Indo-European, Uralic, and Yukaghir Numbers Compared: '5, 6, 7'

Language Reconstruction

Sean Whalen

June 7, 2026

F. IE words for ‘left’ often are either from ‘bent / crooked / weak / bad’ or (euphemistically) ‘better / preferred / favorable’. In this context, *wek^(o)s- ‘6’ > Ar. vec’, *s(w)ek^(o)s (said to be contaminated by ‘7’, either *s- added to or replacing *w-) would be the first number counted on the left hand, thus likely named for *wek^- ‘favor / prefer / will / be willing’ (S. vaś- ‘be willing/obedient’, G. hékāti ‘by the will of _’, *wekatos ‘to be obeyed / lord’ > Hekatos, fem. Hekátē, etc.).

Though *wek^s is seen as older than *wek^os, there is no reason for Celtic to change an unanalyzable number into an o- or os-stem, and Celtic retains many archaic patterns and features. In my mind, *wek^os- as ‘favor / preference’ or *wek^yos- ‘more favorable / better / preferred’ was older, and it is possible this shows *o > 0 in the final syllable if the following word’s first was accented (or some other sandhi, also see ‘seven’). The details on which was correct depend on whether *wek^yos- > *wek^os- was regular, or some other optional change occurred.

If *s(w)ek^(o)s is to account for Gl. secos, W. chwech, G. héx \ wéx, Go. saihs, OI sé, etc., what of IIr. *kṣvaćṣ ? If *g^hes-wek^os 'left hand' existed (*g^hes- ‘grasp’ & *g^hes(s)or- ‘hand’, also *g^heslo- ‘1,000’, maybe *g^hosti- > T. *keśćä > *keść > TA kaś, TB keś ‘number’), after e-loss in ablaut > *k^swek^(o)s. I think this is probably the oldest form, with most IE having *k^-k^ > *0-k^, but IIr. *k^-k^ > *k-k^. It could be that both *wek^(o)s & *k^s-wek^(o)s existed as 'left' vs. 'left hand' (as in many languages, with little difference in use, if any), but if only *k^s- in IE, other branches also sometimes *s-s > 0-s.

G. PIE ‘seven’ is somewhat odd, with accented *-ḿ̥ not seen in others with *-m, so their origins could be different. An explanation for *septḿ̥ as a compound (like ‘4’ & ‘8’) could be ‘one more’ or the like. As one more than 6, the start of left-counting (F), *sem-tóm ‘then one / and one more’ would fit (*tóm > E. then, L. tum). Dissimilation of *m-m > *p-m works, and it is possible this shows *o > 0 in the final syllable if the following word’s first syllable was accented (or some other sandhi, also see ‘2’ ). This is important in showing that the many languages with ‘6’ and ‘7’ beginning with s-, š-, ts, etc., are not the source of PIE numbers, but the reverse.

It is well known that some numbers seem to be found where unexpected (or near matches, depending on which numbers). The relation of Indo-European *septḿ̥ '7', Etruscan semph-, Hurrian šittanna, Uralic *śäjććemä ?, Iberian sisbi, Basque zazpi, Kartvelian *šwid-, Afroasiatic *səṗɣwə(t-) ? 'seven' (Egyptian sfḫw, Berber *saβ, Semitic *šabʕ- (Akkadian sebûm f.)) has often been proposed, often as a loan (despite the difficulties this would cause, some especially unlikely depending on which was favored as the original). The late use of counting & the even later formation of '6' & '7' in most, certainly in IE, makes the S- & S- matches less likely due to chance, but there is no ev. for loans anywhere.

For PU, Based on (Whalen 2025k)

Some words are so close in PIE & PU that loans are suspected. Others see an Indo-Uralic stage. In words like :

PIE *gWolHmo- > Gmc. *kwalma-z > OE cwealm ‘death/slaughter’, PU *kalma > F. kalma ‘death’, Mv. kalmo, Kam. kholmë ‘grave’, En. kamer(o) ‘ghost’

PIE *wodo:r > E. water, G. húdōr, PU *wete

there are no clear “unexpected” changes. That is, *m > *m, etc. If words that were very close, but with one sound change, were examined, maybe those changes could be found in other words that contained one or more other changes. By continuing in this manner, finding multiple examples of each, more clarity on what type of relationship PIE & PU had might be found. Though not exact matches, F. seitsemä- ‘7’ and cognates were often thought to be loans from PIE *septǝmó- ‘7th’ (or some word for ‘7’ in a later IE branch). However, its recent reconstruction *śäjććemä (based on Aikio's *ćäjć(ć)imä, who refuses to distinguish ś & ć (due to Saami merging them, apparently)) might prove its native origin.

Though Aikio said, "The initial *k in some [Saami] languages is a dissimilative development (*ć–ć >> *k– ć)", this is certainly contamination < *kuxte 'six'. In the same way, "The loss of *m in [Saami] S and U is irregular" also from *-e in '6'. For, "In all [Finnic] languages except Võro the word underwent the change *äi > *ei; this change is also attested in, e.g., Fi heisi..", the palatal env. is likely the cause. "Most references either deny the appurtenance of PSam *säjʔwǝ ‘seven’ or consider it uncertain. This skepticism is unwarranted, however, because the straightfoward sound correspondence between the Samoyed and Finnic numerals allows the PU form to be quite precisely reconstructed..".

My problem is with his *-jć(ć)-. This is to explain ev. like, "The correspondence between Finnic and Samoyed implies the reconstruction of a consonant cluster with *j as the first member; the glide seems to have become lost in the other forms. UEW (773) reconstructs the cluster *ŋć instead, but this is a rather incomprehensible solution as none of the forms offer any evidence of a nasal consonant. Finnic points to a following geminate *ćć, and the unvoiced sibilants in PMd *śiśǝm and Mari BK šišim, M šǝ̑šǝ̑mǝ̑t may also offer indirect evidence for an original geminate *ćć, because PU single *ć is reflected as PMd *ź and PMari *ž in word-medial position. However, both Saami and Permic suggest a single *ć." For this set, Hovers rec. *śät́t́imä (based on *-t́- in a set different from *-ś-). These problems of *j vs. *0 and *ć vs. *ćć might have an IE solution.

Though PU *śäjććemä '7' > F. seitsemä-, Sm. *čiečëm, Mv. śiśǝm, Z. śiźïm, Smd. *säysmǝ > *säyCwǝ > Nga. śajbǝ does not fit any known IE *-CC- in the word, it seems a little too close for comfort. It would be much easier if PU *śäCćjemä existed, with *j causing palatalization of the preceding *CC, with the unknown *C either lost or assimilating to *ć (giving *(ć)ćj ). Then, in any (?) *CCj, met. > *jCC was opt. (or branch-specific).

This allows, say, PIE *septǝmó- '7th', or a similar word, to be a close match. I've thought that the palatals here might show that IE *k^t fit better than *pt (since many *pt existed in PU, & Hovers had no other IE *k^t with outcomes in PU). In TB ṣukt ‘7’, analogy with *H1ok^to:H ‘8’ is responsible, so another analogy of exactly this type could be the cause in PU. Again, there is no known Indo-European branch with *septǝmó- > *sek^tǝmó-, and a loan from TB would be much too late (*p > p in TA, no analogy).

I agree with Hovers *t́ in other words, mostly caused by *ik > *ik' > *it'. However, could *k' turn to *'t' next to *t' ? It is unlikely, or, to be specific, I say that in PU *k't' existed in '7', & became *(t')t' before *j in Uralic branches. It fits, but where did *j come from? In (2025f) :

The PIE o-stem gen. usually comes from *-esyo / *-osyo, but others are from *-eso, & the Italo- Celtic “ī-genitive” could be from *-eyo (Latin had *-o > -e). The PIE o-stem nom. sg. is often *- os, but *-oy in *kWoy ‘who?’, etc. The PIE pl. is often *-es, but maybe also *-ey (if *to-ey > *toy ‘they’, etc.). PIE *so(s) ‘he’ also appears as *syo(s) (Skt. syá(ḥ), Bangani *syos > *syav > seu ‘that / he’). The PIE future was *-sye- or *-se-, and desideratives in *Ci-Cse- look like fut. perf. (but maybe derived from fut. intensive, like *bheug-bhug-s- > Skt. baubhukṣa- ‘one who is always hungry’), the optative with *-y(eH1)- might have been a fut. subj. (based on meaning). These can be explained most simply if PIE *sy could optionally become *sy / *s / *y (maybe *s^ if later > *s, etc.). The only alternative is that many separate affixes, all with completely different meanings, but with each set of the same type happening to contain sy / y / s, were added apparently at random.

If *to-m was really *t(y)o-m, that would make my *septḿ̥ < *sem-tóm ‘then one / and one more’ really *sept(y)ḿ̥ < *sem-t(y)óm. This fits the PU data.

D. 'five' is not *penkWe

D1. PIE *penkWe ‘5’ seems related to 2 groups :

*penkWt(h)o- ‘all’ > L. cūnctus, U. puntes p.a

*p(e)nkWu- ‘all’ > H. panku-š ‘all/whole / senate’, etc.

*p(e)nkWst(H)i-s > Slavic pęstь, Germanic *funxsti-z 'fist'

*p(e)nkWro- > E. finger

Did it originally mean ‘all ( > of the numbers/fingers)’? Did it mean something else (like 'hand' or 'fist'), and only gained this meaning when it became the highest number? At an early stage, the largest number with a “simple” name being the end of a 5 count or 10 count seems to fit. How can we know what its origin was? PIE *penkWe ends in *-e, unlike any other. Why? This would be the dual ending if from a stem *penkW-, or *-kWe if 'and' (it was added to the last element of a list, so it might be expected in a count of 1-5).

I do not think any previous theory fits, and it never could, if trying to start with *penkWe, since there are several problems in this reconstruction. It does not account for all data. *penkWe can explain G. pénte, Ms. penke-, Ph. pinke, Al. pesë, S. páñca, Av. panca, etc. The -i in Li. penkì is likely by analogy with other numbers with -i, Slavic *pętь ( < *penti ) added *-ti by analogy.

J2. Other cognates have problems if from *penkWe :

Ar. hing < *finkWe instead of **finče doesn’t mach *kWe in *kWetwores ‘4’ > *čehorex > č’ork’.

Go. fimf, etc., show Gmc. *fimfi, which might be irregular assimilation of *p-kW > *p-p (though I don’t feel other ex. KW > Kw / P in Gmc. are regular anyway)

Gl. pempe-, W. pimp, L. quįnque show assimilation of *p-kW > *kW-kW. It might be irregular, based on *prokWe > prope ‘near’, sup. *prokWisVmo- > proximus; *perkWu- > L. quercus ‘oak / javelin’ but Celtic Hercynia silva. It is possible conditions in each branch differed, whatever they were.

W. pimp > pump shows irregular i > u by P; NHG fünf shows irregular i > ü by P

*kWonkWe > O. *pompe, OI cóic show irregular *e > o by KW

Dardic *panǰà > Kh. pònǰ / póonǰ, Sh. pȭš but *panyà > Ks. poin, Ti. pãy show irregular *ǰ > y

J3. Derivatives also have problems, like *pnkWthó- ‘fifth’> Av. puxða-, *penkWe-dk^omtH2 ‘50’ > Ar. yisun. I think many of these have the same cause.

No *KWw- in an onset is known for PIE, but if *kWw > *kWe in most IE, it would be hidden here. This would also explain *pnkWw(e)thó- ‘fifth’, *pnkWwthó-> *pwnkWthó- > Av. puxða- (no other ex. for *n > a but *Cwn(W) > *Cu(W) might be regular, maybe between *w & *kW). Since I say that *w \ *H3 varied (2025l), this can also explain *penkWwe > *pwenkWe \ *pH2onkWe. For W. pimp > pump; NHG fünf, it is possible that P_P caused rounding, but *pwe- > Gmc. *fwi- might be the cause instead.

The cause of optional Ar. *p- > y- is unknown, but I do not accept Hrach Martirosyan's idea that they all came from *en > *y. Not only is there no reason for an affix in most cases, but alt. in yolov ‘many (people)’, žołovurd ‘multitude’ shows that *y was older than the creation of new y- < *en (PIE *y > y, h, ǰ, ž; no apparent regularity).

To explain all these, look at standard PIE *pewg^- 'to punch, box, fist-fight; prick, poke, stab', likely related to *pewk^- 'sharp, pine (needle)'. These can't explain Nuristani *pyóccī < *pyauk-kī or Linear B *pyeuka: > pe-ju-ka vs. Greek peúkē ‘pine' ( https://www.academia.edu/114830312 ). The "extra" -y- in LB & Prasun wyots, etc., is highly unlikely to have appeared in 2 branches for 2 reasons; clearly, older *py- fits best. The correspondence set is not alone, as many other words show this "problem" :

*pyewk^- 'sharp, pine (needle)', LB *pyeuka: > pe-ju-ka, G. peúkē ‘pine', *pyauk-kī > Nuristani *pyóccī > Prasun wyot

*poti-H2rter-s > *p(t)(y)H2(r)te:r > Ar. hayr 'father’, Ir. *p(i)tar-

*p(y)H2trwyo- > Ar. yawray ‘stepfather’, G. patruiós, Av. tūirya-

*p(y)enkWe > OI cóic, Ar. hing ‘5’

*p(y)enkWe-dk^omtH2 > Ar. yisun ’50’

*p(y)ltH2u- > Av. pǝrǝθu-, S. pṛthú-, G. platús ‘broad/flat’, Ar. yałt` ‘wide / big / broad’, E. field

*p(y)elH1- > Li. pilti, *pel-nu- > Ar. hełum ‘pour/fill’, +yełc’ ‘full of _’ (in compounds)

*p(y)olH1u- > G. polús, Ar. yolov ‘many (people)’, žołovurd ‘multitude’

*p(y)olH1- > G. p(t)ólis 'city'

*pyi-pl(H1)- > S. píprati ‘fill’, G. pímplēmi, Ar. yłp’anam ‘be filled to repletion / be overfilled’

Note that this does not seem fully regular (yolov &, žołovurd show that the *y was not either), with hełum \ *yełum -> +yełc’. However, this is common enough that I doubt it's due to chance, with too many ex. of the same type (all the words for 'fill, broad, many' showing outcomes as if *py- points to it being original in all). In another supposed ex., I think it might be instead :

*piH1won- > S. pīvan-, pīvarī- f., *piHwerī > *hīwerī > *iweri > *yweri > *yewri > Ar. yoyr -i- ‘fat’ (unstressed i > ə \ 0 after C, but i- > y-; met. to "fix" *yw-)

J4. This also ties into its origin. If *pewg^- -> L. pugnus, G. pugmḗ 'fist' was related, it would be *pyewg^-. This means *pyewg^-No-kWe > *pyeng^kWwe, as 'and the hand (the end of counting on fingers, 5). Even *pyeŋkWwe is possible; the affix *-No- might have any nasal if it assimilated in a syllable. What would *gk, etc., become? Other problems with supposed *penkWe would be solved if it contained *H, so I think *pyewg^-No-kWe > *pyewng^kWe > *pyewnH1kWe > *pyenkWH1we. By my modifications to Pinault's Law, *CHw > *Cw in most IE, but before the change, this would allow *kWH > *kWh in :

*pyenkWHwe-dk^omtH ‘50’ > *fyenxWwi:s^onθ > *yihisund > Ar. yisun

*pyenkWHwe-dk^omtH > *kWonkWhe:k^omt > *kWonxWi:kont > *kWoxWi:nkont > *kWoingond > *kWoigo(d-) > OI coíco, MI coícad

*pyenkWHwe-dk^omtH > *kWenkWhe:k^omt > *kWenkWe:k^homt > *kWenkWi:xont > *pempont > OW pimmunt, W. pymhwnt

Each shows one *kW or *k^ > *x, which was then lost, but not always the same or at the same time. Also *-nkW-k^ > *-kW-nk^- in OI, or similar. These look like changes caused by *H, which often moved even in standard IE theory.

In the same way, *pyenkWHwetó- > *penkWwethHó- ‘fifth’ > S. pañcathá-, Ar. hinger-ord, OI cóiced; also *pnkWHw(e)tó- > *pwnkWtHó- > *puxθa- > Av. puxða-. S. *-e-e- vs. Av. *-0-0- could be from analogy or show that loss of (unstressed?) *e was optional in PIE. For *th > r, it is likely some *-dh- and *-th- > -r- in Ar., matching environmental *d > r (*dwo:H ‘two’ > erku), but it seems irregular :

*H2aidh- > G. aíthō ‘kindle/burn’, Ar. ayrem

*-dhwe (middle 2pl. verb ending) > *-ththwe > *-thswe > G. -sthé , *-a:-ruwe-s > Ar. ao. -aruk’

J5. These are in opposition to :

*penkWtó- ‘fifth’ > Go. fimfta-, L. quīn(c)tus, G. pémptos, Li. peñktas, TB piŋkte, etc.

These seem like slightly regularized versions of an older form, that gave :

*pwenkWt(h)o- ‘all’ > *pH3o- > L. cūnctus, U. puntes p.a

Since some derivatives of IE numbers have various functions (‘X times’ vs. ‘the Xth time’, etc.), this is probably the same as *p(y)(e)nkWHw(e)t(h)ó- ‘fifth’. This 'all' would go back to a time when only the 5 fingers of one hand were numbered. Same irregular changes as above. It is likely that *en-penkWto- ‘in all / within the whole > in the middle’ > PT *e(m)pänkte > TB epiŋkte ‘within/between/among / interim’, TA opäntäṣ (with irregular, though common, *enC- > *eC-).

J6. *p(y)nkWsti-? ‘fist’ > Slavic *pinkstis > *pẹstĭ, Gmc. *funkWstiz > OHG fúst, OE fýst

Balto-Slavic syllabic *C becoming iC or uC doesn’t seem regular. It is supposedly determined by the C that preceded it, but some *pr- > pir-, others > pur-. Here, *py- might have caused *n > *in. Round C- creating -i- might be seen in *kWrsno- > S. kṛṣṇá-, OPr kirsnan ‘black’.

Why *pnkWsti- not *pnkWti- in the first place? If PIE *staH2- 'stand' formed *stH2o- 'standing; leg > limb / body part', then it would fit (other ex. in https://www.academia.edu/165351155 ).

J7. There is also a Kusunda word that shows either a loan or native origin from PIE: Ku. paŋgo \ pãgo \ paŋdzaŋ ‘5’. The alternation ŋg / ŋdz shows that *ŋg^ existed from K > K^ before front V, later *e > a, maybe as in IIr. If Ku. pimba ǝ- ‘count’ is derived from 5 (the highest native #; compare G. pempázō ‘count’), it would also indicate *KW > K / P. Ku. pyaŋdzaŋ \ piːəgu '4' shows that pya 'earlier, av.' shows that *pya-paŋdzaŋ 'before 5' > pyaŋdzaŋ '4'. It is likely that *pya-pãgo > piːəgu by a similar change, maybe *p-p > p-0 and met. of *y. If *pyenkWHwe > *p'aŋgRw'a > *p'aŋgw'aR > *p'aŋgyWaR \ *-oR > paŋgo \ pãgo \ paŋdzaŋ, it might fit (knowing dia. or optional changes in Ku. would be hard (limited data)).

Other #’s like dukhu ‘2’ & IE *d(u)woH seem to show this was not isolated. A number of words are so close they might be seen as loans, if any work had been done: S. gandh- ‘smell / be fragrant’, Ku. gǝndzi ‘smell/odor’; S. gharmá-, Av. garǝma-, *ghǝrǝm > *ghǝrǝw > Ku. ghǝrǝo \ ghǝrun ‘hot’, *plH1no- ‘full’ > Ku. phirun. Again, to save space I’ll only give an adaptation of an excerpt from earlier papers (Whalen 2023 & https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1km6h4o/indoeuropean_etymological_miscellany/ ), even if I updated some of these later :

Kusunda shows either loans or native words with IE, like mǝi / mai ‘mother’, bhǝya / bhaiǝ’ ‘younger brother’; if these are not IE, they certainly are either amazingly similar, or ALL borrowed. This serves as confirmation if accepted, and yet yǝi by itself would raise no suspicion of IE origin if seen by itself (ignoring the evidence of something outside of standard reconstruction in *pH2ter-). The Dardic languages can also have these words end in -ǝi, -ayi, etc.:

E. mother, S. mātár-, *madāRǝ > *mulāxi > Gultari mulaayi- ‘woman’, Gurezi maai / maa ‘mother’, malaari p., Dras mulʌ´i ‘daughter’

E. sister, S. svásar-, *ǝsvasāRǝ > *išpušā(ri) > Kh. ispusáar, Ka. íšpó, Dm. pas, pasari p.

S. bhrā́tar- ‘brother’, Pl. bhroó, Ku. bhǝya / bhaiǝ’ ‘younger brother’

*gWhermo- > S. gharmá-, Av. garǝma-, Ku. *ghǝrǝm > *ghǝrǝw > ghǝrǝo / ghǝrun ‘hot’ (3)

*bherw- > W. berw ‘boiling’, L. fervēre ‘boil’, Ku. bhorlo- ‘boil’

*penkWHwe > paŋgo \ pãgo \ paŋdzaŋ ‘5’

Gurezi maai ‘mother’, Ku. mǝi / mai

*dwo:H > *duwu:x ? > dukhu ‘2’, A. dúu

*g^hdho:m, Ku. dum ‘earth/soil/sand’

S. gandh- ‘smell / be fragrant’, Ku. gǝndzi ‘smell / odor’

G. aîx ‘she-goat’ are Ar. ayc ‘(she-)goat’, Kusunda aidzi, S. ajá- ‘goat’

*dhuH1mo- > S. dhūmá-, Ku. d(h)imi, L. fūmus ‘smoke’

*dhuHli- ‘spirit / smoke / dust’, Li. dúlis ‘mist’, *ðula > *lǝla > Ps. laṛa ‘mist / fog’, Ku. *dhuŋli > duliŋ ‘cloud’, dhundi ‘fog’ [Hl > Rl > Nl]

*kremt- > Li. kremtù ‘bite hard’, kramtýti ‘chew’, Ku. kham- ‘chew / bite’ [or? S. khād- ‘chew/bite/eat’]

Ku. mǝñi / mǝn(n)i ‘often / many’

*kWrpmi- > S. kṛmi-, Av. kǝrǝmi-, *kworkmi > Ku. koliŋa ‘worm’

*guHr- > G. gūrós ‘curved/round’, Sh. gurū́ ‘hunchback’, *gurR- > *gulR- > *gulN- > Ku. guluŋ ‘round’

S. manda- ‘slow’, Kh. malála ‘late’, Ku. mǝlaŋ ‘slowly’

G. karkínos ‘crab’, S. karki(n)- ‘Cancer’, Ku. katse ‘crab’

*yegu- > ON jökull ‘icicle/glacier’, Ku. yaq ‘hail / snow’, yaGo / yaGu / yaχǝu ‘cold (of weather)’

G. déndron ‘tree’, S. daṇḍá- ‘staff’, B. ḍìŋgɔ, Ku. dǝŋga ‘(walking) stick’

S. yū́kā- ‘louse’, Sh. ǰũ, A. ǰhĩĩ́ ‘large louse’, Ku. dzhõ ‘louse egg’

In cases where a loan seems needed, look at the changes :

S. gorasa-s ‘milk / buttermilk’, Ku. gebhusa ‘milk / breast’, gebusa ‘curd’, Ba. gurás ‘buttermilk’

S. karbūra-s ‘turmeric / gold’, Ku. kǝbdzaŋ / kǝpdzaŋ ‘gold’, kǝpaŋ ‘turmeric’

Ku. kǝbdzaŋ, with one *r > *dz, matches nearby Dardic with some *r > ẓ, yet no search for IE origin with Ku. dz- coming from PIE *()r- has been undertaken. If *r-r > *R-R > *R-N, it would match *gurR- > *gulR- > *gulN- above. Again, no consistent search exists, none taking these sound changes into account. If old, *gau-rasa- > *gövRösa or similar shows that odd changes to C existed, making looking for IE cognates hard. If *wr > *vR > bh, it would match some Dardic with *v- > bh-, and who knows how many other odd changes might obscure the relation to IE? Similarly, *bherw- > W. berw, Ku. bhorlo- could also show *rw > *Rv > *RRW > *lR > rl, similar to both sets.

The advantage of historical linguistics is supposed to be regularity, each change as certain as in physics. Some would insist on only mathematical regularity, with all deviations seen as evidence that a mistake has been made. I do not feel this way; free variation in a parent language can lead to the appearance of irregularity in later descendants. If optionality is the mark of irregularity, or its equivalent, so be it. Rationality and order must be used when studying human features that might be too complex to be described by set rules.

In this way, I do not see reconstructions, however secure they are thought to be, as inviolable. If PIE *penkWe ‘5’ does not account for all data, make a new reconstruction. The purpose of comparative linguistics is to compare and make reconstructions that fit data, not try to fit old reconstructions to erring data. With likely *-kWe in mind, there is a way to unite many irregularities into one theory that also explains the etymology of Indo-European ‘five’ in a rational way.

Notes

1. (2025h)

G. sáthē would show *tuH2to- > *twaH2to- > *tswatH2o-, however, this is disputed. In words for ‘swell / be swollen/strong/firm’, PIE seems to have *tuH3-, *tuH2-, tu-. In others, G. has tū-, which would (if all regular) come from *tuH1- :

*tuH3lo- > G. sōlḗn ‘channel/gutter/pipe/penis’
*tu(H2)lo- > OE þol ‘peg’, G. túlos ‘knot/callus/bolt’, S. tū́la- ‘tuft / wisp of grass / panicle of flower’

*turo- > S. turá- ‘strong/abundant’, turī́pa- ‘semen’
*tuH1ro- > L. ob-tūrāre ‘stuff / fill up’, LB tu-rjo, G. tūrós ‘cheese’, Av. tūiri- ‘milk that has become like cheese’
*tuH3ro- > G. sōrós ‘heap (of corn) / quantity’

*tuH3ro- > G. sôkos ‘bold/stout/strong one’
*tuHko- > Slavic *tūkū > *tyky ‘pumpkin’, Greek tûkon / sûkon >> *t^ü:kos > *thü:kos > L fīcus ‘fig’, Ar. *thüg > t`uz

2. Other ex. of *H1 / y :

*H1ek^wos > Ir. *(y)aśva-, L. equus
*yikwos > *hikpos > LB i-qo, G. híppos, Ion. íkkos ‘horse’
Ir. *(y\h)aćva- > Av. aspa-, Y. yāsp, Wx. yaš, North Kd. hesp >> Ar. hasb ‘cavalry’

*H1n- > *yn- > *ny- > ñ- in *Hnomn ‘name’ > TA ñom, TB ñem, but there are alternatives

*sH1emH2- > Li. sémti ‘scoop / pump’, *syemH2- > *syapH2- > Kh. šep- ‘scoop up’

*suH1- ‘beget / give birth’ >>
*suH1ur-s > *suyu-s > G. Att. huius, [u-u > u-o] huiós, [u-u > o-u or wä-wä > o-u] *soyu > *seywä > TA se , TB soy, dim. saiwiśk-
*suH1un- > *seywän-ikiko- > TB dim. soṃśke
*suH1un- > *suH1nu- > S. sūnú-, Li. sūnùs
*suH1nu- > *sunH1u- > Gmc. *sunu-z > E. son

*dhuwH1- ‘smoke’ > G. thúō ‘offer by burning / sacrifice’, thuá(z)ō ‘smoke / storm along / roar/rave’, LB *Thuwi:no:n \ tu-wi-no, -no g. ‘PN ?’
*dhuHw- > H. tuhhw(a)i- ‘to smoke’
*dhuH1- > *dhuy- > Li. dujà ‘mist’, L. suf-fī-re ‘fumigate / perfume’
*dhweH1- > Ct. *dwi:- -> *dwi:yot- ‘smoke’ > OI dé f., díad g.
*dhwey- -> *dhwoyo- > TB tweye ‘dust’

*bhuH1-ti- > *bhH1u-ti- > G. phúsis ‘birth/origin/nature/form/creature/kind’
*bhuH1-sk^e- > Ar. -uc’anem, *bhH1u-sk^e- > TB pyutk- ‘bring into being / establish/create’
(Adams: Traditionally this word is connected with PIE *bheuhx- ‘be, become’ (Schneider, 1941:48, Pedersen, 1941:228). Semantically such an equation is very good but, as VW (399) cogently points out, it is phonologically very suspect as the palatalized py- cannot be regular.)

3. The likely loss of *w or *y in *wy / *yw seems to match other IE examples :

*pH2trwyo- > G. patruiós ‘stepfather’, Av. tūirya-, *patrwo- > *patruwo- > L. patruus ‘father’s brother’

*maH2trwya:- > G. mētruiā́ ‘stepmother’, *mafruwa ? > Ar. mawru

*srowyo-s ? > L. fluvius, *srowo- > G. rhóos ‘stream’, *sroxWyo- > *sro:i- > Ar. aṙu -i- ‘brook / channel’

adj. suffix *-awyos > *-äwyos / *-ewyos > G. -aîos / -eîos / -eús (Whalen 2024d)

*diw- ‘bright / day’, *diwyo- > Ar. erk-tiw / erk-ti ‘two days’
*a-divya- > S. adyá(:) ‘today’, *adiva(:) > Ks. ádua ‘day(time)’
S. sa-dyás ‘today’, dívā ‘during the day’, su-divám ‘nice day’

*Hak^siwyo- ‘axe / adze’ > *akwizya- > Go. aqizi, L. ascia

This even extends to new *w from *-p- in some :

S. ṛjipyá-, *arćifyo- > *arciwyo / *arciwo > Ar. arcui / arciw ‘eagle’

which is not lasting or regular based on *pewyo- > ogi \ hogi ‘soul/spirit’, etc.

Ev. for *kemtH2-, etc.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hummel
>
Probably from Middle English hamelen (“to maim, mutilate; to cut short”), from Old English hamelian (“to hamstring, mutilate”),[1][2] from Proto-Germanic *hamalōną, *hamlōną (“to mutilate”), from Proto-Indo-European *kem- (“hornless; mutilated”). Cognate with Dutch hamel (“wether”), English hamble, Low German hommel, hummel (“an animal lacking horns”),[3] humlich, dialectal hommlich (“lacking horns”), Bavarian humlet (“lacking horns”),[4] German hammeln, hämmeln (“to geld”), Icelandic hamla (“to maim, mutilate”)
>

also rec. as *k^em(H)- :

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/शम
>
From Proto-Indo-European *ḱem- (“hornless”). Cognate with Russian комо́лый (komólyj, “hornless”), Lithuanian šmùlas (“hornless”), Proto-Germanic *hindiz (“female deer < *hornless”)), Ancient Greek κεμάς (kemás, “young deer whose antlers have not yet branched”). Also related to Proto-Germanic *hamalaz (“mutilated, truncated < *with cut off horns”).
>

These could be *k^H2(a)mH2alo-? ‘hornless / cropped’ with *a in Gmc. *hamala- / *humala-, *a > o in Slavic, R. komólyj, Skt. śáma- ‘hornless’, śamana-s ‘a kind of antelope’. The *k^- > k- before *a in Slavic is known, either *k^a > *ka or due to *k^H2 > *kH2 (likely = k^x > kx ). The opposite assimilation or metathesis in something like *k^emH2-dho- > Gmc. *ximda- > E. hind, *k^emdhH2o- > *kemtho- > G. kemphás \ kem(m)ás ‘young deer’. That this would be a name for a Gmc. cow is seen in reports that the Germani kept hornless cows :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au%C3%B0umbla

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/handuz

*handuz f. hand

Etymology Uncertain. Conjectured to be from pre-Germanic *(k/ḱ)ontús, related to and possibly derived from the strong verb *hinþaną (“to reach for, obtain”).[1] Alternatively, it has been suggested to derive from Proto-Indo-European *ḱómt ~ *ḱm̥tés (“hand”), assuming this is also the source of *déḱm̥. Finally, it is often considered of non-Indo-European origin.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/κεντέω

kentéō to prick, sting, goad; to stab, pierce, wound; to torture, torment

Etymology From Proto-Indo-European *ḱent- (“to sting”). Cognate with Old High German handag (“pointed”), Latvian sīts (“hunting spear”);[1] compare also English hent, hunt, and possibly hand, as well as Proto-Germanic *hinþaną (“to reach for, obtain”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hinþaną

*hinþaną to reach for, obtain, catch

Etymology Possibly from a Proto-Indo-European *ḱent- (“to reach, sting”) (alternatively reconstructed as *kent-). While Kroonen adduces no cognates,[1] Orel compares Ancient Greek κεντέω (kentéō, “to sting, goad”), which is supported by Beekes; see the Greek for more cognates

Hovers also rec. this root in PU. The change of *mtC > *ntC might be regular or opt., & the IE *o > PU *o might come from the causative (many other ex. of *o-eye > *o-ta.

PU *kunta ‘to hunt, to catch, to kill’ ~ PIE *ḱent, *ḱneth₂ ‘to pierce, to catch, to wound’

U: PSaami *kontē > North Saami goddi- ‘to catch, to kill’; Finnic kuntia- ‘to grab’; Mordvin kondə ‘to catch, to seize’; PMansi *kånt- > Pelym Mansi kont- ‘to find, to see’; PSamoyed *kåntə > Nganasan kontə̄ ‘to catch’..

IE: Sanskrit śnathat ‘to strike, to thrust, to pierce’; Greek kentéō ‘to sting’; PGermanic *hinþanaṃ > Gothic hinþan ‘to catch’, Old Swedish hinna ‘to obtain’, PGermanic *hunttōnaṃ > Old English huntian ‘to hunt’..

Adams, Douglas Q. (1999) A Dictionary of Tocharian B
http://ieed.ullet.net/tochB.html

Blažek, Václav (1999) Uralic numerals

Eskes, Pascale (2020) The Kortlandt Effect https://www.academia.edu/44379735

Khoshsirat, Zia & Byrd, Andrew Miles (2023) The Indo-Iranian labial-extended causative suffix
Indic -(ā)páya-, Eastern Iranian *-(ā)u̯ai̯a-, and Proto-Caspian *-āwēn-
https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/11/1/article-p64_4.xml

Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008) Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon
https://www.academia.edu/345121

Napolskikh, Vladimir (2003) Uralic Numerals: is the evolution of numeral system reconstructable?
https://www.academia.edu/5274066

Viredaz, Rémy (2025) Germanic, Slavic and Baltic ‘thousand’ once more (unfinished) -https://www.academia.edu/144462167

Whalen, Sean (2024a) Greek Uvular R / q, ks > xs / kx / kR, k / x > k / kh / r, Hk > H / k / kh (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/115369292

Whalen, Sean (2024b) Indo-European *nebh- & *newn Reconsidered (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/116206226

Whalen, Sean (2024c) Indo-European *dek^m(t) ‘10’ Reconsidered (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/116242793

Whalen, Sean (2024d) Greek *we- > eu- and Linear B Symbol *75 = WE / EW (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/114410023

Whalen, Sean (2024e) Etymology of PIE ‘3’ (Draft)
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1dg89u4/etymology_of_pie_3/

Whalen, Sean (2025a) The Form of the Proto-Indo-European Feminine (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/129368235

Whalen, Sean (2025b) Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 65: ‘elm’ (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/129678129

Whalen, Sean (2025c) Indo-European v / w, new f, new xW, K(W) / P, P-s / P-f, rounding (Draft 6)
https://www.academia.edu/127709618

Whalen, Sean (2025d) IE s / ts / ks (Draft 3)
https://www.academia.edu/128090924

Whalen, Sean (2025e) Indo-European *s-s in Indo-Iranian; Sanskrit śúṣka-, śnúṣṭi-, ślakṣṇá- (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/129303731

Whalen, Sean (2025f) Indo-European *Cy- and *Cw- (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/128151755

Whalen, Sean (2025g) Indo-Iranian Nasal Sonorants (r > n, y > ñ, w > m) (Draft 2)
https://www.academia.edu/129137458

Whalen, Sean (2025h) Etymology of Satyr, Centaur, Sauâdai, Tutunus (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/127198281

Whalen, Sean (2025i) IE Alternation of m / n near n / m & P / KW / w / u (Draft 3)
https://www.academia.edu/127864944

Whalen, Sean (2025j) Indo-European Numbers (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/129810487

Whalen, Sean (2025k) Uralic Numbers Compared to Indo-European (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/129820622

Whalen, Sean (2025l) PIE *H1etk^wo-s ‘horse’ (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/128170887

Whalen, Sean (2026a) Evidence for & against the Kortlandt Effect (Draft 2)
https://www.academia.edu/168026709

Whalen, Sean (2026b) Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 94: 'dog' (Draft)
https://www.academia.edu/164645760

Whalen, Sean (2026c) Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 115: *dhH2ag^h- 'day'
https://www.academia.edu/167714050
-

Posted Jun 8, 2026, 4:46 AM UTC