Billet d’humeur # 7

Reasons why

the core doctrine

of the Leiden School

about PIE

is about entirely false

In the following paper:

https://www.academia.edu/40419708/Indo_European_and_its_neighbors

Frederik Kordlandt explicitly lists the fundamental claims of the Leiden School about PIE:

Claim1 – There were a palatovelar series and a labiovelar series but no plain velars in the [PIE] proto-language.
Claim1 seems specific to Kordlandt, as Beekes (1995) or Kloekhorst (2008 HED) accept a third plain velar series.

Claim2 – There are only three PIE laryngeals, hence no *H4.

Claim3 – The value of *H1 is a glottal stop *[ˀ].

Claim4 – The laryngeals *H2 *[q] and *H3 *[qw] were originally (uvular) stops.
Claim4 was originally proposed by Kloekhorst (2008).

Each of these claims will be shown to be false.

 3

0. Introduction
The paper shows that the fundamental claims of the Leiden School about PIE, listed in the preceding page, are false.

1. Claim1 – No third so-called “velar” series

The traditional reconstruction of PIE postulates three series:
- a so-called “palato-velar” series: *ǩ, *ğ, *ğh,
- a so-called “velar” series: *k, *g, *gh,
- a so-called “labio-velar” series: *kw, *gw, *ghw,
The reconstruction considers that a potential fourth series *ǩw, *ğw, *ğhw, is clusters: *ǩ+w, *ğ+w, *ğh+w.

First of all, it must be emphasized that, in some of the daughter-languages, like Latin, kw written <qu> is doubtless a phoneme,
as the accent in lóquĭtur is only possible if the u of qu does not count as a vowel. But this feature does not mean that the same
situation is true for PIE. What is synchronically true in Latin is not necessarily diachronically true in PIE.

The idea that the so-called “velar” series: *k, *g, *gh, may be discarded and is not a full-fledged phonemic series was proposed
as early as Meillet (1894). It is accepted by Kortlandt, and incidentally also by Bomhard for his Nostratic studies. This belief is
apparently not shared by all people involved in the Leiden School.
Beekes (1995:125–26) examines conditioning rules, which attempt to prove that, “if these rules are correct and originally
covered all cases, the [so-called] velars are actually variants, allophones of both the two other series, and not independent
phonemes of their own”. A major reason why Beekes wants to discard the so-called “velar” series is because of “the fact that
nowhere [emphasis his] has a third series actually been preserved.”
But, now, if we admit that PIE should be reconstructed with only two series, which one of the three should be discarded?

A conspicuous feature of Hurrian, the sister-language of PIE, is that it offers plenty of comparanda for all PIE phonemes, but
strangely, (about) none for the word-initial “labio-velar” series: *kw, *gw, *ghw. The series seems to be entirely “gone”, which
suggests that it may in fact have never existed in PIE.
The Indo-Europeanist tradition holds that the fourth series *ǩw, *ğw, *ğhw, is clusters, but it would appear that the “labio-
velar” series: *kw, *gw, *ghw is also clusters, an artifact of the comparative method. An example is PIE *gwow- ‘cattle’, which is
derived from a more ancient root *gow- ‘horn’: Hurrian hawuši [=SI] ‘horn’. PIE *gwow- ‘cattle’ originally meant ‘horned’.
Our conclusion is that the “labio-velar” series: *kw, *gw, *ghw is fictitious. Words with these word-initial clusters are either
zero-grades of roots of the type *kew, *gew, *ghew, or borrowings.

What is more, in medial position, *w appears to be a separate morpheme. Pairs like *penkwe- ‘five’ ~ *penkró- ‘finger’ show
that the reconstruction of the root as *penkw- is croockery.
The morpheme *w roughly means ‘that which’: *H1eǩ-w-o- ‘horse = that which moves fast’, *H4enğh-w- ‘snake = that which
causes fear’, etc.

The claim that the so-called “velar” series: *k, *g, *gh, should be discarded is false. On the contrary, the non-existing series
is the so-called “labio-velar” series: *kw, *gw, *ghw, which is to be analyzed as clusters.

From the macro-comparative point of view, medial dorsals have the following patterns of correspondences:

- *H4eǩ-: PIE *aǩ-: Latin ăcus, Gen ăcūs ‘needle’ ~ PU *äy-mä ‘needle’
- *H4eğ-: PIE *ağ-: Latin ăg- ‘to lead, drive’ ~ PU *ay-a- ‘to chase, hunt’
- *H4eg-: PIE *agwesi- ‘ax’ ~ PU *akta- ‘to strike, hew’
- *H4egh-: (non in PIE) ~ PU *aŋa- ‘opening, mouth’
- *H4eg-: PIE *og- ‘fruit, berry’ ~ PU *äŋ- ‘raspberry’
- *H3eg-: PIE *ogn- ‘fire’ ~ PU *äŋ- ‘to burn, fire’
- *yeg-: PIE *yeg- ‘ice’ ~ PU *yäkš- ‘cold’

Uralic confirms that PIE and Nostratic have two fundamental series of dorsals.

Arnaud Fournet – December 2020 – v1

 4

2. Claim2 – Only three PIE laryngeals, no *H4

Kümmel has listed a number of words in the Iranian branch that have an explicit word-initial trace of *H2 as h-. This feature
can also be found in Armenian (where it has long been known to exist) and Kurdish. If some words with an a-coloring laryngeal
have h-, and some others do not, the logical consequence is that there are necessarily (at least) two a-coloring laryngeals. This
duality was already recognized by Kuryłowicz and Sturtevant on the basis of Hittite. I am waiting for the day when Kümmel
and other Indo-Europeanists see the light.

A typical minimal pair is: *H4ew- ‘far, (far) away’ ~ *H2ew- ‘sheep’.
- *H4ew-: Hurrian awatti ‘far, distant’, Hittite awan ‘away’, Latin au- ‘away, off, gone’, Old Indian áva ‘from, down’, Old
Prussian, Lithuanian, Latvian au-, Slavic *u- ‘away, from’
- *H2ew-: Hu hawirni ‘lamb’, Hittite hawi- [UDU-iš], Luvian hawi-, Hieroglyphic Luvian hawa/isa-, Lycian χawã [Acc sg]
‘sheep’, Tocharian B ā(u)w ‘ewe’, eye ‘sheep’, aiyye ‘ovine’, Old Indian ávi- m. f, avika- m. ‘sheep’, aviká ‘ewe’, ávya-
‘of sheep’, Armenian hov-iw (< *H2owi-pā-) ‘pastor’, Greek οἴς, οἶς, Latin ovis, Old Irish ōi ‘sheep’, Old Icelandic aer,
Old English ēowu, ēowe, Old Saxon ewi, O.H.G ouwi, ou ‘sheep’ (< *awī, Gen. *awyōz), Lithuanian avìs, Latvian avs f.
‘sheep’, Lithuanian ãvinas, Latvian avins, àuns, Old Prussian awins ‘ram’, Old Bulgarian оvьca ‘ewe’
Note that Armenian typically is hov-iw (< *H2owi-pā-) ‘pastor’, with word-initial h-.

Another indication is minimal pairs like: ‘nose’ ~ ‘salt’ ~ ‘to stand’

*H4 – Latvian nãs-s ~ *H2 – Latvian sā̀ l-s
*H4 – Serbian nôs ~ *H2 – Serbian brȁt
*H4 – Old Indian nās, năs ~ *H2 – sthā-tár- ‘which stands’, [participle] sthĭ-tá-
It is not possible to account for different tones (ã vs ā̀ , ô vs ȁ) and different patterns of vocalic alternations (ā/ă vs ā/ĭ) with
only one a-coloring laryngeal. This is a logical and phonological impossibility.

There must be more than one a-coloring laryngeal in PIE. Claim2 is doubtless false.

What is more, there are possibly two laryngeals of the *H2 type, in addition to *H4, a voiceless velar *H2- [ḫ] and a voiced
velar *H2+ [ġ], according to Kartvelian comparanda: ზღვა *zġva ‘sea’ is cognate to PIE *seH2-l- ‘salt’, Georgian ცხვარი ch-
ḫv-ari ‘sheep’ is cognate of PIE *H2ew- ‘sheep’. Kartvelian *H2- [ḫ] and *H2+ [ġ] are full-fledged phonemes.
The potential existence of two PIE laryngeals of the *H2 velar fricative type requires more work.

3. Claim3 – *H1 is a glottal stop *[ˀ]

Semitic comparanda show that H4 is the correct comparandum for the glottal stop *[ˀ].

*ˀağ- ‘to drive’: Arabic ˀajāˀ ‘to flee ; force to (do)’ ~ PIE *ağ- ‘to lead, drive’
*ˀay- ‘goat’: Tigre ˀäyot ‘goat’ ~ Greek αἴξ, -γός, Armenian այծ aic (without h-) ‘nanny goat’
*ˀaǩ- ‘to eat’: Semitic *akal- ~ Old Indian aśnāti ‘to eat, consume’, Greek ἄκολος ‘bite’
*ˀam- ‘to walk toward’: Arabic ˀamma, ˀamaja ‘to walk toward, reach’ ~ Old Indian am-ati ‘to go’
*ˀan- ‘man(kind)’: Semitic ˀinsu ‘mankind’ ~ PIE *H4ner ‘man’
*ˀap- ‘away’: Arabic ˀafaka, ˀafara, ˀafata ‘to keep sby away’ ~ PIE *ap- ‘far off’
*ˀat- ‘to walk’: Arabic ˀatala ‘to walk fast with short steps’ ~ Old Indian at-ati ‘to go’
*ˀuz- ‘ear’: Semitic *ˀudnu ‘ear’ ~ PIE *H4eus- ‘ear’

Note PIE *H4em- (Old Indian ámatram nt ‘vessel, jug, big drinking bowl’, Armenian aman [without h-] ‘vessel’) ~ Uralic
*ama- ‘to scoop’ ~ Classical Arabic taˀmūrah (√ˀmr) ‘cup, bowl’.

Another point is that the value *[ˀ] for *H1 is based on the fact that a glottal stop usually does not color neighboring vowels.
As a matter of fact, the traditional approach posits that *H1e- > e, in other words the e-grade is apparently not colored by *H1.
But this point of view is quite certainly false, as what tradition describes with the cover symbol e is in fact PIE /a/. If the starting
point for PIE is /a/ instead of e, then it is logical that *H4a- *[ˀa] > a, and *H1 is in fact a laryngeal that colors /a/ into e. The
assignment of phonetic values is obviously depending on what kind of initial state is chosen for PIE. Our opinion is that the e-
grade is a cover symbol for /a/. So PIE did have a vowel /a/, it is just mischaracterized as being *e.

A number of comparative considerations shows that a better value for *H1 is *[ḥ]. *H1 and *w are partners in some roots,
like in *pleH1-n- ‘full’ ~ *pol-u- ‘a lot’. This pair has an exact counterpart in Arabic ḥāfil ‘full’, ḥafala ‘to fill’ ~ wāfil ‘fully

Arnaud Fournet – December 2020 – v1

 5

grown up’. Note also Arabic ḥafla ‘crowd, multitude’ ~ Latin pōpulus. Another pair is Arabic falaḥa ‘to cut, split’ ~ *falawa ‘to
wean (a child or filly)’.
Another example is the word ‘mouth’ *HoH-s, possibly involving two laryngeals *H1 and *H3, in light of Latin ōs and Hittite
aiš. Straightforward comparanda can be found in South Arabic: *ḫah < *ḫaˁ ‘mouth’. According to alternations like Baṭḥari m.
ḥəbəˁeet, f. ḥaabah ‘seven’. The immediate reconstruction *ḫah (Mehri, Jibbāli ḫɔh, Harsusi ḫah) is also consistent with *ḫaˁ.
As the correct value of *H3 is *ˁ, South Arabic indicates that the correct reconstruction of PIE is *H1oH3-s.

Claim3 about *H1 being a glottal stop is therefore doubtless false.

4. Claim4 – *H2 and *H3 were originally (uvular) stops *[q] *[qw]
Needless to say, Claim4 is quite certainly one of the most demented ideas ever proposed about PIE, during the last four
centuries. It competes with Flat-Earthism and Reptilian Rule.

It must be first reemphasized that the pseudo-decipherment of Carian claimed by Adiego–Ray-Schürr (2007) is bogus and
worthless. Nothing is correct except letter A. Kloekhorst, in good company with some other VIPs of the Indo-European studies,
endorses that crookery, to their misfortune...

The following values are correct:

*H1 = ḥ – Arabic ḥā-fil ‘full’ ~ PIE *pl-eH1-n- ‘full’

*H2- = ḫ – Georgian ცხვარი ch-ḫv-ari ‘sheep’ ~ PIE *H2ew- ‘sheep’
*H2+ = ġ – Georgian ზღვა *zġva ‘sea’ ~ PIE *seH2-l- ‘salt’
*H3 = ˁ – *ˁac- ‘bone’: Semitic *ˁac ̣-m(at)- ‘bone’ ~ PIE *H3est- ‘bone’
*H3 = ˁ – South Arabic *ḫaˁ ‘mouth’ ~ PIE *H1oH3-s ‘mouth’
*H4 = ˀ – *ˀuz- ‘ear’: Semitic *ˀudnu ‘ear’ ~ PIE *H4eus- ‘ear’

For that matter, PIE and Nostratic seem to have the following system:

velar uvular glottal

voiceless *H2- = ḫ *H1 = ḥ
*H4 = ˀ
voiced *H2+ = ġ *H3 = ˁ

Arnaud Fournet – December 2020 – v1