'. This is a rather late attestation, and I believe the medial [3] is merely indicating a long /a:/; a variant spelling of bg does exist in the meaning 'be weary'. If this Egyptian word is cognate, then our initial consonant is doubly confirmed to be Nostratic *p?f rather than *p?. Accordingly, we reconstruct PL *P?FA-QO, 'prominent-sack' = 'fat'. No suitable Sumerian, Altaic, and Dravidian cognate can presently be identified. And we must amend by including an entry for this Nostratic root:

(Addition H)PN *p?fang^w- "fat"; PIE *bheng^h- "fat, thick, dense"; PAA *baq- "fat"; possibly in Egyptian b(3)g "thick (of liquids)"; Uralic perhaps *pang(ka)- "handle" (source: PL *P?FA-QO

I have explained my thoughts on the relationship of 'swelling' to 'plait' above.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?O-NO, 'swell-store' = 'swelling'.

The IE formation is rather analytically transparent: a verb, pre-IE *bón(o)-, with the addition of a suffix related to IE *dhe:-, 'place, put' (PL *T?SE, 'extend') became 'extend swelling(s)' = 'plait':

so we will amend:

(28)PN *p?on^w- "swelling"; PIE **wen-/**won-, "swelling", from which *wendh-/*wondh-/*wNdh- "to plait"; PU *puna- "to plait"; PD *pon.- "to join"; in *pun.-ud- "boil, wound"; Sumerian bun and bun₂ "blister; to be swollen" (source: PL *P?O-NO)

The word for 'command' is reconstructed by Pokorny as IE *bhen- even though he mistakenly included it under (2.) *bha:-, 'speak', from which *bhen cannot be normally derived.

We also have Dravidian *pan.-, 'command, speak, send', which establishes the vocalic quality; and Dravidian retroflex n. indicates Nostratic *no as the original final syllable.

No suitable Altaic, Afrasian, Sumerian nor Uralic cognate can be found at this time.

In spite of the poor distribution of this hypothetical root, I am going to include it provisionally.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FA-NO, 'prominent'+put-inside = 'important content' = 'command':

so we will amend to include Addition I:

(Addition I)PN *p?fan^w-[?] "to command"; PIE *bhen-, "to command", listed incorrectly under (2.) *bha:-, "to speak"; PD in *pan.- "to command, speak, send" (source: PL *P?FA-NO)

DISCUSSION: I believe there are two roots involved in this entry. There is the simplex, Nostratic *p?fow-, which means simply 'arrive (on foot), walk to'; and a form expanded by the stative suffix PL *?A, Nostratic *p?fowa?-, which describes the result of arrival: 'be arrived (on foot), stay'.

The IE form reconstructed by Pokorny includes *bheu-, i.e., a form without the final "laryngeal", which Bomhard strangely ignores (in spite of Old Indian bhavati, 'happens'). This is the proper IE root to accord with the simplex.

Orel and Stobova recognize a Hamito-Semitic root *baw-, 'walk, go', and *baw-, 'place', which I believe is better regarded as the 'destination' contemplated by the activity of 'walking (to)', though *baw-, 'house', may be a simple nominal form based on PL *P?FO-FA, 'stick'+small definite plural = 'set of sticks' = 'twig-shelter'. I also believe that this postulated root would have been distinguished from 'arrive (on foot), walk to', by a tonal accent: Nostratic *p?fów-, 'twig-shelter' vs. *p?fòw-, 'arrive (on foot), walk to', which I have explained in some detail elsewhere.

I am reluctant to include Sumerian BU under this root but there is a bu₅, 'move about', which seems very appropriate. BU will be discussed below as a reflex of Nostratic *p?fowa?-.

I am also reluctant to include PD *po:-, 'go, proceed, go away, reach a destination; spend time, pass away', because, in my estimation, the form reflects a stative form: Nostratic *p?fo?-, meaning 'walked', presumably primarily interpreted as 'gone away' without a specific destination envisaged. Orel and Stobova reconstruct such a root (*ba?-) for Hamito-Semitic, which is an alternate form for 'walk, go' with the above-mentioned *baw- and, additionally, *bay-. The anticipated IE form would be *bho:-, and it may be possible that some meanings of (2.) *bho:-, a particle of asseveration and emphasis, may be relatable to the idea of 'gone away, proceeded'. More appropriate might be the idea of 'without' provided by IE *bhe- though we should expect **bho:-. Additionally, Dravidian *po:- is mentioned by Starostin to be regularly combined with velar formatives ([*k] that may relate to an alternate IE form of *bhe-: *bheg^h-; and Tamil *po:k- is used as a negative particle (possibly with the addition of PL *K?XE, 'empty out'). Although the evidence is slight for reconstructing this root for Nostratic, I will include it anyway in the hope that additional cognates may, some time, be identified.

No Altaic, Sumerian nor Uralic cognate is presently identifiable.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FO-?A, 'walk'+stative' = 'be gone away':

I amend to include this root:

(Addition J)PN *p?fo?- "to be gone away"; PIE *bhe-/*bho- (for **bhoH- [**bho:-]) "outside of, outside, without"; (2.) *bhe:-/*bho:- (for **bhoH- [**bho:-]), particle of asseveration and emphasis; PAA *ba?- "to go away"; in Egyptian m bj "no"; bj (written b + single stroke), in reference to 'desert' ("outside"[?]); PD *po:- "to go, to proceed, to go away, to reach a destination; to spend time, to pass away"; S **pu (for **pû) "to go away" (a sign which means "to go away", and is normally read gid₂, sir₂, and bur₁₂ [for pur_x{?}] all with this meaning, also reads pu) (source: PL *P?FO-?A)

Now we may proceed to discuss the amendations to Nostratic *p?fow-, 'arrive (on foot), walk to'.

Sumerian bur₁₀ means 'move about'. The same sign is recorded reading bu₅. If we assume, as I do, that related roots could share the same sign, it is not reasonable to hypothesize that this sign meaning 'move about' may have had a additional reading of bu₅, which has the right meaning but, according to our proposed scheme of correspondences, the expected form would be **pû. However, it is well-known that the majority of Sumerian roots which have a voiced stop form have alternate readings with a voiceless stop. For example, this same sign has the readings bul and pul ('blow; ignite, kindle; sprout'). In view of these facts, I hypothesize that there might well have been a Sumerian **pu meaning 'move about'.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FO-FA, 'walk'+do repeatedly = 'walk to' = 'arrive on foot':

and we amend:

(8)PN *p?fow- "to arrive (on foot), to walk to"; PIE *bhew-/*bhow- "to arise, to be (at)"; PAA *baw- "to arrive" (in Arabic bauwa?a, "to come and stay in a place"); in Egyptian bw "place" (better "destination"); S bu₅[?] (for **pû_x[?]) "to move about"[?] (source: PL *P?FO-FA)

I am unable to find any responsible source for Bomhard's cited Sumerian BU, 'reach or arrive at a destination; come upon, meet, encounter', which presumably would represent Nostratic *p?fowa?-. I would amend BU to **pu (i.e. **pû), another reading of the same sign; and though this proposed form (as amended) and meaning accords with my hypothetical assignment of meaning for PN *p?fowa?-, I am reluctant to include it but will do so indicated as doubtful.

Though I have mentioned above that I am reluctant to include PD *po:-, 'go, proceed, go away, reach a destination; spend time, pass away', under Nostratic *p?fowa?- (I would expect **pu:-) because, in my estimation, the form reflects a stative form: Nostratic *p?fo?-, meaning 'walked', the semantics do line up very well; and I will include it provisionally based on the thought that the expected form may later turn up with the required meaning.

With the addition of the stative suffix, we amend to include:

(Addition K)PN *p?fowa?- "to be arrived on foot, to stay"; PIE in *bhewH-/*bhowH-/*bhuH- (> *bhu:-) "to spend time, to abide, to dwell"; PAA *bawa?- "to arrive" (Arabic bauwa?a, "to come and stay in a place"); PD *po:- (for *pu:-[?]) "to go, to proceed, to go away, to reach a destination; to spend time, to pass away"[?]; S BU (better pû[?]) "to reach or arrive at a destination; to come upon, to meet, to encounter"[?] (source: PL *P?FO-FA-?A)

DISCUSSION: I believe that sensitive analysis can isolate several roots here. We will identify *p?few-, 'flourish', below; and some of the meanings of root #9 are probably better relatable to root #8 above, *p?fow- 'arrive (on foot), walk to'; however, I believe the major element under this entry should be reconstructed as *p?ow-, 'grow'. This is yet another example of the faulty method that reconstructs PN *buw- for both *p?ow-, 'grow'; *p?fow-, 'arrive (on foot), walk to'; and *p?few-, 'flourish'.

The Nostratic from *p?ow- should yield IE **wew-/**wow- by the correspondences we have exemplified above; but, if the congruity of *l inhibited the change from pre-IE *b to *w as seen in (roots 10 & 14) *p?ol-, 'puff (up)', above; so also did the proximity of *w in the following syllable (or as a syllabic final). Therefore, all three of these Nostratic roots became IE *bhew-/*bhow-. Although Bomhard cites "PAA *baw-/*b6w- "to be or become full, filled; to become large"", there is no trace of this root in Orel-Stobova; and I am unable to independently verify it. The only possibility I know may be to analyze Arabic ?abû-n, 'father', as consisting of the Nostratic elements *?a, 'family' + *p?ow-, 'grown thing' = 'phallus' = 'father' (alternate form: *?a, 'family' + *p?o-, 'swell thing' = 'phallus'; in Egyptian jf, 'father'); corresponding to *?am(a), *?a, 'family' + *ma-, 'breast' = 'mother'. On this basis, I will include the root but mark it as questionable.

Bomhard's "PD *pu:- "to bloom, to blossom, to flower, to flourish"" is, I believe, better assigned to Nostratic *p?few-, 'flourish'. There is, therefore, no suitable Dravidian cognate for this root.

Bomhard cites PU *puva, 'tree, wood', as belonging to this root, is not listed in Décsy. Pekka Sammalahti does list a similar form, *pu/o/äxI/i, 'tree'⁽⁴⁾. This seems very likely to be the Nostratic *p?fow-, 'set of sticks', indentical in form to PL *P?FO-FA, 'stick'+small definite plural = 'set of sticks' = 'twig-shelter'. Accordingly, I will not include it among the cognates.

The Altaic form Bomhard cites, "PA *büi- "to become, to arise, to come into being, to increase, to grow"", is another mystery form since it is not found in Starostin's Altaic etymological base for any of the meanings Bomhard gives. I will therefore omit it.

The Eskimo and Inuit forms are most likely to be related to 'grow', and are included.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?O-FA, 'swell'+do repeatedly' = 'grow':

On this basis, we must amend:

(9)PN *p?ow- "to grow"; PIE in *bew-/*bow- > *bhew-/*bhow- "to grow"; PAA *baw- "to grow"[?]; S **bu₁₀ "to grow" (sign which reads bulug[~]₃, "to grow", also reads bu₁₀); PE *puv6- "to swell"; PI *puvala- "to be fat"; *puvliq- "to swell up" (source: PL *P?O-FA)

DISCUSSION: Firstly, we have opted for the Eskimo and Inuit forms being properly a part of root #39, so they will not appear below.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *PHO-FHA, 'exhale'+do repeatedly = 'blow (up)':

It is utterly pointless to speculate about aspirated and unaspirated non-glottalized stops as Bomhard does for the simple reason that all Afrasian cognates show as a reflex Arabic f, a very unlikely possibility for Nostratic unaspirated **p but a natural development for Nostratic aspirated *ph. I believe IE *ph, where it is rarely preserved, is a differential reflex in some IE languages for Nostratic *phf, a voiceless labial affricate, contrasting with IE *p from Nostratic *ph. Since the distinction is not always apparent in IE, it can be determined which of the two Nostratic labials are involved by finding an Egyptian cognate, which will show b for both Nostratic *p?f and *phf but p and f for Nostratic *p? or *ph. Also, Sumerian should show b for both Nostratic *p? and *ph but p for Nostratic *p?f or *phf.

Strangely, Hamito-Semitic *paw-, 'blow up', is not in Orel-Stobova although it is clearly the basis for a number of Arabic words beginning with f-w-, for some of which, see the amended entry below.

No Uralic cognate can be presently found but a cognate can be identified on the Finno-Ugric level (Sammallahti): *puwi-, 'blow', a form, which we shall see below, also means 'behind', which I presume relates to the characteristics of the anus. I shall replace Bomhard's *puwa with it.

The defining characteristic of flatulation is not the passage of audible air but the attendant odor. In view of the fact that IE (1.) *pew/*pow-/*pu- also means 'rot, stink', it is more appropriate to consider "PD *pu:- "to fart"" prima facie as belonging there. No Dravidian root corresponding in form and meaning 'blow (up)' can currently be identified.

On this basis, we must amend:

(34)PN *phow- "to blow (up)"; PIE (1.) *pew/*pow-/*pu- "to puff, to puff up, to blow"; PK *p[h]u- "to swell, to puff up, to inflate"; PAA *paw "to puff, to blow, to exhale" (in Arabic fâqa [f-w-q], "to gasp"; fâkha [f-w-kh], "to blow"; PFU *puwi- "to blow"; S bu_(2,5) "to blow; to brag ("to inflate")" (source: PL *PHO-FHA)

DISCUSSION: It is possible that Sumerian **bu₁₀, 'grow', may also shade into 'flourish', and be representing a theoretical **pu_x [i.e. **pü:]) but there is no compelling evidence to assume this; so, for this root, no Sumerian equivalent will be offered.

Also, no suitable Altaic nor Uralic cognate is identifiable currently.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FE-FA, 'extend-around+do-repeatedly' = 'flourish':

so we will amend:

(Addition L)PN *p?few- "to flourish"; PIE *bhew-/*bhow- "to flourish"; *(s)p(h)eu-/*(s)p(h)ou- "to flourish", listed mistakenly under **(s)p(h)eu-d- "to press" (in AS spo:wan, "to flourish"); *(s)p(h)eu-/*(s)p(h)ou- "to flourish", listed mistakenly under **(s)p(h)e:(i)- "to flourish" (in OHG spuon, "to succeed"); PD *pu:- "to bloom, to blossom, to flower, to flourish" (source: PL *P?FE-FA)

DISCUSSION: Presumably on the basis that Pokorny reconstructs the same form for (1.) *pu/u:-, 'blow up', as he does for (2.) *pu/u:-, 'rot, stink', Bomhard does not reconstruct a Nostratic root separate from #34, which we have amended to PN *phow-, "to blow (up)", for 'stink'. However, the identity is not complete. And Pokorny reconstructs a basis of *p(h)u-k- for Armenian p'uk', 'breath, wind, flatulation'. Any indication of IE *ph is, in my opinion, grounds for suspecting Nostratic *phf (as opposed to IE *p for Nostratic *ph).

Obviously, IE *phew- seems to be connected with both meanings so a possible assignment of Nostratic *phf to one of the roots (if they can be differentiated) cannot be made on the basis of the IE data.

However, we argued above that Nostratic *ph would show up as either Egyptian p or f, and we can now refine that by saying that Nostratic *pha or Nostratic *phe will appear as p in an Egyptian cognate while Nostratic *pho will appear as Egyptian f.

Nostratic *phfV will show up as Egyptian b.

An Egyptian cognate is readily available. Egyptian bw, 'abominate', has, as a determinative in the oldest Egyptian a sign which can convincingly recognized as depicting a 'piece of ground' with two 'mushrooms' growing out of it. There are probably few things in nature which suggest 'rot' more eloquently to the nose than many mushrooms. Another determinative used with bw is the normal determinative for 'fish', which portrays a Petrocephalus bane bane, 'elephant-fish'; and which also occurs for smells associated with fish or those generally unpleasant, e.g. xnš, 'stink'; bs.w, 'morbid discharges'. A second fish determinative employed with it is the oxyrhynchus (Mormyrus kannume), another mormyrid ('hideous to behold'). This fish is used as a determinative for Egyptian X3.t, 'oxyrhynchus, corpse, heap of corpses, disease, marsh'; and Egyptian X3 may be derived from Nostratic *xor- as I have argued above. This semantic spread also suggests strongly the idea of unpleasant aroma.

As a further indication, ancient Egyptian bw, 'abomination', also occurs later as bw.t in the same meaning. On the other hand, IE has *pu:-t-i-, 'rot' and *pu/u:-to-, 'podex, cunnus'. This common [t] represents PL *THO, a collective.

Another formant used with this root is Nostratic *t?, which can be seen Hamito-Semitic *fut-, 'vomit' (Orel-Stobova) [also in *fVt-, 'feel aversion' (Orel-Stobova), which corresponds to IE *peu-d- in MHG vut, 'cunnus'. This would be Nostratic *phfewa:t?, 'stink' (*PHFE-FHA-T?A, 'stink'+move repeatedly = 'rot'+'give'='stink'. .

With this constellation of circumstances, I believe it is not unwise to assume that the 'abomination' denoted by Egyptian bw is primarily, at least, of an olfactory nature; and it seems permissible to understand it as meaning originally 'rot(ting)'.

Strangely, Orel-Stobova reconstructs this root as *fiwah.-, 'smell, blow'. Thus, they make the same mistake that Pokorny and Bomhard have done; and compound it by reconstructing Hamito-Semitic *f rather than *p for the initial. This is done, presumably, because Semitic *p normally corresponds to a West Chadic reflex of *p but some Semitic *p (those grouped under Hamito-Semitic *f) show a West Chadic correspondence of *f. I cannot rewrite the Orel-Stobova dictionary but I would defend the idea that the entries under Hamito-Semitic *f generally represent derivations from my Nostratic *ph while surprisingly, perhaps, the entries under Hamito-Semitic *p represent my Nostratic *phf; and, that, entries like *fiwah.- should be arranged under *p_2?.

Hamito-Semitic *h. represents Nostratic *HH; and it seems incontrovertible that this formant was used with both roots. The most likely PL source is *HHA, 'water'. So, it appears that we are dealing with a moisture-laden exhalation ('blow') on the one hand [='breath'], and a redolent damp exudation ('rot') on the other hand [='fetid pus'; note also, with the addition of PL *SE, 'excrete': IE **p(h)u:s-, 'pus'; Egyptian b(w[?])z.w, 'morbid discharges']. When this formant was added to Nostratic *phféwa-, it became *phfwáhh(a)-, and pre-IE *phwáH-, becoming IE *phuH-, which accounts for the forms of *p(h)u- with a long vowel: *p(h)u:-

One word for 'stink' in Sumerian is hab (which I equate with IE *g^wa:bh-, 'indentation', advocated by Frick but only mentioned in Pokorny, which I propose to be an unrecognized meaning for hab, i.e. 'cesspit'.This would represent PL *XA-*?A-P?FE, 'slit-stative=slitted+place'='cesspit'.) This same sign to write it also reads pu₂, 'well'; and, in ancient days, there was an inevitable connection between wells and bad smells. Interestingly, IE has the root *pe:u-, which provides the base for Latin puteus, 'well'.We will assume that the reason for the reading pu₂ is that this term for 'well', which is what the sign depicts, happened to be homonymous with another pu₍₂₎, which meant 'stink'; and the word hab, 'stink', written with this sign because the sign primarily reads pu₂, which also meant 'stink'.

No Uralic cognate can be presently found but a cognate can be identified on the Finno-Ugric level: *puwi- (Sammallahti), 'behind', a form, which we might now expect also means 'blow'.

In this connection, it might be interesting to note IE *pos-, 'behind', may be derived from a theoretical Nostratic *phfes^(y)- (PL *PHFE-SE, 'stink-excretion'='stinking thing, do something which produces a stink') seen in Bomhard's roots #62 (*p^[h]as^[y]-, "penis") and #42 (*p^[h]as^[y]-, "to fart"), which he seems to be unable to separate from a Nostratic *phos^(y)- (PL *PHO-SE, 'puff-excrete'='blow out, exhale') — by way of '(place of )stinking thing' = 'podex' = 'behind'.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *PHFE-FHA, 'stink'+move repeatedly = 'rot'.

On this basis, we must amend to include:

(Addition M)PN *phfew- "to rot"; PIE (1.) *phew/*phow-/*phu- "to rot, to stink"; PAA **paw (Orel-Stobova: *fiwah.-)"to rot" (in Arabic fâHa [f-w-H], "to diffuse perfume"; fâja [f-w-j], "to spread perfume"; tafauwa¿a [f-w-¿], "to vomit"; fâgha [f-w-gh], "to diffuse itself"; in Egyptian bw[.t], "abomination ["rotting thing"] {cf. Arabic fût.a-tun, "waist-wrapper"}"); PFU *puwi- "behind [if = "relating to the {position of the} anus"{?}]"; PD *pu:- "to fart"; S pu₂ "to stink"[?] (source: PL *PHFE-FHA)

DISCUSSION: Above, we have amended Bomhard's list to include Addition L, and reconstructed PN *p?few-, 'flourish'. It might be of interest to know that a contrasting form with the aspirated affricate *phf (*phfew) can also be reconstructed for Nostratic.

The root can be easily found in IE as (1.) *pew-/*pow-/*pew6-/*pu/u:-, "to clean, to purify, to sift".

It quite possibly is also represented by root #1912 in Orel-Stobova, which lists *paw-, 'split, tear (into pieces)', if this can be understood as the result of repeated rubbing..

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *PHFE-FHA, 'scuff'+do repeatedly = 'rub (off)'.

Because the cognates are comparatively few, in order to attempt to bolster the evidence for *PHFE, 'scuff', we will include in this section another root, PL *PHFE-NA, 'scuff-down+thing/rock' = '(grain-)rubber'.

Although no Uralic root can be found, it is of interest to note Finno-Ugric *pänV-, 'grind' (Sammallahti).

The data for Nostratic *phfen- will be included under a separate entry.

On this basis, we must amend to include:

(Addition N)PN *phfew- "to rub (off)"; PIE (1.) *pew-/*pow-/*pew6-/*pu/u:-, "to clean, to purify, to sift"; PAA *paw "to split, to tear (into pieces); to grind up"[?], perhaps in Egyptian bwbw, "seed or grain offering"; PA in *pio:-po- "to cut through, to grind"; PD *pu:-, "to rub, to smear"; S perhaps bu_(3,6) (for *pu), "to tear up, to tear out" (source: PL *PHFE-FHA)

and

(Addition O)PN *phfen- "(grain-)rubber, quern"; PIE (1.) *pen-, "to (force-)feed"; (1.) s)p (**h)en-(d)-/*(s)p (**h)on-(d)-/*(s)p (**h)N(d)- , "**to press" in Latvian spiêst, "to press, to force"); PAA **pan "(grain-)rubber" (Egyptian bn.wyt "corn-grinders, querns"; PFU *pänV- "to grind"; S perhaps in da(-)bin "coarse barley flour (for **pin if 'hand+press-down'+n[?]) (source: PL *PHFE-NA)

DISCUSSION: Bomhard has, perhaps, not included this root because he could not (and I cannot) find suitable Altaic and Dravidian cognates; but, it is an important root in IE, and AA and Sumerian cognates can be found.

Orel-Stobova incorrectly reconstruct Hamito-Semitic *fin-, 'nose, smell'; and *funVg-, 'nose'. We have already explained above their failure to distinguish reflexes of Nostratic *phf and *ph.

One of the derivations from *funVg- is Egyptian fnD, 'nose'. This is interesting because it confirms the quality of the vowel as Nostratic *o (Egyptian f is derived only from Nostratic *p?o and *pho). Even though the vowel quality roughly corresponds (back vowel), we cannot accept the idea that Hamito-Semitic still retained the vowel qualities of Nostratic, and believe that the vowel qualities demonstrated in African branches of the language developed subsequent to the separation of Hamitic and Semitic; so, we agree here, with Bomhard roughly in theory, in reconstructing a basis of AA *phan- (though he would add *ph6n- for this word).

I have mentioned above that Egyptian D represents an apical affricate which reflects Nostratic *t?s and *ths before *a or *e; Egyptian ' is Nostratic *t?s and *ths before *o.

On the basis of Ossetic fi.nj, 'nose', and Armenian pinj, 'nose', we can confirm that the Nostratic form is *phont?s-, reflected in IE **pen-dh- (Armenian j can be derived from IE *dhy). This, in turn, suggests palatality, and a Nostratic reconstruction of *t?se, 'suck', and PL *T?SE (yielding Nostratic *phnát?s(y)-, 'inhale').

However, the most familiar form in which we see this root in IE is as *pnew-, 'gasp, breathe', which represents the root + *w, in which we recognize Nostratic (*phná)*w(a), and PL *FA, 'do repeatedly' (yielding Nostratic *phnáw(a)-, 'breathe').

No Uralic nor Altaic root can be found to correspond at present.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *PHO-NA, 'puff-thing' = 'breath' but possibly 'nose'.

On this basis, we must amend to include:

(Addition P)PN *phon- "breath" or "nose[?]"; PIE in *pne-w-, "to gasp, to breathe"; in *pen-dh-, "nose" (cf. Ossetic fi.nj, "nose"; Armenian pinj, "nose"; PAA **pan "nose" (for Orel-Stobava's *fin-, "nose, smell"; and *funVg-, "nose"); in Egyptian fnD "nose"; S bun₂ "nose" (source: PL *PHO-NA)

DISCUSSION: Contrasting with Nostratic *phow-, 'blow (up)', a Nostratic root with the affricate *phf(ow-) can be identified. The IE cognate appears as *pe:w-, 'beat; sharp, sharply hew' in Latin pavio:, 'I beat, stamp'; pavimentum, 'beaten/stamped ground', indicates the nature of the 'beating': it is stamping of the feet rather than by blows of the fists or with another implement. The lengthened vowel in IE serves to distinguish this root from (1.) *pew-, 'clean, purify, sift', discussed above.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *PHFO-FHA, 'stamp'+'do-repeatedly' = 'beat by stamping (on)'.

The Altaic cognate may be in *p'uske-, 'kick, knock', if *-ske- is regarded as a suffixal formant while Nostratic phfo is probably the first element in *p'ok'i-, 'trample, kick'.

No Dravidian nor Uralic cognate seems to be identifiable at present.

A Sumerian sign that pictures a snake can be read as bu or pu. The Egyptian sign for [f] pictures a snake; and Egyptian [f] represents Nostratic p?o and pho, both of which would appear in Sumerian as bu. I interpret those facts to mean that the Sumerian sign depicting a 'snake' originally read bu, representing Nostratic pho and PL *PHO, 'venomous snake'. Among the meanings recorded for bu is 'tear apart'. I propose that since bu-sign could also be read pu as a result of a general confusion between unaspirated and aspirated stops, that pu (better **pû [from pre-Sumerian *pu-u]) is the source of 'tear apart', which is better interpreted as 'break apart by stamping'.

It is surprising not to be able to find an AA cognate for this root. However, there is one possibility that might be considered: Egyptian has bw, 'place'; this might be a derivation of the root if it means 'stamped area', along the lines of Latin pavimentum.

On this basis, we must amend to include:

(Addition Q)PN *phfow- "beat by stamping (on)"; PIE *pe:w-/*po:w-/*p6w-/*pu/u:- "to beat; sharp, to sharply hew, *to stamp"; in *(s)p (h)ew-d-/*(s)p (h)ow-d-/*(s)p (h)ud- "to press"; PAA in Egyptian bw "place (if = 'stamped area')" ; PA in *p'u-ske-[?], "to kick, to knock"; S pu (better **pû) "to break apart by stamping[?]" (source: PL *PHFO-FHA)

It should also be noticed that in Bomhard's dictionary under the 33 entries beginning with b in the b-section, only one, #23, begins with the sequence *bi-/*be- ("in addition to, with, together with"); in addition, there are a few more scattered through the dictionary arranged by the root-final, such as #214, *bitl^[h]-/*betl^[h]-, 'to slit, split'. Unless Nostratic was subject to a phonotactic rule which Bomhard nowhere discusses or mentions, this seems like a very odd distribution: why no *ber- or *bel- inter alia?

DISCUSSION: In my opinion, Bomhard has correctly reconstructed the vowel-quality of this root (Nostratic *a). But, one can only wonder by what process. He cites no cognate in a derived language that would enable him to make the vowel assignment.

The cognates which I have added do not allow a direct reconstruction of the root-vowel either. However, in this case, I have reconstructed Nostratic *a on semantic grounds. If one cares to look at the meanings assigned to the other two combinations of *p?f + *V (*P?FE and *P?FO), I hope there can be agreement that this is the far most likely choice. Perhaps this suggests to some that the meanings deduced in the Proto-Language Monosyllable essay have an essential validity; and, more importantly, place for employment.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FA-FA, 'prominent'+do repeatedly = '(be) attentive (to)':

The IE cognate is found in *bhew-dh-, 'be or become aware of', and is the root plus *T?SE-, 'attentive' + 'extend' = 'pay attention (to)'.

The AA cognates that Bomhard cites, I accept; and analyze, in the first case, the root plus *HA-, 'attentive' + stative = 'be in an attentive state' = 'understand'. The second form is built on the root plus *HHE-, 'attentive' + 'move up from' = 'come to the attention' = 'become known'.

In addition to the IE cognate provided by Bomhard, I would like to add *bhew- in Greek piphaúsko:, 'show, make known', which I interpret as 'call to the attention of'.

The Sumerian cognate which Bomhard cites as rare, bu-i, 'knowledge, learning', is rare indeed; and I can find no evidence of it. Furthermore, from PN *p?faw-, we should expect Sumerian **pu. Accordingly, I will not include it. However, there is another Sumerian word which appears to be cognate, namely puzur₄, 'tribute, honor, blessing', which may possibly be analyzed as **pu_x, 'attention' + zur, 'provide, tend'.

The simplex is found in Arabic bauw-un, a 'stuffed camel-hide used to deceive a she-camel when it is being milked', i.e., 'something to hold the attention'. In addition to those extensions mentioned by Bomhard, there is Arabic bâ?a, 'acknowledge a fault', i.e. 'have obtained attention with regard to'; and bauwa?a, 'point a spear towards', i.e. 'have directed attention to'. Strangely, I cannot find a reference to this root in Orel-Stobova.

It does not seem possible to find Altaic, Dravidian nor Uralic cognates at present. In view of the other Nostratic roots which we have mentioned that would result in **pu-, this should not be regarded as unusual: every language has limits to homonymity. It should be noticed that even IE and AA, in which the root is found, have seen necessary to employ root-extensions to differentiate it from homomorphic roots.

On this basis, we must amend:

(1)PN *p?faw- "(to be) attentive (to)"; PIE *bhew-/*bhow-/*bhu- "(to be) attentive (to)" in Greek piphaúsko:, "to show, to make known"(? = if "to cause to be attended to"); in *bhew-dh-/*bhow-dh-/*bhu-dh- "to be or become aware of"; PAA *baw- "(to be) attentive (to)"; in *bawa?- "to acknowledge a fault (to have obtained attention with regard to)", and "to point a spear towards (to have directed attention to)"; in *bawa-h "to understand (to be in an attentive state)"; in *bawa-h. "to become known, to be revealed (to [have] come to the attention of)"; S in buzur₄ (for puzur₄) "tribute, honor, blessing" (if analyzable as **pu_x, "attention" + zur, "to provide, to tend") (source: PL *P?FA-FA)

As we have seen, Bomhard's PN *b represents Nostratic *p? or *p?f, and which can be determined usually from IE, which has *b, or, more usually *w for Nostratic *p?, and *bh for Nostratic p?f. AA shows *b for both; and Dravidian, and Uralic also p for both. Altaic seems to be showing a pattern of *p' for Nostratic *p?, and *b for Nostratic p?f but examples are relatively few. However, where an Egyptian cognate can be found, it will show *b, or, more usually p or f for Nostratic *p?, and *b for Nostratic p?f. Sumerian theoretically shows b for Nostratic *p?, and p for Nostratic p?f but the double values for the initials (voiced and voiceless) for the reading of so many signs makes the determination singularly difficult through Sumerian.

DISCUSSION: The Egyptian cognate b3, 'hack up', as well as the Altaic cognate *bur- suggest strongly that the initial consonant is Nostratic p?f; and IE *bher- substantiates this assignment. And, the Altaic, Dravidian, Sumerian, and Uralic cognates fix the vowel-quality as Nostratic *o.

Although Starostin's website shows no Dravidian *pur-, 'bore, perforate; borer, gimlet', I have retained this since it does occur in Burrow and Emeneau.

Similarly, Starostin's website has no Altaic *bur-,'bore through, pierce', but Bomhard cites Illich-Svitych (*bura-) for the form so it will be retained.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FO-RE, 'stick' + 'scratch' = 'drill':

On this basis, we must amend:

(2)PN *p?for^y- "to drill" > PIE (3.) *bher-/*bhor-/*bhR- "to drill"; PAA *bar- "to drill"; PU *pura- (Sammallahti: *purå-) "drill"; PD *pur- "to bore, to perforate; borer, gimlet"; PA *bur(a)- "to bore through, to pierce"; S bur₃ (for **pur_x) "to bore through, to pierce" (source: PL *P?FO-RE)

DISCUSSION: The Egyptian cognate is found in p3.t, 'offering ('scored object')' as well as the Altaic cognate *p'ára- suggest that the initial consonant is Nostratic p?; and IE (7.) *wer- substantiates this assignment. And, the Altaic, Dravidian, Sumerian, and Uralic cognates fix the vowel-quality as Nostratic *a.

Though Bomhard does not list a Dravidian cognate, Starostin's website has *par-, 'cut, split', which corresponds perfectly in form and meaning.

For Altaic, Starostin's website has *p'ára-, 'cross-beam, constructing piece', and *p'arV-, 'thill', which correspond semantically to IE *bh(e)redh-, 'cut off piece'.

Though Sammallahti for some reason does not list it, Rédei has Uralic *par3-, which corresponds substantially to Bomhard's *para-.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?A-RE, 'cleft' + 'scratch' = 'split':

On this basis, we must amend:

(32)PN *p?ar^y- "to split" > PIE (7.) *wer-/*wor-/*wR- "to rip open, to score"; in *bhredh-/*bhrodh-/*bhRdh- (Pokorny: *bheredh- "to cut") "(piece) split off"; PAA *bar-/*b6r- "to scrape, to cut, to carve"; PA *p'ára- "cross-beam, constructing piece"; *p'arV- "thill"; PU *para- (Rédei: *par3-) "to scrape, to cut, to carve"; PD *par- "to cut, to split"; S bar "to split (with a tool or weapon)"; bar "to cut into, to notch, to cut or slit open, to carve, to slice, to cut up"; bar "to dig, to excavate" (source: PL *P?A-RE)

DISCUSSION: The Egyptian cognate is found in b3, 'destroy, devastate' as well as in the Mongolian burci (Altaic) suggest that the initial consonant is Nostratic p?f; and IE (3.) *bher- substantiates this assignment. And, the Dravidian, Mongolian, Sumerian, and Uralic cognates fix the vowel-quality as Nostratic *o.

As for Bomhard's "PD *por- "to fight, to engage in battle; fight, battle, war, quarrel"", there is no trace of it at Starostin's website; however, Starostin does have Dravidian *pad.-, 'fight, battle; army', which, I believe, probably is a better reconstruction than that available to Bomhard. On the other hand, Starostin does have *po:r.-, 'split, cleave', which is a form we might expect from Nostratic *p?for^y-.

No Uralic cognate can presently be found.

We should note that the semantics of these cognates are not as closely matched as would be desirable. The components of the root make it relatively sure that the original basal meaning is 'stomp, smash by stomping' but a number of the derived languages have developed meanings that describe the result of the activity ('split', 'break'). The idea of 'cutting' associated with a number of these is probably due to an intransitive 'split' being interpreted transitively.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FO-RHE, 'leg' + 'come down (on) with' = 'stomp, smash':

On this basis, we must amend:

(3)PN *p?for^y- "to stomp, to smash" > PIE (3.) *bher-/*bhor-/*bhR- "to beat (on)"; PAA *bar-/*b6r- "to strike, to fight"; PD *po:r.- "to split, to cleave"; Altaic: Mongolian burci "to raze, to destroy, to break, to crush"; S bur (for *pur) "to destroy, to exterminate, to eradicate; to tear out, to pull out, to remove; bur (for *pur) "to cut, to cut into pieces; to knap, flake off (flint)"; bur₃ (for **pur_x) "to demolish, to tear down, to destroy"; bur₃ (for **pur_x) "to cut open, to cut into; slain; killed"; bur₃(-bur₃) (for **pur_x[-**pur_x]) "to rend, to split, to cleave, to slash" (source: PL *P?FO-RHE)

DISCUSSION: It is to be wondered how Bomhard managed to overlook the Sumerian cognate for this root: pa, '**shine', even though it is unambiguous in the phrase pa . . . e₃, 'shine' ('shine . . . send forth'). In addition, the sign used to write pa also reads had; and this word unequivocally means 'shine brightly'. An alternate version of the same idea is found in pa-e₃ . . . ak, where ak means 'make'. I am tempted to think that the proper reading of pa is *pa-e₃ or pa-i₁₀; and that it represents PL *P?FA-HE- (Nostratic *p?fah^y-).

Bomhard reconstructs Nostratic *a for this root, with which I agree. But based on the only two cognates he was able to find, one can only wonder how it was determined. I believe that IE *bha:- would indicate Nostratic *a because I believe that an original Nostratic *a, when lengthened, preserved its original quality. However, Bomhard believes, I think, that 'laryngeals' color foregoing vowels so that IE *bha:- could indicate any Nostratic sequence of *C + *V (*Ce/*Ca/*Co) followed by an a-coloring 'laryngeal' (reputedly *H₂). Curiouser and curiouser .

The Egyptian cognate is found in b3 (properly **bj3, cognate with Arabic bahara, 'shine'), 'soul, *shining one', and in sb(j)3, 'star, *what causes shining'. The IE and Egyptian cognates suggest that the initial consonant is Nostratic p?f; and Sumerian pa substantiates this assignment. And, the Sumerian cognate fixes the Nostratic vowel-quality as *a.

Dravidian evidently prefers an alternate root of a closely related meaning (*par-, 'shine (on); dawn' [better 'illuminate']), which is Bomhard's root #16.

For some reason, Bomhard missed the Altaic *paja, 'shine, glitter', in his source; it is listed at Starostin's website.

No Uralic cognate can presently be found.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FA-HE, 'halo' + 'come across (from)' = 'shine':

On this basis, we must amend:

(3)PN *p?fah^y- "to come across from a halo, to shine" > PIE (1.) *bha:-/*bh6- "to gleam, to illuminate, to shine"; PAA *bah- "to shine"; PA (in[?]) *paja "to shine, to glitter"; S pa(*-i₁₀) "to shine" (source: PL *P?FA-HE)

DISCUSSION: I cannot imagine why Bomhard passed over IE (5.) *bher-, 'gleaming, light brown', for this entry, in favor of *b[h]erEk'- (Pokorny's *bher6g^-/*bhre:g^-). In addition, the use of uppercase "E" in this word signifies something to Bomhard but it is difficult to divine surely what that might be. An e-coloring 'laryngeal' seems a distinct possibility (as readers know, the usual present-day convention for this phonological unicorn is H₁). I have already explained above that I believe that 'laryngeals' (the last reflex in IE of Nostratic *h, *hh(Arabic h.; h with 'macron', which cannot be easily reproduced on the web), *¿, and sometimes: *?) prolonged a Nostratic vowel, and caused it to preserve its vowel-quality in IE when all non-long vowels were neutralized in quality during the Pontic stage of development, discussing which I have written a short essay, with additional pertinent matter in THE SCHWA INDOGERMANICUM.

Some substance can be given to the idea that the second vowel of IE *bher6g^-/*bhre:g^- was Nostratic *e by noticing Sumerian piri(n)g[~]_1,3, 'lion (poetic); light', and piri(n)g[~]₂, 'bright', which are likely to be the Sumerian cognates of this expanded root. Sumerian i normally results from Nostratic *e.

Sumerian (n)g[~] is my web convention for indicating a Sumerian g that is the result of a former dorsal nasal (/ng/). That this was, in fact, a dorsal nasal can be supported by identifying the Egyptian cognate, b3q, which means 'bright, white' as well as designating a tree, moringa arabica, from the bark of which an oil was obtained (Egyptian q [or k.] is the result of Nostratic *nk[h] before *e or *a). Interestingly, the IE root *bher6g^-/*bhre:g^- is employed for the 'birch', from the sap of which birch beer has been made since earliest days; and from the white bark of which an oil of wintergreen was also prepared.

If we assume that IE *g^ is the result of this Nostratic dorsal nasal, the palatalization of *g^ indicates that the Nostratic source was *nk(h)e. Nostratic *nkhe reflects PL *QHE, the semantic range of which seems inappropriate however the basal meaning of *QE is 'milk', and by extension 'juice (sap)', which relates well to the concepts of 'oil' and 'sap'.

The various daughter-languages derived from Nostratic all display an unwillingness to preserve dorsal nasals in initial root position, and generally retain only the dorsal character of the phoneme, thus displaying a dorsal stop; some daughter-languages like Semitic differentiate the dorsal stop derived from a dorsal nasal from the originally non-nasal dorsal stop by backing it to K, a back velar dorsal stop, which is conventionally represented in Arabic as q (or k.). As a root-final, some daughter-languages like IE show a dorsal stop alternating with a dorsal nasal: e.g. IE *keg-/*keng- and *kek-/*kenk-, 'peg, hook, handle, shepherd's staff', which can be related to Egyptian Hq(3).t, 'shepherd's crook', and Hq(-)3, 'rule' = 'wield the crook ('shepherd's staff' or 'crozier')', which is PL *KHXA-QA, 'be suspended' + 'loop' = 'crook' (+ *RE, 'apply'). This corresponds to IE *k(h)eng-; and is also found in Sumerian gag/kak, 'peg, hook, knee' (cf. IE (3.) *kenk-, 'hollow of the knee'). A Sumerian sign which depicts a 'staff' — and, with the reading ge/iš, also means 'plow' — reads kak₂ when combined with ku, which can then be compared with IE *ka/a:kha:-, 'bent twig, plow'; kak₂- is glossed as Akkadian bêl-um, 'lord' (derived from AA *ba¿al-, 'be able, rule'; cf. IE [2.] *bel-, 'strong'); and which, in turn, can be related to IE *k^ak-/*k^ek-, 'be able' (Egyptian Hk(-)3.w, 'magic spells'). Add to these data that IE (2.) *k^a/a:k-/*k^ank- means 'branch, twig, peg', and *ka/a:kha:-, 'bent twig, plow', is considered to be from this root. And to further substantiate the identification of Egyptian q with a dorsal nasal, we can notice Hqr, 'be hungry', corresponding to IE *k^ak-, 'become thin', and (3.) *kenk-, 'hurt (especially of thirst or hunger)'; *k^Nk-rú-, 'hunger'.

These examples have been introduced at this point only to demonstrate the plausibility of Egyptian q = IE ng and nk = AA q = Sumerian (n)g[~] and (n)k². They will be discussed individually in later sections of this critique.

Under the discussion of root #3 above, we mentioned that Egyptian b3 was to be amended to *bj3. This was done because Greek renditions of the sign presently read b3 show an i-vocalism; e.g. Greek bai, 'soul' (hieroglyphic b3). And though some researchers may not be willing to distinguish between 'shine' and 'illuminate', I believe there is a demonstrable difference.

As well as the 'jabiru (saddle-billed stork)', another sign is also used to write b3: a 'lamp-dish with wick', which perfectly graphically communicates 'illuminate'. I think it likely that the 'lamp-dish' points to a lost b3(without medial j), meaning 'illuminate'.

The IE and Egyptian cognates suggest that the initial consonant is Nostratic p?f; and Sumerian pa substantiates this assignment. And, the Dravidian and Sumerian cognates fix the vowel-quality as Nostratic *a.

The sign for Sumerian cognate, S bar, 'shine (on), light, illuminate, sparkle, glitter, glisten; bright, shining; light, brightness', also reads par₂; and, because we believe Nostratic p?f should appear as Sumerian p, we amend the word to that form.

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *P?FA-RHE, 'halo' + 'come down (on) with' = 'illuminate'.

I am unconvinced that Sumerian bar₆-bar₆, 'light, white; whiten, make white', represents the same root. My supposition is that it represents PL *P?FA-RHA, 'prominent' + 'color' = 'white'; however, I know of no way presently to make this more plausible; however, for reference, it will be included as Addition Q.

Returning to Bomhard's "*b[h]erEk'-, *b[h]reEk'- (> *b[h]re:k'-) "to shine, to gleam, to be bright"", we may choose to believe that the first i of the Sumerian cognates piri(n)g[~]_1,3, 'lion (poetic); light', and piri(n)g[~]₂, 'bright', are due to forward assimilation but this is belied by the Sumerian bir₃ (also pir₂), 'light', and possibly bir₉ (for pir_x[?]), 'blaze, flame up') though this latter is probably representative of the root represented by IE (1.) *per-, 'spray', and (2.) *(s)p(h)er-, 'spray': Nostratic *phfer^y-). Accordingly, I believe we must reconstruct another root: PL *P?FE-RHE, 'extend-around' + 'come' = 'light'. This will be included as Addition R.

Based on IE *bher6g^-/*bhre:g^-, 'gleam, white', we can easily see that the underlying form is *P?FE-RHE-HA, 'extend-around' + 'come'+stative = 'light (adj.)'. This (Nostratic *phfereh-) will be included as Addition S. The final element is PL *QE, 'milk, white'. This combination, *P?FE-RHE-HA-QE, 'extend-around' + 'come'+stative = 'light (adj.)'+'white'='bright (white)' — will be included as Addition T. The proposed Kartvelian cognate obviously belongs with this root.

On this basis, we must amend:

(16)PN *p?far^y- "to come down on with a halo, to illuminate" > PIE (5.) *bher-/*bhor-/*bhR- "gleaming"; PAA *bar "to gleam, to be bright"; PD *par- "to shine (brightly), to become dawn"; S bar (for par₂) "to shine (on), to light, to illuminate, to sparkle, to glitter, to glisten; bright, shining; light, brightness"; probably a different root (Nostratic *p?far from PL *P?FA-RHA[?])! bar₆-bar₆ (for *par_x-*par_x) "light, white; to whiten, to make white" (see Addition Q) (source: PL *P?FA-RHE)

DISCUSSION: We will now describe an illustrative set of circumstances that have, because they are embarrassingly frequent, unfortunately prevented the general acceptance of Bomhard's work and even appreciation for the massive effort that it has entailed.

Bomhard cites two roots in connection with the roots mentioned above to illustrate the existence of the Nostratic dorsal nasal:

and

DISCUSSION : The first problem with root #203 is that Bomhard cites "šankala (< *tl^[h]ank^[h]-al-) "to hook up"; šankal "peg, hook"" under root #203. Firstly, Bomhard should know that there is no process in Semitic languages that makes derivations by suffixing -l-. While I would acknowledge a Nostratic formative resulting in *-l-, it is hardly legitimate to assume it for the Semitic root only. The second, AA roots are normally triliteral, the major exception being foreign loan-words. A quadraliteral root is immediately suspect of being borrowed. The third problem is that, because of his mistaken assumption of a Nostratic lateral (*tl^[h]), he is unable to connect the obvious Sumerian cognates gag/kak, 'peg, hook, knee' (and, on page 86 of his book, he offers no Sumerian equivalent for the chimeric Nostratic *tl^[h]). A fourth problem is that if the root should be reconstructed as *tl^[h]unk^[h]-/*tl^[h]onk^[h]-, why does the u/o change to a to account for presumably PN *tl^[h]ank^[h]-al- as a source for Arabic šankala? And fifthly, šankala shows none of the forms that characterize an Arabic verb; again, leading to the presumption that it is a loanword, and a fairly recent one (the obvious source being a derivation from Old Indian šángkate:, 'waver', listed under *kenk-, 'waver, hang'). The sixth problem is that he arbitrarily ignores the palatalization of the first consonant in IE k^enk- when he reconstructs an u/o of *tl^[h] unk^[h]-/*tl^[h]onk^[h]-, presumably on the basis of "PD *cun^.k- "end of cloth left hanging out, a dangling tatter"", which is slight reason to override the implication of IE *k^ when, the seventh problem, the Dravidian cognate cited may be related to the idea of 'hang/hook' but this is by no means certain; and eighthly, the doubtfulness of a Dravidian root with such a specialized meaning. The ninth problem, related concepts like Egyptian Hq(3).t are simply ignored because they do not fit the theory. And tenthly, it is obvious that from the IE and Egyptian cognates that several roots are involved; and Bomhard has artificially extended the semantic range in order to incorporate cognates that really should not be combined under the same root This conflation of meanings has the additional pitfall that legitimate cognates get preempted for illegitimate uses. I could characterize these problems but what would that serve to accomplish? The kindest thing we can say about this entry is that, if the book is ever republished, it should definitely be considered for deletion.

To resolve the complex ambiguity of IE and Sumerian reflexes of these roots would be near impossible if we did not have Egyptian cognates, which help to clarify the phonemic structure.

We will begin by attempting to determine the Nostratic root for 'hang'. In my opinion, the idea of 'hang' underlies Egyptian Hnk.w, 'scale-pan of balance'; less obviously, we have Hnk.yt, 'bed' (probably 'hammock'); and Hnk, 'present, offer' (the custom of hanging offerings on trees is well-recognized for early cultures).

The combination of Hnk and IE *k^enk- leads us to the reconstruction of Nostratic khxen as the first syllable of this root, which requires an emendation of IE *k^enk- to **k(h)enk-. This element can be interpreted as the result of PL *KHXE-NA, 'puncture' + 'thing' = 'hanging'. This root envisions puncture as the means of affixation rather than, say, looping over or draping. That his may be the correction analysis is suggested by IE *k^en-, 'empty', i.e. 'punctured'; and *k^ent-, 'stick (into)'. The final element must be PL *KHA-, 'horn'. So, Nostratic *khxenk- (PL *KHXE-NA-KHA) designates the implement on which the punctured object is 'hung'; hence, '(hanging) hook'; or, verbally, 'hang'.

We mentioned above that Sumerian has gag/kak, 'peg, hook, knee'; but the reconstruction would require Sumerian **kink/**ki(n)k², of which we can find no trace presently.

No credible Altaic, Dravidian nor Uralic cognate can be found at present.

On this basis, we must amend:

(203)PN *khxenk- "(hanging) hook; to hang" > PIE *k^(h)enk-/*k^(h)onk-/*k^(h)Nk- "to hang; (hanging) hook"; PAA *ghanak- "to hang, (hanging) hook" in Egyptian Hnk "to present, to offer"; (source: PL *KHXE-NA-KHA)

DISCUSSION: However, we also have an IE *kek-/*kenk-, 'hook'. The absence of palatalization means that we must reconstruct a Nostratic form with *a or *o. If we choose *a, then we can relate this root to Sumerian gag/kak, 'peg, hook, knee'. Since PL *KHXA means 'be suspended', we can reconstruct PL *KHXA-NA, 'be-suspended' + 'thing' = 'draping'. The final element must again be PL *KHA-, 'horn'. So, Nostratic *khxank- (PL *KHXA-NA-KHA) designates the implement on which the draped object is 'hung'; hence, '(draping) peg'; or, verbally, 'drape (over)'. However, this would entail the emendation of Sumerian kak to **kang. It is interesting to notice the Sumerian phrase g[~]iš . . . tag, ' make a religious offering, sacrifice'; if our argument has validity, the (n)g[~]iš in this context would be replaced by **kang.

Also, we can regard *kek- as merely a denasalized version of IE *kenk-. Egyptian Hnk could represent either of the last two identified roots.

No suitable Altaic, Dravidian, nor Uralic cognate can be found at present.

On this basis, we must amend to include:

(Addition T)PN *khxank- "(draping) peg; to drape (over)" > PIE *k(h)enk-/*k(h)onk-/*k(h)Nk-/*k(h)ek-/*k(h)ok- "(draping) peg, to drape (*over)"; PAA *ghanak- "to hang, (hanging) hook" possibly in Egyptian Hnk "to present, to offer"; S kak (for **kang/**ka(n)g[~]) "peg" (source: PL *KHXA-NA-KHA)

DISCUSSION: On the basis of Coptic hik, 'magic', we must amend Egyptian Hk-3.w to **Hjk-3.w, 'magic spells'. It must be remarked that this reconstruction goes against current Egyptological theory which holds that Egyptian vowels are based on Semitic-type vocalic patterns on strictly consonantal roots. I have attempted to demonstrate the dubiety of that position in a essay in three parts available at this website.

Once we understand that the Egyptian root had a medial j, we must reconstruct a medial Nostratic *y, *h, *hh or *?. Egyptian H requires either IE *gh or *k(h); and the IE form directs us to a reconstruction of Nostratic *khx. If we assume that the source of Egyptian j was Nostratic *y, it enables us to understand the anomaly of an IE sequence *k^(h)a.

Normally, IE *a-vocalism is the result of pre-IE *CaH, resulting in IE *Ca: (where *H represents any 'laryngeal'). A palatalized dorsal would require a pre-IE sequence of *Ke but *KeH would result in IE *Ke:. No pre-IE sequence straightforwardly results in IE *K^a(:). I propose, in the absence of any preferable proposal, a pre-IE sequence of *Ka'yV- becoming with metathesis: *Kya-; and finally, *K^ya(:)-, i.e. *K^a(:)-, with the lengthened vowel (subsequently shortened) being compensation for the lost vowel of the second syllable.

A pre-IE sequence of *Ka'yV- would normally result in in IE *K^e-; and, in fact, this IE root has the alternative reconstruction of *k^ek-.

A reconstruction of pre-IE *y, leads to Nostratic *y, and PL ¿E. Accordingly, we reconstruct the first two elements as: PL *KHXA-¿E, 'be-suspended' + 'like' = 'hanging'. The third element, which in view of Egyptian k must be Nostratic *k(?)e/a is narrowed to *ke/a by the final IE *k; and since it is not palatalized (*k^), the Nostratic form must be *ka, PL *KHA, which we interpret in this context to represent 'horn'.

Thus, the full sequence would be PL *KHXA-¿E-KHA, 'hanging horn(s)', which I understand to be the visual insignia of the shaman; and to designate him and his function (magical power) through the use of a concrete image.

That this analysis may not be too wide of the mark is supported by Greek kîkus, 'power'.

The Sumerian kak₂, in view of Greek kîku-s and the spelling with ku (gu₅), we would amend to **kagu_x, which would reflect PL *KHXA-¿E-KHA-FA, 'hanging pair of horns' (IE **k(h)eiku-). Interestingly, Sumerian seems to have undergone a similar phonological process to the metathesis of IE *k^(h)ak-.

No Altaic, Dravidian, nor Uralic cognate can be found at present.

On this basis, we must amend to include:

(Addition U)PN *khxayk(u)- "shaman; power(ful)" > PIE **k^(h)a(:)k-/*k^(h)ek-/*k^(h)ok-/*k(h)eik(u)-/k(h)oik(u)-/k(h)ik(u)- "power(ful)"; PAA *ghayak- "power(ful)" in Egyptian Hk-3.w (for **Hjk-3.w) "magical spells"; Hk-3.y (for **Hjk-3.y) "magician"; S kak₂-(ku) (for **kag-gu₅) "(be) power(ful), lord" (source: PL *KHXA-¿E-KHA[-FA]) (source: PL *KHXA-¿E-KHA)

DISCUSSION: The fact that the Sumerian sign which depicts a 'staff, plow', with the reading ge/iš, when combined with ku reads kak₂ (or, as we have amended: **kag-gu₅), suggests strongly that an additional reading of the uncombined sign was **kak_x. If true, this **kak_x(u) can then be compared with IE *k^a/a:kha:-, 'bent twig, plow', and *keku-, 'club'.

Luckily, this root seems to be present as q(3) H(3), i.e. qH, in Late Egyptian, 'wooden brace on the neck of prisoners, harness horses/cattle, men; equipment for garden buildings'; and as qH-y, a BotD designation for the 'moon'. This enables us to specify that the first consonant was Nostratic *nk(h); and IE (2.) *k^a/a:k- tells us that Nostratic *nkh is the correct choice. Both the *a/a: of this reconstruction and the a of the Sumerian cognate suggest that the Nostratic vowel was *a, yielding *nkha, which is PL *QHA, 'hump(-up)', a good match semantically for a 'bent twig or branch'. Egyptian H tells us that the final consonant must be Nostratic *k?x or *khx; and IE indicates through *k and *k(h) that the final consonant is Nostratic *khx; the lack of palatalization tells us it must be Nostratic *khxa or *khxo but since Egyptian H can only represent Nostratic *khxa and *khxe (*khxo would be Egyptian x), *khxa (PL *KHXA, 'pointed'; a word frequently employed for 'stick') is specified: *nkhakhx(a). Though *k^a/a:k- does not indicate the final voiceless affricate, *ka/a:kha: does; and though this aspiration could be lost, it has never come to my attention that it could be added. However, this still does not account for the palatalized initial *k^ of the IE form. And here, I believe we are dealing with the same phenomenon as discussed above under *khxayk-, a metathesis of an medial y (see above).

Accordingly, we reconstruct: PL *QHA-¿E- *KHXA, 'humped(-up)-like-stick', 'bent stick/branch'.

This is apparently the root Bomhard is seeking to identify in #261.

Unfortunately, the Dravidian form Bomhard cites ("PD *kon^.k- "hook, clasp"") is not supported by either IE or Sumerian; and, if correct, belongs to another related root seen in IE *keuk- (cf. Bulgarian kúka, 'hook'). Unfortunately, no Altaic, Dravidian, nor Uralic cognate can be found at present. Accordingly, we amend:

DISCUSSION: There seems to yet another root that can be identified on the basis of IE *keku-, 'club'. Egyptian qHqH means 'hammer, bend (by hammering)'. In view of the IE form (without palatalization), it appears that these represent PL *QHA-*KHXA, 'humped(-up)-stick', 'knobbed club'.

Egyptian also has qHqHw, 'metal-workers'. The usual way of indicating a plural graphically in Egyptian is with triple strokes or earlier, tripling the biliteral sign or determinative. Writing of the [w {'chick'}], if, to indicate the plural, is unusual; and here we may have a possible example of a fuller form of this root (**qHw), corresponding to IE keku- and possible Sumerian **kak₂-ku.

We have seen evidence of a final -(*)u (-w) in this root in Egyptian, IE, and Sumerian. In view of PL *FA, 'palm', it is tempting to suspect that this is an ancient formant for '(hand)-tool', competing with *T?SO, but, for this, there is little or no evidence. Reluctantly, I must leave this formant unexplained at this time.

Sumerian ge/iš also is taken to mean 'tool', and I presume that the reading kak_x or kak₂(-ku) was associated with this meaning.

Unfortunately, no Altaic, Dravidian nor Uralic cognates can presently be identified.

Accordingly, we amend to include:

DISCUSSION: Corresponding to IE (2.) *kenk(-ró)-, ' be in pain; be hungry; hunger', is Egyptian Hqr, 'hungry, be hungry; hunger'. Since Egyptian H can represent Nostratic *k?x/*khx+*a/*e; and since there is no palatalization of the first consonant in IE, Nostratic *a is indicated; IE *k tells us that Nostratic *khx is the first consonant: Nostratic *khxa-. Egyptian q can represent Nostratic *nk/*nkh+*a/*e; and since there is no palatalization of the second consonant in IE, Nostratic *a is indicated IE *nk tells us that Nostratic *nkh is the second consonant: Nostratic *-nkha. So we have Nostratic *khxankh(a)-.

The final element, not present in all forms, is IE *-ró, a well-known formant of adjectives, which I assign the meaning 'very'. Since Egyptian r represents Nostratic *ro/*rho, the correspondence is complete.

These represent PL *KHXA-*QHA(-*RO), 'hurt/burn-hump(-up)'(-'very')=('very-)'double over with pain; ('very'-) hungry'.

The Sumerian equivalent to Nostratic *khxankhar^w would be expected to be **ka(n)kal; and, in fact, kankal does exist; it is a reading of two signs: KI+ENGAR, yielding roughly **KI/ENGIR phonetically; but it is recorded only in the meaning of 'hard soil, uncultivated land', which might, with a stretch, be related to the idea of 'hunger'. Perhaps more likely is a relationship to kan_(1,3,5), 'apprehension, worry; affliction, trouble; be troubled', in the less specified meaning of *khxankh-, 'double over in pain'. Nostratic *nkh can appear in Sumerian as either (n)k or n, which I notate as ñ; cf. Sumerian (n)g[~]e/iš and ñiš2, 'bone', representing Nostratic *nkhays^w; Egyptian q(j)s, 'bone'; IE *keis-, 'arm, thigh' — another important root missing apparently from Bomhard's Nostratic dictionary; I can find no rule to predict which will occur, and the difference may be primarily dialectal. If kan be *kañ, then it would correspond perfectly.

Sumerian, surprisingly, does has ša₃-(n)g[~]ar and ša(n)g[~]ar, 'hunger'. This is similar enough to make us wonder whether this is related to the root in question but also a possibility is that it is a loanword from a surrounding language in which Nostratic *ro remains /r/ rather than changing to /l/ as in normal for Sumerian.

Unfortunately, no Altaic, Dravidian nor Uralic cognates can presently be identified.

Accordingly, we amend to include:

(Addition W)PN *khxankh(ar^w)- "hungry, to be hungry; hunger" > PIE (2.) *k(h)enk(-ró)-/*k(h)onk(-ró)-/*k(h)Nk(-ró)- "to be in pain; hungry, to hungry; hunger"; PAA *ghaqal- "hungry, to be hungry; hunger" in Egyptian Hqr "hungry, to be hungry; hunger"; S kan_(1,3,5) (for *kañ_(1,3,5)[?]) "apprehension, worry; affliction, trouble; to be troubled (if = "to be doubled over in pain")" (source: PL *KHXA-QHA[-RO])

DISCUSSION: Though we can presently find no Altaic, Dravidian, nor Uralic cognates, we will also reconstruct PL *QHA-*¿E(-*SO), 'hard-like-skin' = 'bone';

and we will also amend to include:

DISCUSSION: Another important root showing a dorsal nasal is IE (1.) *kenk-, 'gird, tie on or around'. Since most of the derivatives show a medial *i, and because of the Old Indian form kañcuka-, 'armor', we suspect either a palatalized second consonant or a source of palatalization like Nostratic *y. The normal term for 'lady' in Sumerian is nin; and it is written archaically with the signs for a 'vulva' and a 'cloth', indicating a '(wrap-around[?]) skirt'). Sumerian nin₂, which pictures a (wrapped) reed-bundle used in building, means '(surrounding[?]) land'; nin₃, which also reads nini, pictures two circles, and means 'surround'; and the sign picturing one circle, means 'surround', and reads nin₄. I think it is made rather evident that nin(i) has something to do with 'encirclement'.

Old Egyptian gj.t means a 'duty', and the determinative use is Gardiner's V32, 'wickerwork frail', essentially a wrapped basket. And g3.wt, with the same determinative, 'bundles (of tribute)'. We have also g3w, 'look on amazedly (surround[?])'; and with the 'bundle'-determinative again, g3w, 'narrow, be restricted'. I believe all these can be related through the idea contained in Nostratic nkho, of which the Egyptian reflex is g, stemming from PL *QHO, 'wrap one's self around'. I interpret this all to mean that there was a root in Egyptian of **gj, which meant 'restricting by surrounding'; and that the Egyptian works, at least, those with the 'bundle'-determinative, should be amended to initial gj; and that Coptic ciê, 'limit' (Coptic c is the most frequent reflex of Egyptian g), is probably a reflection of Late Egyptian g3.wt, 'impassable spot', which again indicates a medial j.

The IE simplex can seen again in IE *ske/e:i-bh-, 'limp', which corresponds to Egyptian gbgb (for **gjb-gjb), 'be lame'.

This means that we should probably interpret Sumerian nini as *ñiñi, a reflex of Nostratic *nkhoi-nkhoi, 'all-restricted' = 'crippled'. And finally, in a more benign sense, IE *kenk- as a reflex of the same: *kinkéi- -> *kínk^-. The Old Indian reflex, káñcate: (note also káñci:, 'girdle, waist, belt') will have dissimilated *kinkéi- *kenkéi- before the stress-accent shifted to the root-syllable: *kénk^y-.

On this basis, we reconstruct: PL *QHO-*¿E-*QHO)-*¿E), 2x 'wrap-one's-self-around-like'='all-wrapped-up'='bound(-up)';

and we will also amend to include:

DISCUSSION: In view of the many examples of the Nostratic dorsal nasal reconstructed where Bomhard has a stop, it seems only right to examine a root where Bomhard has incorrectly reconstructed a dorsal nasal:

Of course, the first problem is that there is no known process whereby Nostratic *nk (Bomhard's *ng) becomes Egyptian n. The second: Egyptian kny, 'call', does not exist so far as I can determine; there is a knj, 'call'; the notation [y] is properly used only for the double-reed, i.e. [jj]; and furthermore, there is no known process whereby Nostratic *nk (Bomhard's *ng) becomes IE or AA (including Egyptian) n. The third problem is that Dravidian n. represents a retroflex apical nasal not a dorsal nasal; and since Dravidian has a dorsal nasal, indicated by him as n^.k, there is thus no reason whatsoever for reconstructing Nostratic *ng. This may be the least professional entry in Bomhard's dictionary that I have investigated so far.

However, every cloud has a silver lining. Bomhard's Dravidian cognate (*kan.-) is almost certainly correct; and further, the retroflex n. gives us a valuable pointer to the quality of the original final vowel: Nostratic *o.

Although I can find no entry in Sammallahti for Uralic, Décsy has *kana (and kanga), 'call'; and Rédei has *kan3-³ (*kang3), 'call'. I am going to include this obvious cognate. How did Bomhard miss this — particularly when the variants actually somewhat support his reconstruction?

All cognates support a reconstruction of Nostratic *a as the first vowel; however, normally, Nostratic *a should appear as IE *e unless lengthened by a 'laryngeal'. This appears to me to be a part of a process unrecognized in IE linguistics, whereby a vowel is lengthened when an aspirated voiceless stop loses its aspiration. In this case, *kh is the expected response to Nostratic *khx; and when pre-IE *kh was reduced to *k, the *a was lengthened to *a:, preserving the earlier vowel-quality. Sometime subsequently, vocalic length was lost since no other root of the form *kan- existed, and the vocalic length-contrast was unnecessary to distinguish it.

On the basis of the cognates established, we reconstruct PL *KHXA-*NO-, 'bee-basket' = '(bee-)hive' = 'hum' = 'sing'. This analysis will probably surprise some readers but I cannot emphasize enough that the Proto-Language consistently preferred concrete images to express more complex ideas. We will see a confirmation of this analysis in the next root analyzed below.

Nostratic *khxan^w would result in Egyptian Hn; and, we do have two Egyptian words that are probably cognates: Hnw, said of the onset of the wind; and Hn, 'cheer someone on'.

No Altaic nor Sumerian cognate can be found at present.

On this basis, we must amend:

(257)PN *khxan^w- "hive; to hum, to sing" > PIE *kan- (for **kha/a:n-) "to sing, to ring"; PAA *ghan- "to hum, to sing, to buzz" in Arabic ?aghanna; Egyptian Hn "to cheer someone on"; in Hnw 'said of the onset of the wind'; Uralic *kan3-³ (Rédei) "to call"; Dravidian *kan.- "to sound, to tinkle, to rattle, to jingle" (source: PL *KHXA-NO)

DISCUSSION: A root which is related is found in IE *k_en6kó-, 'honey; honey-yellow, golden yellow', of which the *k_en6- (**khen-) represents Nostratic *khxan^w-, 'hive'. The Old Indian derivate in *n, ka:ñca-na-, 'golden', shows the lengthened *a: that we have explained above may result when a voiceless aspirated stop (kh) is deaspirated. In addition, the palatalized ñc alerts us to the presence of Nostratic *y, which represent PL *¿E, '-like', and which provided, in effect, a combining form; this is seen even more clearly in Latin canicae, 'bran', and AS hunig. Though IEists interpret the [ng] of forms like Old Icelandic hunang and OHG honang as mere nasalization, the Egyptian cognate, Hnq.t, 'beer', but originally 'mead', shows us that the dorsal nasal is original. Since IE has *-kó, which is unpalatalized, only a Nostratic *a or *o vocalism is possible; Egyptian q can only lead to Nostratic *nk(h)a or *nk(h)e, so, by elimination, a reconstruction of Nostratic *nkha is required, which is PL *QHA, 'hard', which I interpret in this context to mean 'wax'. This would give us Nostratic *khxano(y)nkh-, 'honey-comb'; and that we may be on the right track is indicated by Akkadian kunukku, 'seal, documentary sealing', which certainly entailed wax in many instances. As an aside, it has been my experience that in many languages, geminated dorsal stops frequently indicate the former presence of dorsal nasals. This seems to be an instance of such a process. Unfortunately, this is probably a loanword into Akkadian as Nostratic *nk(h) should appear in all Semitic languages known to me as q — but perhaps still indicative of the proposed meaning..

In Sumerian, we have an interesting sign combination which depicts a house and a tree. Unless we assume that tree-houses were common in the Sumer, for which there is not the slightest evidence, the next best thought for an interpretation may well be 'hive'. The sign is most frequently read kalam, 'land', but probably also **kanam; and, accordingly to some Sumerologists, the form underlying of **kan/lam is **kanag, written usually as ka-nag; and glossed as an equivalent to kan/lam in Emesal — the elevated language of Sumer (as opposed to Emeku, common speech). If the sign for kalam had an unrecorded reading of **kanag (for **kanu(n)k²), this form might be related to Nostratic *khxano(y)nkh-, 'honey-comb'; and perhaps to kunukku. However, this is a bit too speculative to include.

No Altaic, Dravidian, Sumerian, nor Uralic cognate seems to be presently ascertainable.

We amend to include:

(Addition Z)PN *khxano(y)nkh- "honey-comb" > PIE *k_en6kó- (for **kha/a:ne(i)nk-) "honey; honey-yellow, golden yellow"; PAA *ghanaq- "honey" in Egyptian Hnq.t "beer (better "mead")" (source: PL *KHXA-NO(-¿E<)-QHA)

DISCUSSION: To fulfill a commitment made in the first few paragraphs of this essay, we will now discuss various derivatives of PL *MA, 'full', in Nostratic.

To begin with, the Sumerian sign reading me also reads ma₆. Although Bomhard relies on an equivalence of Nostratic *6 for Sumerian e, we have abundantly seen above that a Nostratic root in *a should be reflected in Sumerian a; and this root in Sumerian should be understood as *mâ₆ in view of the final glottal stop.

Under root #513 ("PN *maH-/*m6H-"), Bomhard has "PD *ma:- "big, great"". We will see that this Nostratic root should be recast as *mehh-. Although this Dravidian form is not listed at Starostin's Dravidian data-base, we will accept it — but as a cognate of Nostratic *ma?-. Starostin's website does have Dravidian *ma:-, 'black, dark', which I take to designate 'ripe', particularly in view of *ma:-, 'mango' (cf. Sumerian ma [for *mâ], 'date, fruit'; Sumerian me₃, 'dark' [for **mê₃; Nostratic *ma?y, 'ripe-like' = 'dark']; and IE *ma:-tu;-, 'ripe' (from *ma:-, 'full' + *tew-, 'swell').

Bomhard has another Dravidian root which most probably contains this root — but incorrectly listed again under root #513: "*ma:n.- "to become excellent, glorious; to be full, abundant, great; (n.) greatness, excellence, splendor, glory"". The retroflex *n. tells us that the suffix was Nostratic *-no, a formant of abstract concepts. It is also used in IE where we have the corresponding *ma:-no-, 'good' (Latin ma:nus, 'good'). Interestingly, a very similar root underlies Greek mânis, 'rancor', the simplex of which is Nostratic *mahh-, seen in Arabic roots beginning in m-H mentioned below. The underlying PL form is *MA-*HHA-, 'breast'+'move-up-from' = '(to be) angry'.

AA *ma?- is unobjectionable as to form (although not found in Orel-Stobova) but Bomhard's meaning ("to increase [in numbers], to be many, to be abundant") is too broad, in my opinion. The basic idea in *MA is 'fullness' not 'multiplicity' as can be seen in derivatives like ma?ara, 'fill up a skin'; ma?ala, 'be lusty'; ma?â (m-?-w), 'stretch a skin'. The idea involved with ma?â (m-?-y) is not 'multiplicity' but in reaching a full regular measure ('hundred').

Nostratic *ma?- should result in IE ma:- not *me:- or *mo:-; and accordingly, we connect it with IE *ma:-, 'good, at a good time, appropriately timed'.

On the basis of the cognates established, we reconstruct PL *MA-*?A-, 'full'-stative = 'be full'.

On Starostin's website, one can find Altaic *má:jV-, 'fat'. IE *mad (from **ma:d-), 'fat', instructs us that Nostratic *ma?, 'full', could be understood as 'fat'.

No Uralic cognate can be found at present.

On this basis, we must amend:

(422)PN *ma?- "(to be) full, ripe" > PIE (2.) *ma:- "*full, good, at a good time, appropriately timed"; PAA *ma?- "(to be) full, (to be) filled"; PA in *má:-jV- (n.) "fat"; Dravidian *ma:- "big, great (really: "*full-term")"; *ma:- "black, dark" (="ripe"); in *ma:n.- "to become excellent, glorious; to be full, abundant, great; (n.) greatness, excellence, splendor, glory" S ma₆ (for **mâ₆) "luxuriant"; ma (for **mâ) "date (really "ripe")" (source: PL *MA-?A)

Interestingly, Altaic *malV, 'honey, plant oil', probably can be explained in the same way that Dravidian *ma:l-, 'liquor, toddy (fermented palm sap)' will be: both as combinations of PL *NE-, 'sticky, putrid', with Nostratic *ma? — if we can assume a that Altaic *malV- originated as **ma:l-.

Firstly, I can find no trace of a Hamito-Semitic *maH- in Orel-Stobova. And a check of the Arabic roots beginning with m-H gives no indication of supporting 'increase, swell'; 'rub (to soften)' or 'anger/passion' might be supported (this last supported by IE *ma:- in Greek mânis, 'rancor'. One can only wonder where Bomhard obtained this root.

On the other hand, a few Arabic roots in m-h (mahâ-tun, 'comely'; tamahhada, 'become powerful'; mahara, 'become skilled in'; mahila, 'be foremost'; ?istamahâ (m-h-y), 'launch a horse at full speed') seem to have in common 'being or doing something to a more than usual or notable degree'; and we will provisionally propose an AA root of the form *mah, meaning 'remarkable'. Egyptian shows smj, 'report', i.e. 'cause to be remarked'. Nostratic *h, *hh, *?, and ¿ show up in Egyptian as j before Nostratic * and *e; all as Egyptian h before Nostratic *o. Egyptian mj (probably **mjj = **my, which occurs in the meaning 'likewise'), 'like', is unrelated except phonetically; it derives from Nostratic *ma?y, 'fully'. This is 'like' in the sense of 'identical' not 'similar'.

There is another Egyptian word that seems plausibly to be connected: my, a particle used in imperative constructions: wD3 my jb.k, 'may your heart prosper'. Since the word we have identified here would appear in Egyptian as mj, and my is really only just mjj, perhaps it should be analyzed as mj-j, 'I remark', so that the phrase above should be translated 'may your heart, I say, prosper'.

Nostratic *meh- should result in IE *me:-, and with Ablaut-variation: *mo:- (though never as *ma:-); it means 'large, considerable'; and this certainly corresponds to the semantic range of 'remarkable'.

Dravidian *me:-[l-]-, 'fine, good', is an obvious cognate; and, additionally, we can include Dravidian *me:l-ti-, 'chief, head; greatness, excellence', mentioned by Bomhard but unfortunately incorrectly under root #426; we will include it here.

Sumerian h derives from Nostratic *x(h) before *a and *o; the Nostratic 'laryngeals' are unobservable in Sumerian in that they have only the effect of lengthening a foregoing vowel, of which the transcriptions provide no indication. Therefore, mah may not be derived from Nostratic *meh^y-.

On the basis of the cognates established, we reconstruct PL *ME-*HE-, '(by )tongue+come-over-from' = 'remark'.

No Altaic nor Uralic cognate can be found at present.

On this basis, we must amend:

(513)PN *meh^y- "(to be worthy of) remark; remarkable" > PIE (4.) *me:-/*mo:- "great, considerable"; PAA *mah- "(to be worthy of) mention"; in Egyptian s-mj "to report [cause to be remarked]"; perhaps also in my, particle = "I say"[?]; Dravidian *me:-[l-]- "fine, good"; in *me:l-ti- "chief, head; greatness, excellence"; S me (for mi₃, i.e. **mî₃) "to speak, to call" (source: PL *ME-HE)

DISCUSSION: Although Bomhard, influenced, I would guess, by the existence of Georgian magali, has reconstructed this root with a Nostratic post-velar dorsal stop (*G), he should have been reminded that g (which he indicates as gamma) is a fricative of the velar dorsal series in Kartvelian; and that the post-velar series does not have an attested fricative in Kartvelian. Thus there is no language with a reputed cognate which displays any indication of a post-velar as opposed to a velar articulatory position. Accordingly, we will have to amend the entry to reflect a dorsal affricate (because of IE *gh), i.e. Nostratic *k?x, which has the regular reflex of AA *g.

Orel-Stobova has *mag-, 'be numerous, be big", but it is clear from the examples cited (e.g. Saho meng-¹; Afar mangoo⁴) that they have confused this root, represented by IE *meg^(h)-, 'large', and the root found as IE *men(e)gh-, 'ample, much'. And even more astoundingly, they have missed a cognate like Egyptian mH, 'be full'. It is to be fervently hoped that, someday, someone with the qualities of a Pokorny and his collaborators, will address the lack of a competent Afrasian (Hamito-Semitic) etymological dictionary.

The rather unusual IE form {*meg^(h)-} cited in Pokorny is paralleled by an unexpected Sumerian form: mah, 'large, exalted, powerful' (found incorrectly in Bomhard under root #513), the archaic sign for which pictures a 'water-skin' (in opposition to the interpretation advanced in Kurt Jaritz, whose work I respect enormously, in Schriftarchäologie der altmesopotamischen Kultur, who considers the sign a "membrum virile in stato erecto"). The sign used to write Egyptian mH is also a 'water-skin' although Gardiner interprets it as a 'whip' (V22). Readers may judge for themselves from the later form above and the Old Kingdom form below which interpretation of what the sign depicts is likely to be more accurate. The normal Sumerian reflex for Nostratic *k?x and *khx is k. Sumerian h is the normal reflex of Nostratic *x(h) before *a or *o. Presumably, h is phonetically /x/. IE *y comes from Nostratic *y, which, in turn, comes from PL *¿E, or, more rarely from *¿A or *¿O (more frequently, these remain *¿ in Nostratic; and show up as vowel-lengthening in IE and other derived languages except AA).

On the basis of the cognates established, we reconstruct PL *MA-*K?XA--*¿A-, 'breast-hang-all' = 'completely full-of'.

In IE, this final Nostratic *¿a has become *y, and palatalized the final IE *gh to *g^h: *meg^h-. In Sumerian, apparently, the sequence **k¿ was fricatized to h, yielding mah (the sequence **ky, we would expect to appear as ki or š [phonetically /ç/]), a palatal fricative as against a velar fricative. Although Egyptian mH, 'be full', does not have this final formant, there is mHj, 'be drowned' = 'all filled up'.

Additionally, I have noticed that IE final affricates deriving from Nostratic affricate + *a, occasionally lose the fricative component, being reduced to the corresponding stop. In, at least, some of the IE-derived languages, this apparently happened with this root. Presumably, these languages did not have the final formant (*y) so that for those languages that seem to derive their cognates from IE *em>g, the *g should not be palatalized to **g^.

Dravidian *mik-, 'abundant, excessive, great, left over', is obviously related. But, there is a discrepancy: we should have expected **mak-. Interestingly, the sign for Sumerian mah also has the reading mi/eh, for which presently no meaning has been assigned. And there is IE *meig^h-, which most commonly means 'urinate' but has a more generalized meaning in Slovenian m6zi, 'come up (of plant-sap)', and m6zina, 'marsh-soil'.

Thus it appears that we have an additional root that is identical to IE *meg^h- (earlier: **meghy-) except for the *-i. IEists are familiar with the *-y-suffix of differentiation, a suffix used to signal small differences of nuance in a root. Although I have never used this explanation before, I believe it is highly possible that we have a rare case of differentiation here, in which a root, already possessing a final *-y-suffix is further differentiated by infixing *-y-: *meghy- > *meighy- > *meig^h-; and that the subtle difference is that 'be full' has been nuanced to 'be over full, overflow; excessive'. This meaning easily relates to Egyptian mHj in its meaning of 'inundate, overflow' (for **mjHj), and mH.t, 'Delta marshes' (**mjHj.t). In contexts wherein Sumerian mah can be interpreted as 'excessive', the reading should probably be mêh. And these are cognate with Dravidian *mik-.

That the Egyptian words underlying mH, '(be) full', and m(j)Hj⁽⁵⁾, 'inundate', are different is also supported by the forms these words took in Coptic: mouh (SAA²F), 'fill' — a very clear development from ME (/máH(a)/), in which /a/ was first rounded to /o/, then raised to /u/ after labials — as opposed to mahe, 'ell, cubit', which preserves /m(ayáHai/, representing Egyptian **mjHj. This correlates with Egyptian mH (for **mjH; Coptic amah(t)e [SA]), 'grasp', which, in turn, correlates with IE *ma/a:gh-, 'be able, be in a position to, help; power' (not to mention Egyptian m(j)Hj, 'be concerned (for)' = IE *me:gh-, 'well-intentioned, friendly, pleased'; m(j)H (LE), 'child' = IE *magho-s, 'young, youth'; Egyptian m(j)Hy, 'flax' = IE *ma/a:k(en)-, 'poppy' (both sources of vegetable oil); Egyptian **m(j[?])H, Coptic mouh, 'burn, glow, observe' [which shows a discrepant but probably related form] = IE meigh-, 'flicker, observe'; and Egyptian m(j)H, Coptic maH, 'manure' = IE *meig^h-, 'urinate, fertilize'). To sort these all out and etymologize them now would be a short essay in itself (however, several will be discussed below) but, I think, an a priori case has been made for Egyptian H = IE *gh [but also IE *k(h)]. Some of the words suggesting a medial j have, as a determinative, or were originally written with various signs depicting a 'forearm' (principally, Gardiner's D36, D42); and this leads to the strong suspicion that while the 'water-skin' stood for /maH/, /mayáH/ was conveyed by the 'forearm', and meant 'grasp'. I have used /H/ in the phonemic renditions of the Egyptian forms above to avoid one more digression to discuss what Egyptian H phonologically constituted in various periods of the language; finally, of course, it became [h] and / h/.

What Bomhard fundamentally misunderstands is that Nostratic *a, unless lengthened by a following 'laryngeal' or the effect of losing the fricative element (later aspiration) of a voiceless affricate, will appear in IE as *e/*o and never as *a; even when an IE short *a is reconstructed, it will have had to develop from an earlier long*a:. Therefore, his PN *maG-, which we have amended to *mak?x-, will show up as IE *megh-.

Bomhard has another root,

which has as its partial foundation the variant form found under IE *meg^h-, namely *meg- discussed above. Firstly, it is not possible to separate out a cluster of meanings in this IE root, tied to *meg-, which relate to 'exceed'; all roots, whether of the form *meg^h- or *meg-, mean 'large' not 'overly large'; and hence, should not correlate with Dravidian *mik-. Secondly, Bomhard reconstructs theoretically Nostratic *g as well as *k'. From Nostratic *k', IE has *g and Dravidian has *k. From Nostratic *g, IE has *g^[h] and Dravidian has *k. But if aspiration were truly "optional", then PN **mig- could also yield IE *meg- and Dravidian *mik-. From the reputed cognates shown, there is no basis for reconstructing PN *k' as opposed to PN *g if aspiration is "optional" in IE; and it is indefensible for Bomhard to make such the reconstruction he did — based on his own equivalencies. Whether a case can be made for Nostratic *g and *k' coexisting (I believe it cannot be made) or not, on the basis of these cognates, Bomhard could only reconstruct **mig/k'-. But this highlights another fact. In those roots where Bomhard reconstructs PN *g as an initial, one never finds IE *g but only *gh — the aspiration, initially, is never optional. It is only as a final that IE voiced aspirated stops sometimes lose aspiration; and I have narrowed it fown to only those voiced aspirated stops that occurred before Nostratic *a, which was subsequently lost. Therefore, to reconstruct an "optionally aspirated" stop such as Bomhard does for each series, is totally unjustified.

Accordingly, Bomhard is wrong to reconstruct #546 with a different final consonant from #514. #546 is just the simplex on which #514, with the addition of Nostratic *¿ is based.

We, therefore, reconstruct:

On the basis of the cognates established, we reconstruct PL *MA-*K?XA-, 'breast-hang' = 'full-of'.

For the inclusion of the Kartvelian cognate, see below.

For deletion of Dravidian *mik-, see below.

And we amend:

I do not have present access to all the materials Bomhard utilized to come to his conclusions about Kartvelian cognates. Gothic mikils, 'large', suggests that the *-l- extension was added to the simplex, IE *megh-, which had been simplified to *meg- as explained above. On that basis, Georgian magali, 'high, great', has been assigned to root #546 rather than retained in #514.

And we further amend:

And we must amend to include:

(Addition AA)PN *mayak?xa¿- "(to be) overly full (of); (to be) excessively large (with), excessively great with" > PIE *meig^h-/*moig^h-/*mig^h- (from **meighy-) "(to be) overly full (of), (to be) excessively large (with); to overflow; to urinate"; PAA *mayaga¿- (simplified to a triliteral root for Semitic: *maga¿[?]) "(to be) overly full (of), (to be) excessively large (with); to overflow"; perhaps in Arabic maja¿a "to speak and act inconsiderately (if = "to be overly full of one's self")"; in Egyptian mHj (for **mjHj) "to be inundated"; in Egyptian mH (for **mjHj) "manure"; PD *mik- "to exceed, to surpass, to be in excess, to grow, to increase, to swell, to expand; (adj.) great, much, superior; (n.) abundance, fullness, excess, surplus"; S mah (for **mêh) "(to be) excessive[?]" (source: PL *MA-¿E-K?XA-¿A)

DISCUSSION: We have seen examples above of PL *MA being analyzed in roots as meaning 'breast'. We have also seen many examples of PL *?A interpreted as a stative suffix. When these two elements are are combined: PL *MA-*?A, 'breast'-stative, the combination yields 'mounded'. This would result in Nostratic *ma?.

This is, of course, identical in form to the root identified in #426 "PN *ma?- "(to be) full, ripe""; and constitutes another related interpretation of the same elements. Of course, either interpretation would be sufficient to understand IE *ma:-, 'breast, mother'.

On the basis of Nostratic *ma?-, 'breast', the additional formant PL *K?XA, 'hang', was added, yielding Nostratic *ma?ak?x-, 'hang (at the) breast', i.e. '(be) infant(ile)'.

This is reflected exactly in Late Egyptian m(j)H, 'child'. The explanation of the IE form is that an earlier *ma:gh- developed into *magh- through shortening of the long vowel. The citation form, IE *magho-s, 'young, youth', should be analyzed as Nostratic *ma?ak?xása(:)-, where the final *-s(a) is a result of PL *SHA, state or condition, and meant '(the period of) infancy'. Nostratic *ma?ak?xása- would have become pre-IE *ma(:)ghás-; and with the shifting of the stress-accent to the first syllable: *mághos-. The second form, IE *maghu-, is the result of the addition of PL *FA, 'do repeatedly', and meant 'hanging repeatedly at the breast', i.e. 'juvenile'.

As for Bomhard's Dravidian *maka, it is not reconstructed at Starostin's website. However under *maG(-)l-, 'child', we find Tamil maka, 'child'. The unusual final vowel is sufficient grounds for questioning the form. Starostin has reconstructed *G because some Dravidian languages have a voiced dorsal fricative (gamma) as a reflex though no all derivatives show the *-l-. I am going to assume that Bomhard maka is an inadvertent error, and use Starostin's reconstructed form but I believe that the *-l- is an extension of the correct root, **ma(:)k- (originally long on the basis of Starostin's *ma:r-, 'breast'[?]; but note also his *mai-, 'breast') , and that the fricatization of **k to *G is a phonological development in the derived languages — not in Dravidian.

No Altaic nor Uralic cognate can be found at present.

On this basis, we must amend:

(545)PN *ma?ak?x "(to be) infant(ile)" > PIE *ma(:)gh- "infant"; in *ma(:)ghu- "infantile, young"; in *ma(:)ghos- "infancy"; PAA *ma?ag- in Late Egyptian mH (for **mjH) "child"; PD in *maG-l- (for **ma(:)k- + **-l-) "child" (source: PL *MA-?A-K?XA-(FA-)/(SHA-)

DISCUSSION: There is yet another set of related meanings also built on Nostratic PN *ma?- in addition to '(be) full, 'ripe, mounded, breast', and 'fat', as we saw above with Altaic *má:jV-, 'fat', IE *mad (from **ma:d-), 'fat' had another new meaning based on the idea of 'mounded'; and this constitutes yet another related interpretation of the same elements: it is 'peaked, billowy, hemispherical', and refers to 'waves' or 'clouds' — '(large bodies of) water', and '(drops of) rain'.

IE *mad- is discussed in Bomhard's root:

(537)PN *mat'-/*m6t'- "to be or become wet, moist" > PIE *mat'- "to be wet, moist"; AA *mat'-/*m6t'- "to be or become wet, moist"

Pokorny reconstructs IE *mad-, 'wet, drip', for this root. Modern IEists would rewrite this as *meH₂d, indicating an *a-coloring 'laryngeal'. No IEist of whom I am aware would be willing to accept that this IE *a is without a cause since canonical IE roots contain only *e/*o. Bomhard, on the other hand, asserts that PIE *a can result from PN *a; and, as a result, he incorrectly reconstructs his PN root without a 'laryngeal'. In fact, his PN *a/*6 pair supposedly yield PIE *a, *e, *o, and *6!, which he evidently does not believe is a reflex of a stress-unaccented 'laryngeal'. With this Nostratic root-vowel, Bomhard can theoretically explain virtually any vowel he finds in an IE reconstruction (excepting only *i and *u). While this is handy, it is not dandy. Any equation that explains nearly 'everything' explains next to 'nothing'.

Bomhard would have done better to consult Orel-Stobova, who reconstruct Hamitio-Semitic *ma?-, 'water, which is almost certain to be a component of this root'. Our theory predicts that Nostratic t?o will result in Semitic *d^w, which becomes 'emphatic' D (dotted d), originally a retroflex articulation of d.

This root is seen in Egyptian mt.wt, 'semen, seed, progeny, poison', which has Coptic (S) matou (from /m(a)yat^hút^h/). It is probably seen also in Arabic maDDa (reduced to a triliteral root-form from **ma?aDaDa[?]), 'grieve (if = 'drip [tears]')', which has the further extension: maDaHa, 'ooze', based on the remodeled [?] root.

Bomhard believes that Nostratic *t' develops into Semitic *T (dotted t). And although he does not detail his basis for the reconstruction of PAA "*mat'-/*m6t'-" in this dictionary, in another publication, he tells us the basis is a group of Semitic words typified by Arabic maTara, 'rain', an inference from the Orel-Stobova root *mat.ar, 'water'. We have shown below that Arabic T corresponds to IE *t when derived from Nostratic *tho or final *th^w; therefore, Semitic maTar cannot be related to a root of the PN form *mat'- (which would write: *mat?^(w)- before amending to *ma?at?^w-).

No Altaic, Dravidian, Uralic, nor Sumerian cognate can presently be found.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *MA-*?A-*T?O-, 'breast'-stative = 'hemispherical'+'lump'='drop'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(537)PN *ma?at?^w "(water-)drop; to drip" > PIE *ma(:)d- "wet; to drip"; PAA *ma?ad^w- "(water-)drop; to drip"; perhaps in Arabic maDDa "to grieve (if = "to drip [tears]")"; in Egyptian mt.wt (for **mjt.wt [Coptic {S} matou]) "semen, seed, progeny, poison" (source: PL *MA-?A-T?O-)

DISCUSSION: There is yet another root based on Nostratic *mo?- dealing with '(large bodies of) water':

(530)PN *mar-/*m6r- "any body of water: lake, sea" > PIE *mar-i- "a body of water: lake, sea"; Afroasiatic: Egyptian mr "any body of water: lake, pool, cistern, flood, reservoir, stream, basin, canal"; PA *mö:r- "river, water"

Though Bomhard strangely cites IE mar-i- (Orel-Stobova has *mir-), the established IE reconstruction is *mo/o:ri-. The IE cognate tells us unequivocally that the Nostratic form must be *o + 'laryngeal', yielding IE o:, which was subsequently shortened to **o; and a reconstruction with Nostratic *o is also indicated by PA *mö:r- (from **mori-) , 'river, water', which Bomhard apparently ignores.

Sumerian mul₂ is a reading for a sign that means 'earthen wall'; and the sign reading mul₄(u) depicts a delimited stretch of bank on a canal, and is rendered as 'field'. Under these circumstances, I think it is possible to entertain the idea that mul_2,4(u) meant 'bank'.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *MO-*?A-*RO-(*¿E-), 'slippery'-stative = 'slippery'+'very/lip'(+'-like')='bank (of any body of water)'.

Accordingly, we amend:

(530)PN *mo?ar^w-(/roy-) "bank (of any body of water)" > PIE *mo(:)r-i- "a body of water: lake, sea"; PAA *ma?ar^w- "bank (of any body of water)"; in Egyptian mr (for **mjr {Coptic [S] me:r, 'shore'}) "any body of water: lake, pool, cistern, flood, reservoir, stream, basin, canal"; PA *mö:r- (from **mo:ri) "river, water"; PU probably in *mor(-)t3 "end, edge, bank"; PD *mur(-i)- (Starostin) "mud"[?]; S mul_2,4 (for **mûl_2,4(u) "bank[?]" (source: PL *MO-?A-RO-[¿E-])

DISCUSSION: A Nostratic root (not included in Bomhard's dictionary) that clearly exemplifies the vowel-lengthening capability of an aspirated nasal is found in Nostratic *ma:th, seen in IE (2.) *ma(:)t-, 'pick(-axe), mallet/stick'; Egyptian m(j)dw (preserved in a Greek rendition of a name as -me:tis), 'staff, rod'; and Sumerian in mad(-)lu, 'a right-angled tool' (also mat₂ {for **mâd₂}, '**rod', a reading for a sign which pictures a 'rod sticking into the ground with upturned clods', and means 'support'). Orel-Stobova lists this root for Hamito-Semitic as *mut.- (it would be compellingly interesting to learn how Orel-Stobova arrived at the determination of the Hamito-Semitic medial vowel since they cite mat.eh not mo:t.), 'stick', but, along with Egyptian mdw, the only Semitic derivate they bring forward is Hebrew mat.eh, 'walking-stick, staff', which, it seems likely to me, is a borrowing from Egyptian mdw since it seems not to occur in Arabic.

For the interpretation of mdw as a 'digging-stick', the < a href="http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Forum/2803/mdw.gif">hieroglyph with which it is written clearly shows not a pole with clipped ends but a pole tapering to a point.

We have repeatedly emphasized that IE *a can only be the result of a shortening of *a: but, in this example, the original lengthening is not due to a following 'laryngeal' but rather is the effect of an aspirated nasal that lengthened the following vowel when it lost its aspiration, and resulted in a Nostratic long vowel.

Dravidian has *mat.-, 'stalk, branch', which corresponds except for the retroflex final which would indicate a Nostratic final apical obstruent with a velar glide. This retroflection may be due to an extended root with final *-w as presumably seen in the Egyptian cognate mdw so it will be included provisionally.

No Altaic nor Uralic cognate seems to be presently ascertainable.

We, therefore, reconstruct PL *MHA-*THA-(FHA-), 'bite-loosen'(-'do repeatedly') = 'turn up (dirt [repeatedly])'='digging-stick'.

Accordingly, we amend to include:

(Addition AB)PN *ma:th- "digging-stick" > PIE *ma(:)t- "(pick-)axe, mallet/stick"; PAA *mat- "stick"; in Egyptian mdw "staff, rod, *digging-stick"; PD *mat.- "stalk, branch"[?]; S in mad(-)lu "right-angled tool (if = "pick-axe")"; mat₂ (for **mâd₂), '**rod' (source: PL *MHA-THA-(FHA-)

go to Part Two

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

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Afrasian

Egyptian



p, f, d, t, k, T(bar-t)

w, z, s, S(hook-s), X(bar-h)

b, D(bar-d), ', H(dot-h), x(hook-h)

m, n, q(dot-k), g

3, r

j, h









Arabic



b, d, dh, f, j, gh, t, th, k, kh

D(dot-d), T(dot-t), Z(dot-z), S(dot-s)

z, s, sh

r, l

m, n, q(dot-k, velar k)

y, ?, h, ¿ (¿ain), H(dot-h, He:)

PROTO-LANGUAGE MONOSYLLABLES

In order for readers to judge the semantic plausibility of the analysis of Proto-Language (PL) compounds suggested here, I am including access to a table of Proto-Language monosyllables and the meanings I have provisionally assigned.

Most assignments can be exhaustively supported by data from actually attested forms but a few animates are very doubtful; and this list does not represent the "final" solution of these questions, which will only be approached when other scholars assist in refining it.

Patrick C. Ryan

Summer 1998

the latest revision of this document can be found at

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

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

PROTO-LANGUAGE@email.msn.com

To validate these correspondences of Nostratic t?o/t?so/tho/thso, we can propose:

1. *T?O-MO, 'put-together+slide' = 'fit together' (Nostratic *t?om-) = Arabic d.amma, 'draw together, collect, get hold of, embrace'; Egyptian tm, 'close mouth, complete'; IE *dem-6-, 'tame, control, young animal'; Sumerian dumu, 'child' (if = 'bound {swaddled} one[?]' or 'controlled one' or 'embraced one');
2. *THO-MHO, 'move-together+overall' = 'finish' (Nostratic *thom-) = Arabic t.amma, 'overwhelm'; Egyptian tm, 'perish, cease'; IE *t(h)em-, 'be deprived of (mental equilibrium, feeling)'; Sumerian dum, **'bring' (another reading of the sign tum);
3. *T?SO-MA, 'swing+mound' = 'swirl(ing column of smoke)' (Nostratic *t?som-) = Arabic in z.ama-?a, 'be thirsty, desire' (if = 'reel'); perhaps Egyptian 'm, 'swallow' (if from thirst, deprivation, exhaustion); IE *dhem-, 'smoke'; Sumerian tuma, 'break wind';
4. *THSO-MHO, 'move-in-a-circle+slip' = 'be disconnected' (Nostratic *thsom-) = Arabic s.amma, 'stop up, become deaf'; Egyptian 'm'm, 'smear'; IE *s-t(h)em-, 'prevent'; Sumerian tum₃, 'carry away').


1. *T?O-NHA, 'torso+move-back-and-forth' = 'wobble' (Nostratic *t?ol-) = Arabic d.alla, 'stray from the right path'; Egyptian in tn-bX, 'turn aside'; in tn-m, 'turn aside'; IE *del-, 'wobble, sway'; Sumerian dul₆, 'evil' (if sign normally read hul₃ can so also be read[?]);
2. *THO-NHA, 'move-together+move-back-and-forth' = 'be over' (Nostratic *thol-) = Arabic t.alla, 'see from above, overtop'; Egyptian tn (if this is the earlier form of Tn[?]), 'lift up'; IE *(s)tel-, 'let flow, urinate'; *(s)tel-, 'stand'; *tel-, 'lift up'; Sumerian dul, 'overpower, cover';
3. *T?SO-NHA, 'arm+move-back-and-forth' = 'tunnel, passage' (Nostratic *t?sol-) = Arabic z.alla, 'shade'; in Egyptian 'n-b, 'reed-stalk (cf. IE *dhel-bh-, 'long-bone')'; in 'n.t, 'claw' (if = 'hollow'[?]); IE *dhel-, 'hollow enclosure'; Sumerian **tul (for dul), 'shadow'; tul₂, 'passage'; tul₂, 'cheek (if 'hollow place'[?]; cf. Egyptian 'n'n, 'chin');
4. *THSO-NHA, 'move-in-a-circle+move-back-and-forth' = 'waft' (Nostratic *thsol-) = Arabic s.alla, 'smell, stink'; Egyptian in 'n-tjw, 'myrrh (if = 'fragrant'[?])'; IE *(3.)t(h)el-, 'decay'; Sumerian tul, 'well (if = 'stinking[?])'.


1. *T?O-RE, 'torso-apply' = 'sit' (Nostratic *t?or-) = Arabic d.arra, '**set upon' in ?ad.ara, 'compel (if = 'put on'[?])'; Egyptian in t3-y, 'clothe (if = 'set upon'[?])'; IE *der-6-, 'work (if = 'set upon'[?])'; Sumerian dur₂, 'sit';
2. *THO-RHE, 'move-together+come' = 'compact' = 'dry' (Nostratic *thor-) = Arabic t.arra, '**dry' in tartîr-un, 'sediment, dregs' (cf. Egyptian t3H.t, 'lees, dregs'); Egyptian t3, 'earth (if = 'dry land')'; IE in *ter-s-, 'dry'; Sumerian dur₂, 'dry out';
3. *T?SO-RE, 'arm+apply' = 'saw, work' (Nostratic *t?sor-) = Arabic z.arra, 'cut off'; IE *s-ter-, 'rob (if from s+**dher-, 'cut off [excretion]')'; Sumerian tur, 'make small, reduce';
4. *THSO-RHE, 'move-in-a-circle+come' = 'strap' (Nostratic *thsor-) = Arabic s.arra, 'tie up, bind; make sound (this is onomatopoeic [s.ars.ara]: reduplicated in IE *tet(e)r-, 'coo'; Sumerian tur₅^(MUŠEN), 'bird of the pigeon or dove family'; perhaps THSO-RE[?])'; Egyptian '3, 'ass (if = 'pack-animal'[?])'; in '3-t, 'linen cloth (if = 'strap')'; IE *s-t(h)er-, 'line, strand (if originally 'strap')'; Sumerian **tur₂ (for dur), 'bind'; **tur_x (for ^(ANŠE)dur₃^(UR3)), 'he-ass'.


1. *T?O-NA, 'put-together+thing' = 'heap' (Nostratic *t?on-) = Arabic d.anna, 'retain'; Egyptian tnjw, 'circular vessel, pot, or tray[?]'; IE in *den-s--, 'high mental powers (if = 'logical combination'[?])'; Sumerian dun, 'heap'; dun₂, 'grain silo';
2. *THO-NA, 'move-together+thing' = 'vibration' (Nostratic *thon-) = Arabic t.anna, 'ring, buzz, tinkle'; Egyptian in tnj(w),'cry out'[?]; IE *(s)ten-, 'of loud noises'; Sumerian **dun₄, 'storm'; dun₅, 'churn';
3. *T?SO-NA, 'retain-thing' = 'palm (as 'holding place')' (Nostratic *t?son-) = Arabic z.anna, 'think, suppose (if = 'hold')'; in Egyptian 'n-t, 'socket for jar'; IE *dhen-, 'flat of the hand (as cup for holding[?])'; Sumerian tun₃, '**container (recognized meanings: 'wrap, bandage; pouch, case; stomach; lip; intact, bound');
4. *THSO-NA, 'move-in-a-circle+thing' = 'powerful blow/noise' (Nostratic *thson-) = Arabic in s.ana-ja, 'strike with a stick'; Egyptian in 'n-t, 'pick' (n.); IE *(s)t(h)en-, 'thunder'; Sumerian tun, 'beat down'.

Obviously, not all of the proposed cognates will be valid; however, I am hoping most readers will be able to detect a general pattern which will support the premise.

4.

on page 539 of Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages (pp. 478-554), Pekka Sammallahti, in The Uralic Languages, Description, History and Foreign Influences, Handbook of Uralic Studies, Volume I, Denis Sinor (editor), E. J. Brill; Leiden, New York, København, Köln; 1988.

5.

Though it has no direct bearing on this analysis, we should notice IE *ma(:)k-, 'skin or leather pouch or bag', and *ma/a:k-, 'wet, dampen, swamp'. This latter corresponds with Egyptian mHj, 'inundate, overflow', and mH.t, 'Delta marshes'; and, if my interpretation of the object depicted is correct: mH, '**water-skin'. Because of Egyptian H, we know this must represent Nostratic *khx; and because of the non-palatalization of IE *ma/a:k-, we know it must be Nostratic *khxa. Here Nostratic *khxa, 'be suspended', probably refers to the carrying of the water-bag.