Dravidian roots *piẓ(d)(q), *piCt, *muẓṇ(d\g)-?

Dravidian roots *piẓ(d)(q), *piCt, *muẓṇ(d\g)-?

In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/पीडयति the Dravidian root *piẓ ‘to squeeze, milk’ is said to be a loan from Skt. *piẓḍ > pīḍ ‘squeeze / press’. Though the exact nature of *ẓ is not clear, let us assume that it was either identical or something that could easily come from ẓ (see several other IE matches with *z, below). In https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=\data\drav\dravet it makes no mention of Skt. and includes 4 other roots for ‘squeeze’ *pinḍ, *pīd, *pīc, and *pid (that might really be *p(e)iqd in *pediq ? > Kurukh pedEx-nā 'to pinch, squeeze, strangle', Malto pethɢe) and Brahui princing does not clearly fit any of these. If all these are loans from Skt. *piẓḍ at various stages, it still doesn’t seem to make sense. How would these come into all these languages, including Brahui? Most linguists would say Skt. *piẓḍ came from Indo-Iranian *pižd (and the change to retroflex is sometimes said to be from contact with Dravidian), so a very old loan would not work in this scenario.

In https://www.academia.edu/167420288 I said :

>

Standard PIE *p(e)is- 'crush, grind, pound, hurt' is sometimes rec. *tp(e)is- to account for Greek ptis(s)-. However, it is very similar to *pi(e)sd- 'press, squeeze, hurt'. If these were identical, met. *pisd- > *pdis- would be needed. Some say < *(e)pi-s(e)d- 'sit on, press down'. I say *(e)pi-sisd- & *-sesd- (with reduplication known from other words from *s(e)d-) fits better, & might explain that new *s(s)d would sometimes move the voicelss *s(s) away from *d. This also allows *pdis(s)- > G. ptis(s)- & *pis(e)sd- > G. piezd-, etc.

>

Now, this is a very close match, but some would say chance might be enough. However, PIE *pezd- 'fart' & Dr. pitt- \ pīt- also match, also with an unclear *C(C) > tt \ _t.

In PIE *mezg- > S. májjati ‘submerge/sink’, Li. mazgóti ‘wash’, the similar Uralic *mos’ke- ‘wash’ is often called a loan. However, in https://www.academia.edu/165248349 I described many similar roots that might be variants, like *murdg- > *murtk- > Ar. mkrtem ‘immerse/dip/wash/bathe/baptize’, *murkt- > mrtimn ‘*dabbling > teal’. Since *zg doesn't work, some other *Czg must exist, "The *rzg in *mwerzg- is needed for sound changes in branches, like *murzg- >*murdg- > *murtk- > Ar. mkrtem ‘immerse/dip/wash/bathe/baptize’. IIr. must have had *rzg > *dzg (producing dg in S. (like *CsC > CC) for *medzgu- > S. madgú-, not *mezgu- > *me:gú-). Since this root has unexpected changes in L. & S. (unexpected if from *mezg-, that is), I see no way to accept the rec. *mezg-, which can not account for all V's or C's". Now, compare *muṛdg- 'to sink completely in' > Kui bṛuḍga. Is there any way to reconcile *muṛdg- & *murdg- > *murtk- > mkrt-? Certainly not as loans. Any language adapting an odd C-cluster would already need to have *CCC of many odd types, & why borrow 'sink'? From the same site, the rec. of cognates (without taking IE origin into account) :

>

Proto-Dravidian : *muẓṇ-

to be immersed, sink

South Dravidian: *mūẓ-

Telugu : *muṇ-ug-

Kolami-Gadba : *muṇg-

Gondi-Kui : *muṛṇ-

Notes : The root had a long vowel originally, as evidenced by Tamil mūṛ, etc. However, it is more often met with an accented suffix (*muṛ-úg-, etc.), as well as with one-consonant suffixes (*mūṛ-g-, etc.). Tamil mūṛku is irregular (*mūṭku should be expected), probably due to analogization with the rest of the forms.

>

Also Kuṛux. mulx- ‘to sink’, Malto mulɢ- ‘to dip in’. No original *CCC, however complex, can account for all variants :

Tamil muẓuku ‘to bathe the entire body, to sink’, Konḍa muṛg- ‘to be drowned, sink’, Gadaba mulg- ‘to immerse, be immersed’

Malayalam muẓukikka, muŋŋikka to bathe a child, plunge, immerse; muŋŋuka

Kannada muẓugu, muẓagu, muẓigu, muẓ(u)ku, muẓiŋku, muẓuŋku, muẓuŋgu, muṇugu, muṇagu, muṇigu

Betul Gondi muṛungānā 'to dive, sink, be drowned', Muria Gondi muṛnd- 'to sink, be drowned'

If loans, why would Dr. borrow the IE roots with the most complex *-CC(C)- possible? Why show the same variation as in IE, apparently entirely optional in both? I can not accept any solution but common origin. Words like mam(m)a are found far and wide, and said to be from human tendency. Even several families with *pE(C)T 'fart' is claimed as onomatopoeia. No tendency would create *muRdg- 'sink', etc.

To start, the biggest problem with most variation in Dr. is some with -n-, some without. If the same as IE, n-infix in present verbs (sometimes extended throughout the stem by analogy), then it would solve most of the problems & provide another link between Dr. & IE.

Next, PIE has many *s, but not Dr. It is highly likely that the odd *CC in Dr. result from *s > *x or *χ (like Iranian *s > h, *sw > xW ), as *pezd > *peχd > *piχt > pitt- \ pīt-. Clearly, *piCt fits the ev. better than anything else.

In *pisezd, either regularly > *peẓiχd- or met. > *pezisd first (depending on whether RUKI also caused retro.); most *peẓiχd- > *pẓiχd- > *piẓχd- > *peiɢd- > *pīd \ *pid (matching *piχt > pitt- \ pīt-), but also met. *peẓiχd- > *pediχ- > Kurukh pedEx-, Malto pethɢe. Earlier metathesis of *peẓisd > *peẓids > *pẓids > *pīc- (or similar); N-infix > *pẓinds > Brahui princing.

In 'sink', I think *H2mewd- 'damp' > *-sk^(e)- (present only?) > *mH2wedzg-, with H2 > R ( https://www.academia.edu/115369292 ), also > *mweR(d)(z)g-, etc. In Dr. *mRudzg- > *muṛdg- 'to sink completely in' > Kui bṛuḍga, the basic root only. With N-infix, *mRundzg- > *muẓṇ(d\g)-?, etc., > -ng-, -nd-, *-(r)ẓn-, etc.

These are very complex *CC(C), but the outcomes are so various & odd that no simple *CC would account for them all. Their matches with IE in such complex variants is itself a reason to relate them. Very simple words might resemble each other by chance (and this is certainly the standard response to many shared features), but that is not a reasonable response here.