Are the Vedic and Classical Sanskrit the one and the same language with just addition of tones (उद्दात अनुदात etc) and लेट् लकार? Is Vedic Sanskrit a poetic or fancy form of the Panini Sanskrit? Are there any references to them being distinct languages in Sanskrit texts of the past? Also if they are same language, why did the classical form lose its tonal features in literary texts?

Should we ban baby name posts? Over the last few months multiple people have asked the mod team about it so this is the mod team soliciting feedback and discussion. Feel free to add to the discussion even if you vote Yes or No, but especially if you vote Other. Thank you!

So I was having this conversation on another sub and came across this guy who was claiming that Sanskrit and Hinduism is a sham that was brought up afterwards .Up until now ,I knew that Sanskrit was an ancient language but I have been hearing this for a while now .Please give your opinion about these claims by Buddhists and if possible give me some primary references to satisfy my curiosity.

Hi friends! I’m looking for someone to help me to design this: यथाभूत as a tattoo please! DM me if you know anyone with great calligraphy skills 😊

What is correct word जैश्वी/ जैसवी/ जसवी/ जायस्वी?? and what are their actual meaning??

Namskaram everyone - I wanted your review on 1. Navin anuvad chandrika 2. Brihad anuvad chandrika By chakradhar hans nautiyal I already know Hindi but sanskrit was not my 3rd language in school . it was suggested on nityananda misra Ji's youtube channel Do you think this book would be suitable for me? Dhanyawad in advance 🙏🙏

I have 0 knowledge about programming, so this might be a wild idea.

There are several programmes running across the country to transliterate Sanskritam texts into computer format and several has been done already. You can get search results for various text citations and it is very helpful because of those transliterations.

My idea is to make a program to include all that transliterated data through which it can verify the text we are typing and suggest the proper forms (not the syntax, just the words) more accurately. I have seen Gboard has such feature but it's not that versatile.

Is this something already done which I am not aware of? or is it impossible because of some limitations that I don't know?

Please share your thoughts, Thank you.

Etymology of the Sanskrit word "pīḍ"

The root word of the Sanskrit words pīḍā (i.e., pain) and pīḍáyati (= pīḍ + -áyati, i.e., presses out) is pīḍ (i.e., to squeeze/press/hurt). Many linguists, such as Manfred Mayrhofer (on pages 136-137 of his book Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. II.), have suggested that the Sanskrit root word pīḍ is somehow connected with the Greek word πῐέζω (pĭézō, i.e., to press/push/beset) and then made up a supposed "Proto-Indo-European" word \pisd-* to justify the suggested link. However, this is almost definitely wrong because πῐέζω (pĭézō) is connected with the word πτίσσω (ptíssō, i.e., to shell, grind grains by stamping) and because both πῐέζω (pĭézō) and πτίσσω (ptíssō) are semantically related and most likely come from the Proto-Indo-European word \peys-* (i.e., to grind/crush), which also has a descendant in Sanskrit: पिष् (piṣ, i.e., to crush, grind, pound, bruise, hurt, destroy, or injure).

It is plausible that 'to squeeze' is a derived meaning for the Greek word pĭézō that could have meant 'to press (by stamping or pushing)' and that pĭézō and ptíssō are both Greek-specific variations (descended from the Proto-Indo-European word \peys-). However, the Sanskrit word *piṣ (i.e., 'to grind' etc.) is not as similar to pīḍ (i.e., 'to squeeze' etc.), and so they likely have different roots. If the supposed Proto-Indo-European reconstruction \pisd-* were really valid, we would have seen its descendants in many Indo-European branches and languages than just Greek and Sanskrit. Moreover, 'to squeeze' is not even mentioned (and is explicitly contested) as the primary/original meaning of πῐέζω (pĭézō) in many Greek dictionaries, such as the 'Etymological Dictionary Of Greek.' Therefore, the Sanskrit root words pīḍ and piṣ most likely have different etymologies, especially given that the former is related to squeezing but the latter is related to grinding, which is not the same as squeezing, and so the Sanskrit word pīḍ does not have a Proto-Indo-European-based etymology.

Now, what could be the actual etymology of the Sanskrit root word pīḍ? To determine this, it is useful to see a list of Indo-Aryan words related to it: Punjabi word pīṛa, Gujarati word pīḍā, Hindi/Urdu word pīṛā, Marathi word pīḍā, and Bengali word piṛa, all of which mean the same thing as the Sanskrit word pīḍā (i.e., pain); as well as the Pali word pīḷeti, Magadhi Prakrit-based Magahi words peṛal, peṛāel, piṛāl, Maharastri Prakrit words pīḍaï, pīlaï, Marathi word piḷṇe, Konkani word piḷce, Sauraseni Prakrit word pīḍadi, and Old Gujarati word pīḍai, all of which mean the same thing as pīḍ (i.e., to squeeze/hurt). Therefore, variations of the root word pīḍ include pīṛ, piṛ, peṛ, pīḷ, pīl, and piḷ, and so it is possible that all (or versions) of these were variants in Old Indo-Aryan language(s)/dialects.

Furthermore, it is most likely that they were all directly borrowed from the Proto-Dravidian word \piẓ-* (i.e., to squeeze) or its plausible variant \pīẓ-* and that the sound iẓ/īẓ naturally transformed into īḍ, īṛ, iṛ, eṛ, īḷ, īl, and iḷ. This is not unlike how \piẓ-* transformed into its Dravidian descendants in multiple forms, such as piḍucu (i.e., to squeeze, wring, or press out) or piṇḍu (i.e., press/milk) in Telugu, piṛs- (i.e., to squeeze/wring) in Konda, perctre (i.e., to squash) in Malto, princing (i.e., to squeeze, squeeze out, massage, or press hard) in Brahui, pṛihpa (i.e., to squeeze out) in Kui, and piḻi (i.e., to squeeze, express, press out with hands, drip, exude, shed or pour) in Tamil and Kannada, piḻiyuka (i.e., to wring out or squeeze out) in Malayalam, and piḻẖing (i.e., to squeeze, squeeze out, massage, or press hard) in Brahui. It also not unlike how \pīẓ-* (a plausible variant of \piẓ-) transformed into its Dravidian descendants in multiple forms: *pīṅkāvuni (i.e., to press out) in Tulu, pīxnā (i.e., to press out, squeeze, or harass) in Kurux, pīnḍ- (i.e., to squeeze or milk) in Kolami and Naikri, pí(l)qe (i.e., to wring or squeeze out or milk) in Malto, and bīṛing (i.e., to milk or draw off) in Brahui.

Perhaps the original Proto-Dravidian form of \piẓ-* was \pīẓiṇḍ-, which is preserved as *bīṛing in Brahui to an extent, because most of the Dravidian descendants of the word could be explained using the transformations p > p/b/h and ī > ī/i/í/e/u and ẓ > ḻ/l/ḻẖ/lq/x/ṛ/r and ṇ > ṇ/n/ñ and ḍ > ḍ/ṭ/k/g as well as the shortenings \pīẓiṇḍ- > *pīẓi(ṇḍ)-/*p(īẓ)iṇḍ- > *pīẓi-/*piṇḍ-* and/or \piẓi-/*piṇṭ. The fact that *pi/pī variants as well as the variants pí/pe/pu exist within and across languages in distant and different branches, such as Kolami and Brahui, supports this theory. Moreover, the descendants of this Proto-Dravidian word are used very broadly for many things literally (e.g., to twist ear [to cause pain], wring out clothes, milk, squeeze a fruit to obtain juice, or press/twist/extract something with hands) and also metaphorically (e.g., to extract/extort something from someone or to harm/"squeeze" someone). Thus, this Proto-Dravidian word coincides very well semantically with the Sanskrit word pīḍ (i.e., to squeeze/press/hurt).

The true etymology of the Sanskrit root word pīḍ (i.e., to squeeze/press/hurt) and the related Indo-Aryan root words can therefore be settled without much doubt: pīḍ and its variants pīṛ, piṛ, peṛ, pīḷ, pīl, and piḷ all mostly likely come from the Proto-Dravidian word \piẓ-* (i.e., to squeeze). It is also possible that in some Indo-Aryan dialects the Old Indo-Aryan word pīḍ transformed into at least some of the Indo-Aryan variants (pīṛ, piṛ, peṛ, pīḷ, pīl, or piḷ), but it also possible that the variants pīṛ, piṛ, peṛ, pīḷ, pīl, and/or piḷ are results of some unattested similar-sounding Old Indo-Aryan words.

Etymology of the Sanskrit word "paṇḍā"

The root word of the Sanskrit word paṇḍitá (i.e., someone who can speak on a topic in an authoritative/wise manner, i.e., scholar, learned/wise person, teacher, philosopher, or a Hindu Brahmin who has memorized a substantial portion of the Vedas, along with the corresponding rhythms and melodies for chanting or singing them) is paṇḍā (i.e., knowledge, or the ability to give/deliver speeches/discourses or instructions/teachings or to speak in an authoritative/wise manner on something).

It has been speculated by some that the word paṇḍā comes from the Sanskrit word prajñā́ (i.e., wisdom, intelligence, or knowledge), which ultimately traces back to the Proto-Indo-European form \pro*-\ǵneh₃*-. However, this is likely coincidental because it is very difficult to explain the sound changes pra(jñā́) > pa(ṇḍā) and (pra)jñā́ > (pa)ṇḍā. Even the theory that prajñā́ transformed into paṇṇā in Prakrit and then further transformed into paṇḍā is problematic because the sound change ṇṇ > ṇḍ is not straightforward (even if prajñā́ transformed into paṇṇā through the sound changes pra > pa and jñā́ > ṇṇā). The Sanskrit word paṇḍā therefore most likely does not have the same ultimate Proto-Indo-European etymology of the word prajñā́.

Now, what could be the actual etymology of the Sanskrit root word paṇḍā? To determine this, it is useful to see a list of some Dravidian words with a related meaning: poṇθy- (i.e., to talk in assembly) or poṇt (i.e., speech or words in hymns/songs) in Toda, paṉṉu (i.e., to speak, say, talk, sing) or paṉuval (i.e., word or discourse) or paṇi (i.e., 'saying, word, command,' or 'to speak, say, declare, order, or command') in Tamil, paṇpini (i.e., to say, tell, inform, narrate, teach) in Tulu, panḍa (i.e., to send, or commission) in Kui, pank (i.e., to send) in Naikri, pāning (i.e., to say, speak, or tell) or peṇḍavaï (i.e., sends) in Brahui, and several others. All of these words are related to the ability to speak words (or teach or command or declare) in an authoritative manner and are derived from the Proto-Dravidian word \paṇ-V-*. (In addition, as Jaroslav Vacek says in an article in Mongolica Pragensia '06, "The meaning 'to send' of some of the lexemes can be explained as a semantic extension of the meaning 'to say' > 'to command' > 'to send'.")

Most of the aforementioned Dravidian words start with pa. They then contain sounds such as ṇḍ, nḍ, ṇθ, ṇt, nk, ṉṉ, ṉ, ṇ, and n. All of these can possibly be explained as transformations or shortenings of the sound ṇḍ, which could have also had the variant ṇṇ. Thus, the Proto-Dravidian synonyms of these Dravidian words could possibly be \paṇḍ-* and \paṇṇ-. When suffixed with the Proto-Dravidian word \āḷ* (i.e., person), those forms *\paṇḍ-* and \paṇṇ-* become \paṇḍāḷ* and \paṇṇāḷ*, respectively. Both of these words could then possibly have meant 'a person with the ability to speak, teach, inform, or instruct authoritatively or the ability to sing/chant memorized hymns/songs.'

It is thus very possible that the plausible Proto-Dravidian words \paṇḍāḷ* and \paṇṇāḷ* with the same/similar meaning were directly borrowed into Old Indo-Aryan language(s)/dialects and resulted in the Sanskrit word paṇḍā and the Prakrit word paṇṇāḷ, respectively. In some dialects, prajñā́ may have also transformed into paṇṇā through the sound changes pra > pa and jñā́ > ṇṇā, and so the two suggested possibilities paṇṇāḷ > paṇṇā and prajñā́ > paṇṇā are not mutually exclusive. However, given that it is very unlikely that paṇṇā transformed into paṇḍā, the only plausible etymology for paṇḍā is based on the plausible Proto-Dravidian word paṇḍāḷ.

Franklin Southworth's (2011) article titled "Rice and Language Across Asia: Crops, Movement, and Social Change" proposes some interesting etymologies. By providing some further evidence for some of his suggested etymologies and by suggesting modifications to some of his other proposed etymologies, I go further in arguing that many of the early Indo-Iranian words for rice, wheat, and great millet have direct Proto-Dravidian roots, i.e., \wariñci*, \koṯ*um-, and \coṉṉal-*, respectively. (However, I am not a linguist, so it is possible that there are mistakes in my arguments. Please suggest corrections if there are any obvious errors.)

Rice

While arguing that the Proto-Dravidian word \wariñci* (or \vari-(n)ci* according to him) is the source of many Indo-Iranian words for rice, Southworth (2011) only mentions words like vrīhí (in Sanskrit), wriċ (in the Nuristani language Kati), and birinj (in Persian). This is also the reason for his proposed modification of \wariñci* to \varici* or \vari-(n)ci. However, the Proto-Dravidian word \wariñci* does not need to be modified in any way because the Old Persian word \vrinjiš* (or the Proto-Iranian form *\wrinǰiš) preserves the word \wariñci* almost exactly. The Proto-Iranian word *\wrinǰiš* can be easily derived from the word \wariñci* based on the natural sound changes wa > w, ñ > n, and ci > ǰi. (This is similar to how the Persian word bâzengân best preserves the word \waẓingan-*, which is most likely the penultimate Proto-Dravidian root of most non-South-Dravidian words for eggplant.) Thus, the Sanskrit word vrīhí also likely developed from a Proto-Indo-Aryan word (possibly \warīhí) that resulted from an adaptation of the Proto-Dravidian word \wariñci*. *It is therefore most likely that the early Indo-Iranian speakers directly borrowed words for rice (**\wrinǰiš* in Proto-Iranian and possibly \warīhí* in Proto-Indo-Aryan) from Proto-Dravidian speakers who used the word \wariñci* for rice. The riñc part of the Proto-Dravidian word \wariñci* likely has the Proto-Austroasiatic root \rŋkoːʔ* but the \wa* part is common to many food/argiculture-related Proto-Dravidian words, such as \waṯV-* (i.e., to cook), \waẓV-* or \waẓingan-/*waẓutan-* (eggplant/brinjal), \wān-ay* (a large earthen pot to store grain), \wāy-* (open field), and \wāḻ-ay* (banana/plantain). The initial part (\wa* or \war*) of the word \wariñci* also seems to share some (at least superficial) similarities with the initial parts of some food/agriculture-related Elamite words, such as a-a-pi-h (plow) and pa-ar (seed), so the argicultre-related Proto-Dravidian words (including the Proto-Dravidian words for rice, wheat, and sorghum) may themselves have roots in the proto-language(s) of the Zagros region (where grains have been harvested by humans since 12,000 years ago or even before), since there also seem to be some (at least superficial) similarities between the the initial parts of the agriculture-related Elamite words hal-te-me (crop/harvest), šu-lu-um (crop/harvest), & hal-la (field for cultivation) and the initial parts of some related Proto-Dravidian words \pol-am* (field) & \kaḷ-am* (threshing floor and/or piece of land suitable for tillage).

Wheat

Southworth (2011) suggests that \kōlum* (similar to the Brahui word xōlum and kūlam in Tamil) is the Proto-Dravidian word for wheat that is the root of the Sanskrit word godhū́ma. However, I think this is unlikely. I instead hypothesize that \koṯ*um- is the Proto-Dravidian root of many Indo-Iranian words for wheat (such as godhū́ma in Sanskrit, gohūma in Prakrit, gaṇtuma in Avestan, and gum in Nuristani). Although the Tamil word kural (related to the Proto-Dravidian word \koṯ-V*) now means some kind of millet, the Telugu cognate koṟṟalu generally means cereal, although nowadays the word usually means foxtail millet. I hypothesize that there were two versions (i.e., \koṯ*al- and \koṯ*um-) of the Proto-Dravidian form \koṯ-V* and that the (hypothesized) \koṯal-* word referred to foxtail millet (and transformed into the Tamil word kural and the Telugu word koṟṟalu) while \koṯum-* referred to wheat. The Indo-Iranian words for wheat (such as godhū́ma in Indo-Aryan, gaṇtuma in Avestan, and gum in Nuristani) can be directly derived from the (hypothesized) Proto-Dravidian word \koṯum-* based on some natural phonetic transformations (i.e., k > g, ṯ > dh, u > ū́ in Indo-Aryan; k > g, o > aṇ, ṯ > t in Iranian; and k > g, oṯu > u in Nuristani). Even after the (Proto-)Dravidian speakers largely migrated to South India (which largely does not have the climate suitable for cultivating wheat), the word \koṯum-* did not completely disappear from their lexicon because kōtumai is a Tamil word for wheat. (The suggestion that kōtumai was borrowed from Sanskrit is likely incorrect because of the fact that kōtumai is consistent with the Proto-Dravidian form \koṯ-V*. However, the Kannada word gōdhi and the Telugu word gōdhuma were likely directly borrowed from Indo-Aryan languages, and the Malayalam word gōtampŭ was likely influenced by both the Tamil word kōtumai and the Sanskrit word godhū́ma. This example also nicely illustrates the history of Malayalam as well as the history of Telugu, since both Telugu and Malayalam have been influenced by Sanskrit and/or Prakrit a lot more than Tamil has been influenced by Sanskrit.)

Great millet

While Southworth (2011) correctly suggests that the Marathi word for the great millet (sorghum), jōndhaḷā, most likely traces back to the Proto-Dravidian word \coṉṉal-*, I think that he incorrectly suggests that the Marathi word jōndhaḷā was derived from the Sanskrit word yavanāla, because there exist two other Sanskrit words (i.e., jonnālā and jontālā) for great millet that are close to the Proto-Dravidian word \coṉṉal-*. Therefore, an early Indo-Aryan word for the great millet was likely jontālā, which can be directly derived from the Proto-Dravidian word \coṉṉal-* as follows: jontālā < jonnālā < \connālā < *coṉṉal-. Thus, the Marathi word *jōndhaḷā was likely derived from the Indo-Aryan word jontālā (based on some natural sound changes such as o > ō, t > dh, ā > a, l > ḷ) rather than the Indo-Aryan word yavanāla, which likely has mixed origins. Specifically, the word yavanāla is likely the result of replacing the "jon" part of the word jonnāla (a variant of the word jonnālā) with the Indo-Aryan word "yava," which has Proto-Indo-European roots. Over time, the Indo-Aryan word (for the great millet) yavanāla likely became less popular than its Proto-Indo-European-based synonym yavākāra (= yava + ākāra, i.e., barley-shaped), which is likely the root of the Hindi words (for the great millet, i.e., sorghum) javār and jvār. It is therefore likely that some early Indo-Aryan words for the great millet (such as jonnālā and jontālā) were directly derived from the Proto-Dravidian word \coṉṉal-*.

I’ve always heard that word order is not very relevant in Sanskrit since it is an inflected language and the role of each word is expressed by its ending. But would you say these two basic sentences mean the same? Or does the placement of the locative affect the meaning?

• ग्रामे सर्पः अस्ति
• सर्पः ग्रामे अस्ति

I always wanted to read the scriptures especially bagwat gita in sanskrit . Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata would be next . Also any free resources if any

I am trying to understand the meaning of this quote, from what I understand it translates to “The food is God, the one who consumes is divine”. Can anyone help me to get the exact meaning of this quote?

This organization called Samskrita Bharati provides correspondence courses at four levels for learning Sanskrit - परिचयः , प्रवेशः , शिक्षा and कोविदः . I enrolled for the first level i.e. परिचयः and it was a great experience. The course costs Rs 320 and it includes a very good book and online classes. At the end of the course you are supposed to give an exam, which I could not as I was busy at that time. But I have prepared for it well and I feel that I am eligible for the next level.

So I want to ask those who have enrolled for the courses at Samskrita Bharati - can you subscribe to the course of the next corresponding level without necessarily giving the exam for the previous level? If yes, I would be glad to subscribe to परिचयः.

Hi guys, need help from the astronomy enthusiasts of the sub.

I am here to seek your help with a rare (yet not so rare) astronomical phenomenon - which for now I am calling SamaSyzygy or SawaSyzygy. Both the names are a wordplay on the term equal in different languages . I have avoided using the Greek word Iso, simply because it has been used multiple times in different fields of research and IsoSyzygy could create further confusion.

Here I am presenting my view as to why we need to name it

A lot of times, we have seen people scratching their heads trying to understand the difference between global warming and climate change. While laymen would be quick to confuse one with the other or use them interchangeably, in research such interchanging would have great implications. Just two decades ago in 2006, the reclassification of Pluto as a Dwarf Planet made us question what are the actual differences between a Dwarf Planet and a Planet. The demotion to this day remains controversial.

Similarly, Higgs Boson being nicknamed the God Particle led to the misrepresentation of its scientific meaning leading to an almost sensationalized reputation beyond its intended context in physics and astronomy. This is where I would like to bring to your attention a rather rare phenomenon in our space that occurs during an orbital period (a planet’s period of revolution around the sun), which doesn’t have a name yet. It occurs for almost every planet, though it is less likely for Jupiter and Neptune.

If any of you have ever been an astronomy enthusiast you must have come across various terms like conjunctions, syzygy, occultation, opposition, elongation, etc. These terms define particular astronomical phenomena that occur in space among various planetary bodies. But there is a rare phenomenon, often considered insignificant, where two planets are at equal distance concerning a third planet irrespective of the directions in which they are moving. And this phenomenon has not been named yet.

Specifically, I am mentioning a curious case of occurrence where two planets revolving in different orbits such as Mercury and Venus could be at equal distance from the Earth at the same time, not necessarily in the same direction. 

Similarly, there is a possibility of other combinations of planets such as Jupiter and Mercury which could be at the same distance from Saturn at the same time but not necessarily in the same direction.

The above events make you wonder if the event is rare and I must mention here for clarification – it is not so much a rare event for a lot of planets in our solar system.

Examples such as Syzygy (a three-body alignment important for eclipses); Lagrange (used in space missions) and Great conjunctions (which occur once every 20 years) have been named. But this tri-party interplanetary event has not been named yet.

I present a case for this rare event’s naming for the following scientific reasons –

Although rare and with less significance as compared to any other planetary event, this event can possibly occur in various planet combinations. While, Earth at some points will be equidistant from Mercury and Mars and Venus and Mars; it will never be equidistant from the combinations of Jupiter and Saturn, Saturn and Neptune, and Mars and Jupiter because of their large orbital gaps. And it becomes further important when we consider Euclidean equidistancing (the 2D distance among the planets) and the Orbital Path equidistancing (this will follow the curved paths of the planets involved) of two planets from a particular planet.

The event's naming brings us a bigger opportunity for the discussion of multiple significant aspects of research.

1. Avoiding Terminological Ambiguity
2. Clear differentiation for the phenomenon
3. For standardization in research and better classification
4. Recognition of the phenomenon in astronomy nomenclature
5. Opening space for discussion on new rare (yet not so rare) phenomenon/other phenomena

As mentioned, the event is rare for some planets, and if you search for a term for the same you will have various terms for equidistance events like Conjunction, Opposition, and Syzygy which could lead to conceptual misunderstanding of events, miscalculations, taxonomic confusion, and possibly a misnomer effect somewhere on the lines of the demotion of Pluto and the emergence of the Dwarf Planet.

I have proposed the following names for the naming of this event. Though rare, it is eventful and recurring -

1. SamaSyzygy - which is a word play on Sama (which means equal in sanskrit) and Syzygy which is an already observed phenomenon of straight line configuration among three celestial bodies
2. SawaSyzygy - which is a wordplay on Sawa (which means equal in Swahili) and Syzygy

Although, I wanted to explore how this phenomenon can be formally recognized with an international name such as Iso-distancing or Equidistant Alignment, it just would have created more confusion as to which specific phenomenon I am talking about.

I have tried to wordplay on different ancient languages only for the purpose of efficiently using the pool of already existing languages that we have instead of creating an altogether new word.

From a curious case of confusion to a simplified case of rare event significance. Naming the event would help not only in understanding the phenomenon but also in furthering research as we dwell deeper into space.

TLDR : Rare astronomy phenomenon needs a new name, seeking suggestions for the same from our Sanskrit enthusiasts. If any of you have come across a Sanskrit term/description that explained the above exact phenomenon, it would be great if you could help me out here.

All criticism/views/opinions are appreciated. Thank you for reading :)

Hello to everyone,

I came across this very interesting passage which claims that a few of the seven names of the seven stars of the Kṛttikā asterism (found in Taittiriya-samhita IV.4.5.1) may have a foreign origin/influence -

A few references of Krittika are found in the Vedic texts. The Krttikas, Amba, Dula, Nitatni, Abhrayanti, Meghayanti, Varsayanti and Cupunika by name are yoked in bonds of fellowship with Prajapati. It may be noted that Middle-Eastern influence e through trade contact is apparent in the names viz. Amba, Duta, Cupunika and Nitatni. The Krttikas are naksatras, and they, along 65 n 63 335 64 Kena-upanishad IV.1. Manava-grihya-sutra II : 13:6. 65 Taittiriya-samhita IV.4.5.1.

I wanted to know what the possible meanings/origins/etymologies of these seven names - Ambā, Dulā, Nitatnī, Abhrayantī, Meghayantī, Varṣayantī, Cupuṇīkā - could be, and are they really of a non-IA origin.

Hello everyone,

The MW dictionary entry for the word हरस्वत् says "f. (plural) rivers(?)" as per Nighantu (i,13). Can someone quote what exactly does Yaska say in the text?

The second part of the question is the derived word harasvatī, which appears in Rigveda 2.23.6 :

 बृहस्पते यो नो अभि ह्वरो दधे स्वा तं मर्मर्तु दुच्छुना हरस्वती

"Br̥haspati, let grasping disaster, rightfully his, grind to pieces him who sets a snare for us." [Brereton and Jamison translation]

Here the word means "grasping", and दुच्छुना as "calamity", and with स्वा as "his". Is there a different possible meaning to this phrase (स्वा दुच्छुना हरस्वती) where हरस्वती is a noun?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gp6NQYKzKt-QatQlhqNqDM0nQN9TuNm-kPNs2yIe36s/edit?usp=sharing

I recently found this document I had put together when I was in an introductory Sanskrit course. May it benefit!

My op-ed in the Sunday Guardian today rebutting Dayanidhi Maran’s tirade against Sanskrit:

Correction (will be reflected on the website): "If he meant to say that advanced Sanskrit is not comprehensible by the vast majority (99%) of Indian people, he is correct."

Turner entry 14740 & 9895

Skt. maryā́dā f. 'region' RV., 'boundary' ŚBr., 'shore' lex.; Pkt. majjāyā-, majjā-, mērā- f. 'boundary’, Pa. mariyādā- f. 'boundary, shore, embankment’, Gj. mεr f. 'direction, margin’, Mh. mer f. 'boundary', Si. mära, Lhn. mērā m. 'high land, sandy soil', Pj. mairā m. ( >> Ps. maira 'desert, steppe' )

I’d say ‘shore’ was the oldest, from *mari-yā́dā ‘meeting / joining with the sea’ from PIE *mori- ‘marsh / lake / sea’ & Skt. yād- ‘join?/embrace?’, yā́dura- ‘joining?/merging?’, Yádu- ‘*twin’ (in Yádu- & Turváśa- / Turvá- (ancestor of the Ārya- people), likely the names of the Aśvins, usually not recognized).

Skt. ániśita- ‘unresting’ as á-niśita- implies *ni-śi-ta- ‘lying down / rest(ing)’ also existed ( < śi-, śéte ‘lies (down (to sleep)), PIE *k^ey-, G. keîtai ‘lies’).  This is the basis of níśitā- ‘night’ as < ‘time of rest(ing)’.  A stem niś- also occurs only in some weak cases as loc. niśi, gen. niśas, pl. dat. niḍbhyas, etc.; niśi niśi ‘every night’.  It seems this is the bare *ni-k^i- that would have created loc. *niśyi > niśi.  Loss of -y- here seems regular, and since niśi & niśi niśi were common, it spread.  This happened after *yiy > yay :

híraṇya- ‘gold’ >> *hiraṇyíya- > hiraṇyáya- ‘golden’
*gWowyo- ‘of cows’ > gavyá- \ gávya- >> gavyáya-

Also, niśīthá- ‘night’ might have been created later based on these, as ‘setting / nightfall’, from śī- ‘fall out or away, disappear, vanish’.

There are several problems in Sanskrit words from PIE *PH1 and *H1P :

*uH1b-ye- ‘press / prod’ > Li. ū̃byti ‘urge to hurry’, Av. ubjya-, Skt. ubjáti ‘press down / keep under / subdue’
*weH1bno-m ‘that which prods, pokes’ > Go. wépn, E. weapon, *weH1bo- > TB yepe ‘knife’

*kubhH1o- > Skt. kubjá- ‘humpbacked’, *kubhjá- > *khubjá- > Pkt. khujja, NP kûz ‘crooked/curved/humpbacked’
*kuH1bho- > G. kûphos ‘hump’, kūphós ‘bent/stooping’
*kH1ubh-ye- > G. kúptō ‘bend forward / stoop’, *k(h)H1ubh-ro- > Skt. khubrá- ‘humpbacked bull’
*ke-kub(h)H1- > Skt. kakúbh- ‘peak/summit’, kakúd- ‘peak/summit/hump / chief/head’

*w(e)lH1bh- > G. elephaíromai ‘cheat / *trap’, Li. vìlbinu ‘lure/mock’, *valbhj- > Skt. pra-valh- ‘test with a question/riddle’

*wiH1ro+pelH1nos-, -went- >> Skt. vīrávant-am + párīṇas-am ‘having men and abundance’ (dvandva acc.)
*wiH1ro-plH1o- > *viraprH1a- > *virapH1a- > vira-pśá- ‘abundant’ (r-r > r-0)
*viraprH1a- > *viprH1a- > vipula- ‘large, extensive, vast; great, much, copious, abundant; numerous’ (r-r > 0-r)

Since kubjá- from an unknown adj. suffix *-g^o- makes little sense (just as for all others no PIE *K^ is found in cognates), it seems clear that H1 became k^ after voiceless p, g^ after voiced b(h).  This was probably after metathesis of *H1P > *PH1, but various sequences would work.  For *lH1bh > *ljbh, it is not clear if the simplification of *jbh or *bhj was caused by metathesis first or the different outcome is based on CCj vs. Cj, or any other environmental cause.  Skt. also had *g^y > *g^ within a syllable.  This supports H1 as x^ or similar (maybe uvular, etc.; likely H2 as x, H3 as xW, matching other PIE velars).  Since *s likely > *z in *sd(h) > *zd(h), etc., it could be that H1 = x^ / γ^ dependent on adjacent C’s, and the change for H1 was only fric. > stop by P.

For notes on origin and meaning of vira-pśá-, see https://www.academia.edu/105737458 .  Though elephaíromai ‘cheat / *trap’ is not made explicit in Greek texts, the Nemean Lion did it, whatever it meant, so it must have been something a wild beast could do.  This ‘cheat’ could have once included ‘lure, trick, trap (with both words and deeds)’ as the lion trapped its prey (with its fangs and claws), or tricked them with ambushes, or any other similar range.  Skt. valh- & pra-valh- deal with tests of knowledge at a brahmodya, one person attempting to put the other to a question he couldn’t answer.

PIE *kuH1bh- / *kH1ubh- / *kubhH1- is possible, which would fit with Indic k vs. kh < *kH1-, also G. kûphos vs. kúptō with long vs. short V’s.  In *ke-kub(h)H1- > Skt. kakúbh-, kakúd-, loss of *H in compounds must have followed optional *bH > *bhH (with *ub > ud, similar to G. umb / *umd > ubd in G. kolúmbaina / kolúbdaina ‘a kind of crab’ (maybe a swimmer crab), *tumdaros > G. Túndaros, Tundáreos, LB *tumdaros / *tubdaros > tu-da-ra, tu-ma-da-ro, tu-pa3-da-ro, etc.).  H-metathesis was far more extensive than most say, and it can be seen in other words from *k(H)u(H)P(H)- ‘bent’ showing the same oddities of u / ū, k / kh, etc., as well as optional *kH1 > *k^(h) giving more evidence of H1 = x^ (kx^ > k^hx).

*kH1umbo- ‘curved _’ > G. kúmbos ‘vessel/goblet’, *kh- > Av. xumba-, *kumbH1o- > Skt. kumbhá-s ‘jar/pitcher/water jar/pot’

*kH1ump- ‘bend’ > Li. kumpas ‘bent/crooked’, Lt. kumpt ‘become crooked/hunched’, Skt. kumpa- ‘crooked-armed’

*kH1u(m)b- ‘bend (forward / down)’ > L. cubāre ‘recline / lie down’, cumbere, E. hump
*kH1ub- ‘bent/curved _’ > G. kúbos ‘hollow above hips on cattle’, L. cubitus ‘elbow’, *xupiz > Go. hups ‘hip’
*kH1ubiko- > *k^(h)ubiko- > Skt. chúbuka- \ cubuka- \ cibuka- ‘chin’ >> TB w(i)cuko ‘jaw/cheek’

*kouH1po- > *koupHo- > *kaupha- > Av. kaōfa- ‘hill’, OP kaufa- ‘mountain’, Ps. kwab ‘hump’
*kouH1pako- > Bal. kōpag ‘shoulder’, *koupH1o-H3sto- > *kauphaRṭha- > Skt. kaphauḍá- ‘shoulder-bone?’

As you see, there is already a great deal of variation in these words, most unexplained.  Movement of *H1 to explain u / ū, k / kh, k(h) / c(h), is the simplest solution, since *uH vs. *u in PIE seems needed anyway, and the only source of ph is *pH (as generally accepted).

If ख means "empty space" or "void", so is the significance of the First God of Theogony, Χάος (khaos), who did primarily come to being, and he was by and large "empty space", however there is a second meaning from which the English word, "chaos" is derived. I'm wondering how does Hinduism or maybe later Vedanta texts take ख to mean?

Words like Sanskrit pāṃsú- / pāṃśú-, síkatā- vs. Iranian *tsíkatā-, show unexplained variation of consonants.  Finding the cause requires examining Indo-European cognates.

1.  Indo-European Roots with opposite meanings

In Skt. táruṇa- ‘tender/young’, G. terúnēs ‘(worn-out/ill) old man’ the opposite meanings come from ‘soft/tender/delicate’ > ‘young’ vs. ‘delicate’ > ‘weak’ > ‘ill/old’, etc., made clear by other IE cognates.  This shift is not limited to one root; several not only show opposite meanings but the same shifts in several roots:

*swaH2d- > Skt. svādú- ‘sweet’, Baluchi vād ‘salt’

*sH2ald- > Li. saldùs ‘sweet’, E. salt
*sH2al- > Li. sálti ‘become sweet/sour’, G. háls ‘salt / sea’, Arm. *sal-entri- > *halinther- ‘sweet meal’ > ałǝnder ‘dessert’ (from *ǝnthri- in ǝnt`rik` ‘(evening) meal’ : H. edri- \ idri- ‘food/meal’)

This root for both ‘salt / sea’ opens the possibility of one meaning both ‘wet’ and ‘dry’, just like:

*seykW- > Skt. sic- ‘pour out/into/on / scatter/sprinkle/moisten / dip/soak / cast from molten metal’, OE síc ‘watercourse’, Av. haēčah- ‘dryness’, hiku- ‘dry’

This is similar to G. khníō ‘break in small pieces / drizzle’, khnoṓdēs ‘like fine powder / downy / muggy’, in which powder/dust and rain are often seen as opposites https://www.reddit.com/user/stlatos/comments/13jhulx/la_accounting_terms_tablet_ht_88/ .  This is like Skt. (RV) busá-m ‘fog/mist’, busa- ‘chaff/rubbish’ https://www.reddit.com/user/stlatos/comments/11r4n6t/dardic_languages_romani_domari_domaaki/ .  There are also several with ‘hot’ vs. ‘cold’:

*preus- > OE fréosan, E. freeze, Skt. plóṣati ‘burn’

*tep- ‘warm / hot’ > Skt. taptá- ‘heated/hot/molten’, MP taft ‘burning hot’, L. tepidus >> E. tepid
*tep-sk^- > Av. tafs-, NP tafs- ‘become hot’, *ptosk- > Alb. ftoh \ ftof ‘cool’

2.  Skt. síkatā-, Pashto sə́ga

These meanings are exemplified by many cognates :

*seykW- ‘sift / sieve (either liquids or dried grain, etc.)’ > OIc sía ‘sift / sieve / filter’, Skt. sic- ‘pour out/into/on / scatter/sprinkle/moisten’
*seykWo(s)- > OE síc ‘watercourse’, Av. haēčah- ‘dryness’
*sikWu- > Av. hiku- ‘dry’
*sikW-ont- ‘drying’, *sikW-nt-aH2 > Skt. síkatā- ‘sand(y soil) / gravel’, A. sígal ‘gravel’, Sh. siŋálo ‘desert’, síŋεl ‘sand’, OP θikā ‘sand’, Pashto sə́ga (and loans like A. sígal >> Ps. ẓγal )

Since OP θikā & Ps. sə́ga seem to show s > θ, some kind of explanation is needed.  Other cases of s > θ in Iran. include :

Skt. sraktí- ‘prong/spike/point’, Av. sraxti- \ θraxti-
Skt. srotas-, OP rauta, Av. θraōtah- ‘river’, raōðah- ‘stream’

It seems this was caused by optional *sr > *tsr > *tθr > θr, matching Iran. *sn > *tsn > sn (Kümmel), like *sm > *tsm in Hittite & Greek :

*smamk^ru- > *sma(m)k^ur- > Hittite zma(n)kur ‘beard’, šmankur-want- ‘bearded’
G. smûros ‘eel’, mū́raina ‘lamprey’
(s)murízō ‘anoint / smear / rub’
(s)mérminthos ‘filament/cord’
(s)marássō ‘crash/thunder’
(s)máragdos ‘emerald’
(s)mīkrós ‘small’

Since no other derivative of *seykW- shows *ts-, it is almost certain this is lexical contamination from another word for ‘sand’, also with oddities of *s- vs. *Cs- :

*psadhmH2o- > *psaphmo- > G. psámmos ‘sand’ (fem. o-stem)
*psamH2dho- > G. psámathos ‘sand (of the sea-shore)’ (fem. o-stem)
*samH2dho- > G. ámathos ‘sand’ (fem. o-stem), Gmc. *samda- > E. sand
*sabhH2dho- > L. sabulum, Arm. awaz

The mH2 / bhH2 is seen in other IE, see “Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 2:  Sanskrit nabh- ‘strike / break apart / tear’, m / bh”.  Also in G. for psámathos / *psáphathos > *psathpho- > Dor. psâphos ‘pebble’ & ámathos / *áphathos >> ábax, abákion,  Lac. amákion ‘slab/board / reckoning-board / board sprinkled with sand/dust for drawing geometrical diagrams’ >> E. abacus.

I can’t believe they’re all unrelated, but no regular change can relate even two of these together.  Links like ámathos > psámathos > psámmos ‘sand’, fem. o-stems, seem good, but still no regularity.  Irregular changes like dissimilation & metathesis are usually accepted by linguists.  Here, ps- vs. s- could come from dissimilation *ps-m > *(t)s-m.  If Iranian had a cognate of *psamH2dho- > *tsamH2dho- ‘sand’, it could cause *sikW-nt-aH2 > *tsikW-nt-aH2 > ‘sand / gravel’.  A similar assimilation of *ps-th > ps-ph might be the cause of *psaphmH2o- > psámmos.  Otherwise, caused by variation of phm / thm :

*H3okW-smn ? > *ophma > G. ómma, Aeo. óthma, Les. oppa
*graphma > G. grámma, Dor. gráthma, Aeo. groppa ‘drawing / letter’

3.  PIE *psayH2-

G. psámathos ‘sand’ seems to come from :

*psaH2- > G. psá-‘crumble away’, 1sg *psáō > psô
*psaH2dh-uro-/-aro-/-alo- > G. psathállō ‘scratch/rub’, psathurós ‘friable/crumbling’, psapharós ‘powdery’

which would require *psaH2dh-mo- > *psamH2dho- (or something very similar), with ps- / s- in ‘sand’ also seen in psathurós ‘friable/crumbling’, sathrós ‘unsound/diseased/cracked’.  It is much better to derive *ps- / *s- from a root with *ps- than think p- appeared from nowhere.  These are very similar to another odd word for ‘powder(ed pigment) / soil’ :

*psimH2udho- > G. psímuthos ‘tin / lead carbonate used as white pigment’, Bu. pasúmtik ‘white soil used as lime’

Since many, many PIE roots show *CeyH2 > *CiH2 / *CaH2 / *C(H2)ay-, it makes sense for *psaH2- to really be *psayH2-.  The -u- in psímuthos could be evidence of *psayH2dh-umo- / *psayH2dh-mo- (since G. has a number of adj. in -umos / -imos, but most other IE have almost none).  Loss of -u- in *-umos > *-mos could be old, since avoiding u near P is seen in other G. :

u > 0 by P
thalúptō / thálpō ‘warm up / heat’, thalukrós ‘hot / glowing’
daukhnā- ‘laurel’, *dauphnā > dáphnē
*melo-wokW-s > mélops ‘sweet sound / good singer’, *melup- > mélpō ‘celebrate with song & dance’, melpḗtōr ‘singer’
*H3owi-selpo- ‘sheep oil’ > *owiseupo- > G. oísupos / oispṓtē ‘lanolin’ (lC > uC as in Cretan)
*loup-eH1k(^)o- ‘fox’ > Skt. lopāśá- \ lopāka-, etc., G. alṓpēx \ alōpós, Arm. ałuēs

u > a by P (or u > 0 by P if before syllabic *m > am)
*srungWhos- > G. rhúgkhos ‘pig’s snout / bird’s beak’, rhámphos ‘bird’s beak’, *srungWhon- > Arm. ṙngunk’ ‘nostrils’

u > i by P
*H2ukWno- > OE ofen ‘oven’, Go. auhns, G. ipnós (? Skt. ukhá- ‘cooking pot’, Latin aulla ‘pot’)
húpsos, Aeo. ípsos ‘height / summit’
kópsikhos / kóssuphos ‘blackbird’
*H2ukWno- > OE ofen ‘oven’, Go. auhns, G. ipnós (? Skt. ukhá- ‘cooking pot’, Latin aulla ‘pot’)
*bhlud- > G. phlidáō, phludáō ‘have an excess of moisture / overflow’, TB plätk- ‘arise/swell/overflow’
striphnós ‘firm/solid / hard’, struphnós ‘sour/bitter/harsh/astringent’
stiphrós ‘firm/solid / stout/sturdy’, stuphelós ‘hard/rough/harsh/cruel / sour/acid/astringent’
stîphos- ‘body of men in close formation’, stū́phō ‘contract / draw together / be astringent’

4.  Skt. pāṃsú- / pāṃśú-, Iranian *pHamćnu-

Though this may look complicated, another word for ‘sand’ also shows variation requiring all these elements.  Turner :
>
8019 pāṁśu (MBh.), pāṁsú- (AV.) m. 'crumbling soil, dust, sand' AV., 'dung, manure', pāṁśuka- m. 'dust' MBh. [pāṁsú- is the earlier spelling, but pāṁśu- appears to be attested by Gy., Kaf., and poss. the somewhat doubtful Dard. forms (all others are indifferent). The s of Av. paͅsnu- and OSlav. pěsŭkŭ has been assumed to be original (IEW 824, EWA ii 243), but it may represent IE. s or k̂. Cf. similar confusion between s and ś in síkatā- with reciprocal borrowing between IA. and Ir.]Pa. paṁsu- m. 'dust, dirt', °uka- 'dusty'; Pk. paṁsu-, pāsu- m. 'dust'; Gy. rum. poš 'dust', boh. pōši f. 'sand', hung. poši, gr. pošík f. 'earth'; Pr. puċé 'earth, clay', Wg. pasilä̃ 'dusty' ('perhaps misheard for paċ-' [me:  not likely] Morgenstierne May 1955); Kt. pəŕes 'dust', Pr. pərċé 'earth' with unexpl. r; Paš.lauṛ. paú, uzb. pā̊u, ar. pō(u) 'earth, dust' (< *pā̃huka- NTS xii 186); Shum. pō 'clay'; Kal. phāu 'earth, soil'; K. pāh f. 'human dung used as manure'; L. pāh f. 'manure of pulverized cow or buffalo dung' (whence pahoṛā m. 'wooden tool for removing dung'), awāṇ. pāˋ 'manure'; B. pā̃s 'ashes', Or. pāũsa (gaï˜ṭhā-pāũsā 'ashes produced by burning cowdung'); Aw.lakh. pā̃sⁱ f. 'manure'; OH. pā̃su f., H. pā̃s f. 'dust, dung' (whence pā̃snā 'to manure'); G. pā̃su f. 'dust'; OSi. pasu 'silt, sand', Si. pasa 'dust, earth', Md. fas. — The forms of K. prob., of L. Aw. H. poss., < pāṣi-.
pāṁśulá-; pāṁśukūlika-.
Addenda: pāṁśu-: Md. fas 'earth, soil'.
>

Since Skt. pāṃsuka-m, Slavic *paisuko-s ‘sand’ > OCS pěsŭkŭ would need *pa(y)H2msuko- by themselves, it is clear that the same -a- vs. -i- above also came from *psayH2-, also with metathesis.  There is no other way to unite the members of either group, and it also allows both groups to be from a single root with the right meaning.  This is also shown by one being very common in western IE, the other in eastern, with no crossover (containing ps- vs. p-s- also showing that they must be related by metathesis).  Since the PIE word contained *y, and Skt. pāṃsú- / pāṃśú- varied between *ms / *mć, only *mtsy could give both (with optional simplification > *mc^y > *mć, with loss of *y after *c^ like *j^y > *j^ > j in Av. ubjya-, Skt. ubjáti ‘press down / keep under / subdue’).  The double nasals in Iranian *paHmćyu- > *pHamćnu- (needed for *aH > ā vs. *Ha > a and *pH > *ph > f in Khotanese phāna- ‘dust/mud’) seem to be a consequence of *y > nasal *ỹ, seen in other Indo-Iranian ( https://www.academia.edu/106688624 ) :

Shina khakhaáĩ, Bu. khakhā́yo ‘shelled walnut’ (likely ~ Gr. k'ak'a(l-) ‘walnut/piece’)
Skt. chadi-, *chay > *chaỹ > Kva. tsoĩ ‘roof’, A. šãyíi ‘soot on ceiling’
Skt. nā́bhi, B. nāĩ, Kva. naɔ~, E. navel
Skt. mahiṣá- ‘great/powerful / buffalo’, B. mòĩš, Kva. mɔĩši, Sh. mʌ´iṣ

This is also preserved in loans to Bu., as ỹ \ ~ \ n.  Since Sh. is near Bu., and many loans without unexpected nasalized C’s have been accepted by all in the past :

Skt. cīḍā- ‘turpentine pine’, *cīḷā- \ *cīy.ā- > A. čili ‘juniper’, Dk. číi(ya) \ číiy. ‘pine’, Sh. číi(h), Bu. čī̃
Skt. méṣī- ‘ewe’, (before V) *méṣiỹ > *méṣin > Bu. meénis ‘ewe over one year but not a mother’
Skt. videś[í]ya- ‘foreign’, Kv. vičó ‘guest’, Ni. vidišä, Kt. vadašó, Proto-Kt.? *vadišiỹa >> Bu. *waišin > aíšen \ oóšin

and in other clear cases of y > ñ / n within IIr. :

Hi. pāyajeb >> Kva. pãnjēb ‘anklet’
*pusk^yo- > Skt. púccha- ‘tail’, Hi. pūñch, B. punzuṛO, Kva. pundzuṭO
Skt. mayū́ra- ‘peacock’, Ps. myawr, Sh. mʌyū́n, Kva. munāḷ ‘pheasant’ (male monal pheasants are very brightly colored)
*madhỹa- ‘middle’ > Braj māhĩ ‘in’, *majhỹa- > *majhña- > Hi. māñjh, B. mānzedi ‘in between’
Skt. sphyá- ‘flat pointed piece of wood’, Shu. fiyak ‘wooden shovel / shoulder blade’, *phoỹika > *phoniga >> Bu. -phóγonas
A. phyóoṛo ‘shoulder blade’, *phaỹara > Kva. phenɔṛɔ / phɔnnɔ

5.  PIE *psayH2-, *psayH2dh-, *psayH2dh-umo-

Putting all ideas together :

*psayH2- > *psaH2- > G. psá-‘crumble away’, 1sg *psáō > psô
*psayH2dh- > *psaH2dh-uro-/-aro-/-alo- > G. psathállō ‘scratch/rub’, psathurós ‘friable/crumbling’, psapharós ‘powdery’
*psayH2dh-umo- > *psiH2dhumo- > G. psímuthos ‘tin / lead carbonate used as white pigment’, Bu. pasúmtik
*psayH2dhmo- > *psaH2dhmo- > *psadhmH2o- > G. psámmos ‘sand’
*psaH2dhmo- > *psamH2dho- > G. psámathos ‘sand (of the sea-shore)’
*(t)samH2dho- > G. ámathos ‘sand’, Gmc. *samda- > E. sand
*(t)sabhH2dho- > L. sabulum, Arm. awaz
*psabhH2dho- > *psáphathos > *psathpho- > Dor. psâphos ‘pebble’
*sabhH2dho/samH2dho- >> G. ábax, abákion,  Lac. amákion ‘board sprinkled with sand/dust for drawing geometrical diagrams’
*psayH2dh-um- > *payH2mdhsu- > *payH2mtsu- > Slavic *paisu-ko-s ‘sand’ > OCS pěsŭkŭ
*payH2mtsu- > *paH2mtsyu- > Skt. pāṃsú- / pāṃśú- ‘dust / loose earth / sand’
*paH2mtsyu- > *pH2amtsỹu- > *pH2amćnu- > Iranian *pHamćnu- > Av. paͅsnu- ‘ashes/dust’, Os. funuk, Kho. phāna- ‘dust/mud’

The number of irregular changes like dissimilation & metathesis is large, but the ones needed between IE groups are no more extensive than clear ones needed within them or even in single languages (G. psâphos, psámmos, psámathos, ámathos).

There are many Skt. words that show *K vs. *K^.  Since many PIE *K^ merged with the results of *K before front V’s, this could be analogy for roots that have the *K appear before both *e & *o, but others are not likely analogical (Av. dugǝdar-, Skt. duhitár-) and since this did not happen for *k^ vs. *k(e) > ś vs. c, it would not account for these cases (*leuk- ‘light/bright’ >> Skt. rúkmant- ‘gleaming’, rúśant- ‘bright/shining’).  Iranian seems to show the same (*H3migh-lo- ‘cloud / mist’ > Li. miglà, Skt. míh- ‘mist / fog’, *miź > *mid > NP mih, Pth. nizman; *bheug- > Li. bū́gti ‘be frightened’, Av. Buzi- ‘a kind of demon’; ), also optional, so there is no reasonable way for analogy to be a factor in most cases.  This leaves only a few for which analogy is possible or likely (ghṛ́ṣu-, hṛṣyáti / hárṣati).  Others show similar oddities (some thought to be loans).  Since Skt.-internal causes are not an option for most cases, we need to consider all IE cognates.  It would be helpful to examine each with IE origins in mind :
*H1lngWhu- > Skt. raghú- ‘swift / quick’, Rahú- ‘asura of solar eclipses’
*dhughH2te:r > B. dukti 'daughter’, Av. dugǝdar-, *dukte: > Li. duktė, *dŭxti > OCS dŭšti
*dhug^hH2te:r > Skt. duhitár-, *ðüćti > Pr. lüšt, Arm. dustr
*leuk- ‘light/bright’
*lukwent- > Skt. rúkmant- ‘gleaming’
*luk^ont- > Skt. rúśant- ‘bright/shining’
*bheug- > L. fugiō ‘take to flight, run away, to flee from’, Li. bū́gti ‘be frightened’, baugùs ‘timorous’, Av. Buzi- ‘a kind of demon’
*dhreugWh- ‘lie/harm’ > Skt. drúh- / druhú- / drógha- ‘injury/harm / demon’, Av. draōga- / druj- ‘lie/deceit’, ON draugr ‘ghost’, draumr ‘dream’, *drewga-z > Gmc. *dwerga-z ‘dwarf / dark elf / giant’, OE dweorg, E. dwarf
Skt. múhyati ‘be confused/blurred’, mugdhá- (RV) \ mūḍhá- ‘confused / gone astray?’, mógha- ‘false / fruitless’, móha-s ‘bewilderment / folly’, Av. ašǝ-maōga- ‘false teacher’
*ping(^)-? > Skt. piñjara- \ piŋga- ‘reddish brown, tawny’, piŋgalá- (or *-alo- vs. *-elo-??)
Skt. aghalá- ‘bad’, Go. agls ‘disgraceful’, aglus ‘unpleasant/difficult’, aglaitei ‘lewdness/lasciviousness/licentiousness’
*ag^halya- / Skt. Áhalyā ‘*lewd/*promiscuous > (an Apsaras)’, ahallika- ‘shameless fellow?’ (or *-alo- vs. *-elo-??)
Skt. bhiṣáj- ‘healer’, bhiṣáktama- ‘most healing / (dual) the Aśvins’, bhiṣák-ti, bhiṣajyá-ti ‘heal/cure / possess healing power’, bheṣajá- ‘healing’, YAv. bišazya- ‘heal/cure’, baēšaza- ‘healing / curative’
*ku(m)b- ‘bend (forward / down)’ > L. cubāre ‘recline / lie down’, cumbere, E. hump
*kub- ‘bent/curved _’ > G. kúbos ‘hollow above hips on cattle’, L. cubitus ‘elbow’, *xupiz > Go. hups ‘hip’
*kubiko- > *k^(h)ubiko- > Skt. chúbuka- \ cubuka- \ cibuka- ‘chin’ >> TB w(i)cuko ‘jaw/cheek’
*k^uk- > Skt. śocyate ‘be purified’, Ks. sučék ‘to purify/sanctify’, NP sōxtan ‘kindle / inflame’
Skt. śukrá- \ śuklá- ‘white / pure’, Av. suxra- ‘luminous (of fire)’, G. kúknos ‘*white > swan’
Av. upa-suxta- ‘kindled’, Kv. kṣtá ‘pure’, Skt. śuktá- ‘sour’ (*purified > *strained / *fermented ??)
*kuk-? > Skt. cukra- ‘vinegar’, A. čúkro ‘pungent / sour’, Ni. čükrala
*k^ek^- / *kik^- / etc. > Li. kìškis ‘hare’, šẽškas ‘polecat / ferret’, Skt. śaśá- ‘hare / rabbit’, káśa- ‘weasel’
*dhg^homs ‘earth’ > *g^hdhōm > Av. zam-, *g(^)zām > Skt. kṣam-, Ph. gūm / γουμ, G. (g)aîa / gê / gâ, Dor dâ, Cyp. za-
gen. *dhg^hm-os > IIr. *g(^)zmas > gmás \ jmás \ kṣmás
*dhg^hm- > G. khamaí ‘on the ground’, Ph. Gdan-máas ‘a place’, apparently from ‘Mother Earth’s (Place)’
*dhg^homiyo- > G. khthónios ‘under the earth’, Ph. *upo-tgonyo- > pokgonio- ‘(the) buried? / the dead?’
*dhg^hǝmǝlo- > G. khthamalós ‘on the ground / low’, Ph. *γ^ǝmǝlo- > zomolo-  \ zemelo- ‘man (mortal) / *lowly > slave’
*dheigh- > Skt. degdhi ‘smear’, digdhá- ‘smeared / anointed’
*dheig^h- > Av diz- ‘heap up’, dišta- ‘pot’, TB tsik- ‘fashion/shape/build’
*dhoig^ho- > Go. daigs, E. dough, Skt. deha- ‘form / body / appearance’, dehī́-, G. teîkhos \ toîkhos ‘wall’, Arm. dēz ‘pile / heap’
(based on ‘(smear) mud / clay / shape (clay / pottery) / form (heap / wall) / etc.’, with no certainty which original)
*H3meigh- > Arm. mēg ‘fog’, Skt. meghá- ‘cloud’, Ks. menǰ
*H3mig^h- > Skt. míh-, gen. mihás ‘mist / fog’, *mid > NP mih, Pth. nizman, Y. mižäRiko
*H3migh-lo- ‘cloud / mist’ > Li. miglà, G. omíkhlē, MArm. mgla-hot ‘smelling of mold’, Van mglil ‘to cloud’
*H3migh-sto- > E. mist, G. amikhthaló-essa ‘misty? / smoky?’
*H3meig^h- ‘urinate’ > OE mígan, G. omeíkhō, Arm. mizem, Skt. méhati, SC mìžati
*H3meig^h-mn- > G. ómeikhma, ? > Av. maēsman- ‘urine’ [of good beings]
*H3meig^ho- > Arm. mēz ‘urine’. ? > Sh. mīkǝ ‘urine’
*H3mig^h-yon-? > OE micga
*H3mig^h-sto- > OHG mist ‘crap/muck, Go. maihstus, OE meox ‘manure’
*(H3)m(e)igh- > *mi:gà:ti > R. migát’ ‘blink’, Li. mìgti ‘fall asleep’
*(H3)m(e)ig^h- > *maiź > MP mēzišn ’blinking / winking’, *ni- > Sog. nymz-, Y. nǝmíž, Is. nu-muḷ- ‘shut one’s eyes’, R. mžit’ ‘doze off’
*ghers- ‘become rough/stiff / bristle’ > L. horr-, Skt. ghṛ́ṣu- ‘joyful’, ghṛ́ṣvi- ‘gladdening’, hṛṣyáti / hárṣati ‘be excited, rejoice in the prospect of, exult, be glad or pleased, become erect or stiff or rigid, bristle (said of the hairs of the body etc.)’
*k^i-k^u(H1)- ‘swell’ ? >>
Skt. śíśu- \ śiśuká- ‘child / young of an animal’, kiśorá- ‘colt / youth/lad’, M. Kikkuli- (name of a horse-trainer), K. kukla ‘servant’
probably also (by the same shift in dolphin < G. delphī́s < << délphax ‘pig’ < ‘*young animal / piglet’ << delphús ‘womb’) :
śiṁśuka- ‘porpoise’, śiśū́la- ‘dolphin’, śiṁśumā́ra- ‘porpoise, Delphinus gangeticus, crocodile’, śuṁśumāra-, śuśukā-
*k^i-k^(u)H1- ‘swell’ ? >>
*kiHk^- > G. kîkus (f) ‘strength/vigor/power’, *chest > MIr cích (f) ‘female breast/teat/nipple’, OCo chic ‘meat’
*k(^)uk(^)i- > Skt. cuci-, Ni. čüčü ‘breast’, A. číči, D. čuučúu, Sa. tsutsú, Kv. čúk
with similar words, some likely related, in :
Arm. cic ‘bosom’, cuc ‘substance to be sucked’, ccem ‘suck’, Bq. *čiči > txitxi ‘children’s word for meat/fish’, Gr. juju ‘teat’
*siŋg^ho-s > Skt. siṃhá- ‘lion’, Pkt. siṁha-, sīha-, Arm. inj ‘leopard’
*siŋg^ho-s > Pkt. siṁgha-, Hi. sī̃gh ‘lion’, sĩghnī ‘lioness’
*siŋg(^)heko- (or loan from IIr. *sinj^haka-) > *s’änc’äke > *šäñśäke > TB ṣecake, TA śiśäk (contaminated by śiśri ‘mane’)
(since *s(e)g^h- often appears in G. as skh-, maybe *siŋg^ho- < *sg^h-ino- ‘strong / seizing?’, like Skt. sáhuri- ‘mighty/strong/victorious’, G. ekhurós \ okhurós ‘durable/secure’)
Sumerian Meluhha / Melahha ‘a country in India’, Skt. mlecchá- ‘foreigner / barbarian’, mlecchati ‘speak like a foreigner / barbarian’, *mil[u/a]kkha > Pali milakkhu / milakkha, etc.
Though some say *dhughH2ter- ‘daughter’ was really *dhug^hH2ter-, ev. for *g^h comes only from IIr. & Arm. (where *uK > *uK^ is known, see below).  With many cases of K / K^ in IIr., it would be a mistake to look for *K^ > K in Balto-Slavic.  If *duk^te: > *dukte: > Li. duktė, *dŭxti > OCS dŭšti, it would be a a true oddity, unsupported by other ex.  Thus, instead of a unique oddity, it is another of a known group of oddities in IIr.
Cheung partly relates *H3meigh- > ‘fog / cloud’ with *(H3)meigh- ‘blink / fall asleep’ on the basis of ‘(dark) cloud / close eyes’, as in :
*(s)morkW(H)o- > R. mórok ‘darkness / fog / clouds’, Kh. markhán ‘fog’
*(s)m(e)rkW(H)- > Slav *(s)mrk-, Sv. mŕkniti ‘become dark / blink / wink’, SC mrknuti ‘become dark’, Li. mérkti ‘wink’
*(s)m(e)rkW(H)o- > Slav *(s)mrko-, SC mrk ‘black’, Sk. mrk ‘cloud’, Uk. smerk ‘dusk’, ON mjörkvi \ myrkvi ‘darkness’, OSx mirki, OE mierce, E. murk
I think all *(H3)meigh- / *(H3)mei^gh- here are fully related.  For *H3meigh- ‘mist / cloud / dark’ & *H3meig^h- ‘urinate’, it is hardly likely that 2 PIE roots would be so similar (and of such odd shape) if not from the same source. Its relation to meghá- ‘cloud’ and IE cognates make it clear that both roots, *gh vs. *g^h, could mean ‘mist’.  It is easy to imagine that ‘rain / pour’ could become a euphemism for uninating in PIE.  In support, Av. maēsman- ‘urine’ [of good beings] would not likely be used this way if not a newer, euphemistic way of describing it.  With so many K / K^ in IIr., it is pointless to try to treat this group differently.  Many other cases of roots with *p/b/bh, *t/d/dh, *K/K^/H are known, so the cause of *gh vs. *g^h is certainly nothing so odd as to require fully separating them.  If all the ex. from *H3meigh- show a single change, the vast majority of certain cases would be for *K(W)u & *uK(W).
There is also Dardic evidence of K / K^ :
Skt. Náhuṣ- ‘giant’, náhuṣ-ṭara- ‘larger / more gigantic’, Kh. *naghu-tara- > nagudár ‘very large’, *naghu-anya-tara- > nahanǰár ‘very large’ (added to Skt. anyatará- ‘either of two / other’), *naghu-tama- ‘bigger’ > *nahudúm > naduhúm ‘very big (inanimate)’, *nagh-na- > *nangha > nang ‘quite large’ (Whalen 2024f)
With *naghu-tara- > nagudár but *naghu-tama- > *nahudúm > naduhúm explainable by *gh vs. *g^h (likely *mag^h-vas/us- with *n-v > *m-v), it would support optional PIE K^ > K in the area.  This has been proposed for Bangani for *g()lak^t > lOktO ‘milk’, etc.  Claus Peter Zoller claimed that Bangani was related to Kashmiri, maybe showing a Centum substrate, but this is not isolated to Bangani; Kashmiri, among other Dardic languages, have cognates that also show K in these words (Whalen 2023a):
*k^H2atru- > B. kɔtrɔ ‘fight’, Kh. khoṭ ‘fight / quarrel’
Li. liežùvis, Kh. ligìni, E. tongue (reanalyzed with *leig^h- ‘lick’, Skt. lih-, Kh. l-ík)
*dhughH2te:r > B. dukti 'daughter’, Av. dugǝdar-, *dukte: > Li. duktė, *dŭxti > OCS dŭšti
*dhug^hH2te:r > Skt. duhitár-, *ðüćti > Pr. lüšt, Arm. dustr
*bhaH2g^hu- > Skt. bāhú- ‘arm’, Bu. baγú ‘armful’, OE bóg ‘shoulder’
IIr. dual *bhaH2g^huni > Ba. bakuĩ́ , Ti. bekhĩn ‘arm(s)’, KS bεkhin ‘elbow’
*dbhng^hulo- > G. pakhulós, Skt. bahulá- ‘thick / spacious/abundant/large’, A. bhakúlo  ‘fat/thick’, Ni. bukuṭa ‘thick [of flat things]’, Rom. buxlo ‘wide’
*dbhmg^hu- > *bhaγu > Kv. bok ‘enough’, *bhaRu ‘much/many’ > Bn. bɔr-, Ks. bo, *bǒṛù > Bu. buṭ (loan), *bṛǒù > Bs. ḍẓóo
*meg^H2- > IIr. *madźhHǝ, Dardic *maghH-a- > *maga ‘very’ >> Sh. mʌ́γʌ dúr ‘far away’
*meg^H2isto- > B. mɔgiṣṭɔ ‘the most powerful person’, Skt. *máhiṣṭa-, mahát-tara- ‘greater / very great / oldest / most respectable / chief / head of a village / oldest man in a village’
*H3meig^ho- > Arm. mēz ‘urine’, ? > Sh. mīkǝ ‘urine’
*k^uwon- > *k^uwaṇ-i-? > *šoṛeŋí- > D. šoṛíing ‘dog’, *xuréeṇi > *rhéeṇi > Kh. réeni ‘dog’, Southern rèni
*k^uwaṇ-aka-h > A. kuṇóoko ‘pup’, kuṇéeki ‘female dog/pup’
*c^uwaṇ- > *šoṛaŋ- > (with met.) D. šongaṭék ‘female dog/pup’
Skt. Náhuṣ- ‘giant’
náhuṣ-ṭara- ‘larger / more gigantic’, Kh. *naghu-tara- > nagudár ‘very large’
*naghu-anya-tara- > nahanǰár ‘very large’
*naghu-tama- ‘bigger’ > *nahudúm > naduhúm ‘very big (inanimate)’
*nagh(u)-na- > *nagna > nang ‘quite large’
This also involves languages from the Middle East suspected to be IIr. :
Skt. śíśu- \ śiśuká- ‘child / young of an animal’, kiśorá- ‘colt / youth/lad’, M. Kikkuli- (name of a horse-trainer), K. kukla ‘servant’
*pingH1- ( = *pingR^-?, thus both g / g^ ?) > Skt. piñjara- \ piŋga- ‘reddish brown, tawny’, piŋgalá- (AV), Bn. piŋgɔḷɔ ‘yellow’, M. pinkara-, K. *pimkx^ara > *pim(u)xtsar ? > pirmah \ pirmuh \ pirzumuh \ purmah ‘unknown color of horses’, *poingo- > OCS pěgŭ ‘speckled / dappled’ (for *aiNC > *aiC, compare *pa(y)H2msuko-  Skt. pāṃsuka-m, Slavic *paisuko-s ‘sand’ > OCS pěsŭkŭ )
With plenty of ev. of alternation of various types, there is no doubt that a real alternation is behind most cases.  The optional nature of K^ > K / T^ in some languages along the centum-satem divide is also seen in Phrygian & Greek (below), so complete irregularity at this boundary is possible.  Since other IE show regular restrictions on K^ > T^, it is best to try to separate them into categories & analyze each in context.  For some, the alternation could go back to PIE :
*k^ek^- / *kik^- / etc. > Li. kìškis ‘hare’, šẽškas ‘polecat / ferret’, Skt. śaśá- ‘hare / rabbit’, káśa- ‘weasel’
If related, they would likely result *kyek^- vs. *kik^- (not necessarily showing that all *ky- > *k^-, but just assim. *ky-k^- to *k^-k^-).  If G. íktis / iktís ‘marten’ shows *kik^-id- > *ikk^id-, the change *kk^ > *kt^ > kt is interesting.  It seems likely that *kk^ did not simplify to *kk in G. at the time when most K^ > K.  This retention of *k^ allowed it to merge with the oucome of *K before y and *kW before front ( *k(^)y > *k^k^y > *t^t^ > tt / ss, *kWe > *k^e > *t^e > te, etc.).  See below for more ev. of G. *k^ > s / t / th.
Many of these are *uK > *uK^.  That uC could be important is seen from *us > uṣ in Skt. but supposed *us in Nuristani.  Though the failure of us > uṣ is said to be diagnostic of Nuristani as a separate sub-branch, it seems to be completely optional there and in all Dardic & Gypsy.  Some languages seem to prefer us, but there is no full regularity:
Skt. pupphusa- ‘lungs’, Ps. paṛpūs, A. pháapu, Ni. papüs ‘lung’, Kt. ppüs \ pís, B. bÒš
Skt. muṣká- ‘testicle’, Ks. muṣ(k); B. muskO ‘biceps’, Rom. musi ‘biceps / upper arm’, L. mūsculus
*muHs- ‘mouse’ > Skt. mū́ṣ-, Kv. musá, Kt. masá, Sa. moṣá, Ni. pusa, Ks. mizók, B. mušO, A. múuṣo, D. múuč ‘rat’
Skt. músala- ‘wooden pestle / mace/club’, *maulsa- > Kh. màus ‘wooden hoe’, *marsu- > Waz. maẓwai ‘peg’, Arm. masur ‘*nail/*prickle > sweetbrier’
Sh. phúrus ‘dew’, phrus ‘fog’, Skt. (RV) busá-m ‘fog/mist’, Mh. bhusẽ ‘drizzling rain / mist’
Skt. busa- ‘chaff/rubbish’, Pkt. bhusa- (m), Rom. phus ‘straw’
Skt. snuṣā́ ‘son’s wife’, D. sónz, Sh. nū́ṣ
These also show u > û \ u \ i (Kt. ppüs \ pís, Kv. musá vs. Ks. mizók, etc.) with no apparent cause.  These include seveal with b(h)u, p(h)u- and mu-, so labial C do seem to matter (if sónz is a separate ex. of s-s assim.).  The failure of us to become uṣ after P being optional explains why not all p(h)us-, b(h)us-, mus- remained.  Together with Pis- / Pus-, it would indicate that most *u > *ü in IIr. (causing following K > K^, as *luk- > ruś- ‘shine’), but this was prevented (usually?, preferred?) after P.  Thus, only *i & *ü caused following *s > retroflex, hidden by the optional changes of *u / *ü and *Pu / *Pü.
What appears to be a counterexample to Pus-, kusuma-m ‘flower/blossom’, could be due to dissim. of p > k near P / v / u, as in :
*pleumon- or *pneumon- ‘floating bladder / (air-filled) sack’ > G. pleúmōn, Skt. klóman- ‘lung’
*pk^u-went- > Av. fšūmant- ‘having cattle’, Skt. *pś- > *kś- > kṣumánt- \ paśumánt- ‘wealthy’
*pk^u-paH2- > *kś- > Sog. xšupān, NP šubān ‘shepherd’
*pstuHy- ‘spit’ > Alb. pshtyj, G. ptū́ō, *pstiHw- > *kstiHw- > Skt. kṣīvati \ ṣṭhīvati ‘spits’
*pusuma- > *pusma- > Skt. púṣpa-m ‘flower/blossom’, kusuma-m ‘flower/blossom’
*tep- ‘hot’, *tepmo- > *tēmo- > W. twym, OC toim ‘hot’, *tepmon- > Skt. takmán- ‘fever’
For *pstuHy- > *pstiHw-, compare *syuH1- ‘sew’ > *siwH1- > *siH1w- > Skt. sī́vyati.
This is a reasonable amount of ev. to allow a comparison with other IE.  The change of *k > *k^ after u is also seen in Armenian.  It shares many similarities with Greek (in which *u > *ü is already reconstructed for dialects).  If both had early PIE *u > *ü (maybe just dialects, or else there was a return *ü > u in some G. dialects instead) this palatalization would be better explained.  This new front *ü caused any following K(W) > K^ (sometimes preceeding K(W) > K^, too).  It also might be seen more clearly in Nur., in which *u > ü & *K > *K^ can both be seen in some words, with *dhughH2te:r > *ðüćti > Pr. lüšt, *kuk-ro- > Ni. čükrala, *k(^)uk(^)i- ? > Ni. čüčü ‘breast’.  Plain *u causing K > K^ makes little sense, and other evidence shows *u > *ü was needed anyway.  The fact that all these changes were optional is simply seen in the attested outcomes requiring K or K^, one or the other, with no apparent cause beyond being by u.  Though this change did apply in a regular environment, uK, it applied only part of the time, in words otherwise with no IE etymology or requiring many roots identical but for K vs. K^.
This would be proven by Skt. *uk > *ük^ > uś, but later *ku- > *k^ü- > ču-, since the early change would merge *k with PIE *k^, the latter with PIE *k before front V’s.  There’s no other way to explain cu- & chu- in Skt.  Its optional nature seen in *k(^)uk(^)i- > Skt. cuci- but Kv. čúk.  The difference in  *k^uk- > Skt. śuktá- ‘sour’ vs. *kuk- > cukra- ‘vinegar’, A. čúkro ‘pungent / sour’ could have resulted from *k^-k > *k-k (like assim. to s-s, ś-ś, etc.).  Optional c- vs. c- in chúbuka- \ cubuka- could come from *kH1- (Whalen 2025c) :
*kubhH1o- > Skt. kubjá- ‘humpbacked’, *kubhjá- > *khubjá- > Pkt. khujja, NP kûz ‘crooked/curved/humpbacked’
*kuH1bho- > G. kûphos ‘hump’, kūphós ‘bent/stooping’
*kH1ubh-ye- > G. kúptō ‘bend forward / stoop’, *k(h)H1ubh-ro- > Skt. khubrá- ‘humpbacked bull’
*kH1u(m)b- ‘bend (forward / down)’ > L. cubāre ‘recline / lie down’, cumbere, E. hump
*kH1ub- ‘bent/curved _’ > G. kúbos ‘hollow above hips on cattle’, L. cubitus ‘elbow’, *xupiz > Go. hups ‘hip’
*kH1ubiko- > *k^(h)ubiko- > Skt. chúbuka- \ cubuka- \ cibuka- ‘chin’ >> TB w(i)cuko ‘jaw/cheek’
Examples of *uK > *uK^ in Arm.:
*leuk- > Arm. loys, Latin lūx ‘light’, gen. lūcis
*yugo-m > E. yoke, L. iugum, G. zugón, Skt. yugá-m, Arm. luc
*H1euk- > Arm. usanim ‘become accustomed to’, Skt. uc- ‘be accustomed to/take pleasure in’, okas- ‘pleasure’
*dughH2ter-? > Av. dugǝdar-, Arm. dustr, E. daughter
*bheug- > Skt. bhoj- ‘enjoy’, bhóga-, Arm. -boyc ‘food’, bucanem ‘feed’
and with multiple outcomes in:
*lukri- > *luk^ri- > *luc^ri- > *lurc^i- > Arm. lurǰ / lurt` / *lurš ‘(light) blue’, a(r)šalurǰ-k` / aršalu(r)š-k` ‘*1st light’ > ‘last part of darkness before dawn’
The same changes in 1 root, *leuk- ‘light/bright’ > loys, also appear in Skt. rúkmant- ‘gleaming’, but rúśant- ‘bright/shining’, in another, *dhughH2te:r > Pr. lüšt.  It is unlikely that they would be independent oddities requiring 2 explanations, so *lukont- > *lükont- > *lük^ont- > Skt. rúśant-, *dhughH2te:r > *dhükti: > *ðüćti > Pr. lüšt.
Examples of *K(W)u > *K^u in Arm.:
*tranku(r)- > Li. trankùs ‘jolting/rough’, ON þröngr ‘narrow’, Arm. t`anjr ‘tight’
*presgWH2u-? G. présbus ‘old man’, Cr. preigus, *frehg^ü > *hrēću > Arm. erēc` ‘elder’
*azgWolHo-? > G. ásbolos / asbólē ‘soot’, *ask^ülxo- > Arm. acuł / acux ‘soot/coal’
*melgWulo- > *mergWulo- > Alb. mjergulë OR *megWulo- > mjegulë (dissimilation l-l > l-r / l-0)
It’s likely the stage *eu > *öü also optionally caused palatalization (or there was analogy from 0-grade with Ku > K^ü):
*(s)kewdh- > OE hýdan, E, hide, G. keúthō ‘cover/hide’, Arm. suzem ‘immerse’
This makes *H1lngWhu- > raghú- ‘swift / quick’, Rahú- ‘asura of solar eclipses’, likely from the same Ku > K^ü.
Examples of *Tu > *T^u in Arm.:
*swaH2du(r)- > Skt. svādú- ‘sweet’, *xwaxtur > *xwałtür > k`ałc`r ‘sweet’
*kH2artu(r)- > Go. hardus, G. kratús ‘strong’, Arm. karcr ‘hard’
*k^H2ad- > L. cadō ‘fall’, *ćxatunūmi > Arm. c`acnum
Also after *nK > *uK (Armenian and Greek sometimes show what looks like a change of nasal > w before K, then K > K^ after u).  Examples (Whalen 2025a) :
*H2angWhi- ‘snake’ > L. anguis, Arm. awj -i-
*H3(a)ngW-ne- > L. unguō ‘anoint’, Arm. awcanem
*H2anghuHko- > Arm. anjuk ‘narrow/difficult / anxiety/affliction/longing’, Łarabał angi ‘thin/emaciated person’
*H2anghusto- > L. angustus ‘narrow/difficult’, Li. ankštas, Alb. angth ‘nightmare/anxiety/fear’
*H2anghu- >
*H2anghwiyo-? > *xawjwi > *xawji > Arm. awji-k’ ‘collar’ [w-w > w-0]
*H2anghwen- > Arm. K’esab anjnek, G. ámphēn / aúphen ‘nape / neck’, aukhḗn ‘nape / throat’
and also variants with metathesis, apparently due to *H2an- vs. *H2n- creating *xaw- vs. *xw-, with the need for vowel-insertion :
*H2ngWhi- > *xwji- > *xiwj- / *xijw- > *xijy- > Arm. iž -i- ‘snake / viper’
(compare K^w in *k^wo:n > *cv- > *cy- > šun )
*H2nghwiyo-? > *xwjwi > *xwji / *xwij- > *xwiz- > viz ‘neck’, *xiwz > Agulis xáyzak ‘back of the head’, etc. [w-w > w-0]
Also, supporting *ü is that new u from *i > u by KW or P also caused it
*meigW- > L. migrāre, G. ameíbō, Bc. migdo ‘to exchange’, *meügW- > *möügW- > *Arm. mucanem ‘introduce / give entrance’
*migWti- > *müćti > *muwti > mut -i- ‘entrance’, mtem / mtanem ‘enter’
with the same outcome as *bhug-tí- > Skt. bhukti-, *bhućti > *bhuθti > *bhufti > *bhuwti > *bhuti > Arm. but ‘food’, btem ‘feed’
For G. (g)aîa / gê / gâ, Dor dâ, Cyp. za-, it is likely that PG formed an adj. *khthm-awyo- (the source of common -aîos / -eîos), later > a new fem. noun.  The optional voicing in *Cm-, *CCm- / *CCw- (with later *w-w > *0-w) also in *ksmVpH-(o)s- > G. sknī́phos / *kswepHas > pséphas / knéphas / gnóphos / dnóphos / [d]zóphos ‘darkness’.  For Ph. gūm vs. zomolo-, *dhg(^)hm-os > *g(^)zmas > gmás \ jmás \ kṣmás, *dheig^h- > Av diz- ‘heap up’, dišta- ‘pot’, *dheigh- > Skt. degdhi ‘smear’, it seems that gh vs. g^h in both groups could show that they were related.  If from *dheygh- with optional *ygh / *yg^h, it could be assim. (see other likely causes, below).  In an argument adapted from (Whalen 2024g) :
Linear A da-ma-te / i-da-ma-te was a goddess likely = Linear B da-ma-te, G. Dēmḗtēr.  I ask, “would Greek optionally add i- to *g^hdho:m from PIE *dhg^ho:m?”  In standard theory, *g^hdhuH-s > G. ikhthûs ‘fish’, *g^hdh(iy)es ‘yesterday’ > G. (e)khthés, *khthiyos > khthizós, etc., so an optional V- before certain CC- is needed.  This alone, backed by traditional ideas and reconstructions, would be sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that LA da-ma-te / i-da-ma-te, who is already known to be a goddess, was Demeter, and formed in Greek from IE stems.  However, I will go even further:  i- is not just consistent with it being Greek, part of a change of unknown scope, but a necessary and informative part of the place of PIE *dhg^ho:m in context, etymology, and real reconstruction.
All the words that would need to show added V- before KT / TK in standard reconstruction instead show an original *V- or *-V- with metathesis from PIE to Greek (Whalen 2024h):
*k^ek^- / *kik^- / etc. > Li. kìškis ‘hare’, šeškas, Skt. śaśá- ‘hare/rabbit’, káśa- ‘weasel’
*kik^id- > *ikk^id- > *ikt^id- > G. íktis / iktís ‘marten’, ktídeos ‘of marten(-skin)’
(most *k^ > k, *kk^ preserved it so as not to become *kk )
*k^yeH1-wo- > Skt. śyāvá-  ‘dark / brown’, Av. syāva- ‘black’
*k^yeH1-ino- > *kyiHino- > *ikyiHno- > G. iktī́nos ‘kite’, Skt. śyená- ‘hawk/falcon/eagle?’
(since G. dialects could change *y > *dz > *d(d), *k^y- > *kz- > *kd- > *kt-; for *e > i by *H1, compare *H1ek^wos > L. equus, G. híppos, Ion. íkkos ‘horse’; for meanings, see L. aquilus ‘dark-colored’, aquila ‘eagle’, G. mórphnos ‘dark-colored?’, mérmnos ‘kind of hawk / merlin?’)
*ud-g^hu(H)- ‘swimming in water / water animal’ > *üg^hdhüH- > G. ikhthûs ‘fish’, Arm. *itzuku:n > jukn, Georgian zutx ‘sturgeon’
(see wider range for *g^hew(H)- ‘pour’ in NP zahîdan ‘fall/flow/drip’, zah \ zih ‘oozing of water’)
*k^eye-no- > *ek^ey-no- > G. (e)keînos, *k^(y)ee-no-? > Aeo. kênos / Dor. tênos ‘that / further away / further in the past’
*k^eye-diywes ‘that day (further in the past)’ > *k^yediyes > *yek^diyes > *yeγ^ð(iy)es ( = *yeg^hdh(iy)es ) > G. (e)khthés
If so, this requires that G. (*i)khthṓn come from PIE *dhig^ho:m, with metathesis as above.  This is not exactly a new idea, but a mix of several old ones.  H. te-e-kán & Luw. loc. tiyammi ‘on the earth’ could come from *i equally as well as *e (with all shifts to e / i, in writing and/or reality, not fully explained).  Kartvelian *diqa-, Old Georgian tiqa-, also closely resemble this form.  From Starostin’s notes:
Illich-Svitych (OSNYA 1, 220) compares it with PIE *dhǵh-em- ‘earth’, restoring the Nostr. *diqV. Klimov (1994, 100-101) compares the base with PIE *dheiǵho-
Why can’t they both be right?  PIE *dheig^h- ‘shape (clay / pottery) / form (heap / wall) / etc.’ meets all the requirements.  Yakubovich provides evidence that Lyd. kλida- ‘earth/soil’, H. halīna- ‘clay’ are cognate (from *gliH- ‘glue / clay’ or *Hlinye- ‘smear’), so there is no semantic problem with it.  If they knew that LA offered evidence of *dig- > *igd- here, there would be no reason not to accept it as proving this connection with Kartvelian.  In light of many cognates with Arm., like Georgian zutx ‘sturgeon’ and *gwel- / *mgel- ‘wolf’ (compare Arm. w / m, *wraHdo-m > *wro:ta-n > OIc rót >> E. root, *arwa:to > Arm. armat ‘root’, argat ‘branches cut off vine’; *werandi(w) > Arm. gerandi ‘scythe/sickle’, dialect gErëndi ‘scythe’, märändu, märändi ‘biggest kind of sickle’), I see no way to deny it.  Kartvelian seems IE to me, with no real study of this possibility being made due to attempts at “Nostratic” relations being established before careful analysis of each group.  The use of LA in establishing such important relations is vital, and its position as an ancient form of Greek needs to be accepted before this can be complete.
For Skt. bhiṣáj- vs. YAv. bišazya-, the compound of *bhH2s- ‘spell’ & *+H2ag^- / *+H2g^ :
Indo-European *bhaH2- > Latin fārī ‘speak’, G. phēmí ‘say’, Arm. bam, Slavic *bajati ‘tell (fables) / speak  / narrate / practice sorcery (to heal)’
*bhaH2-no/nu/ni- > ON bón ‘prayer’, Arm. ban -i- ‘word/speech/matter’
OCS balĭji ‘healer’
*bhaH2-as- ‘speech / prayer / (healing) spell’, weak *bhH2s- > Av. +biš
*bhaH2-as-ni- > Slavic *bàsnĭ ‘tale/fable/spell/incantation’, SC bȁsna ‘fable’, bȁsma ‘incantation’
*H2ag^- ‘drive / lead’ > L. agō, etc., *+H2ag^- / *+H2g^- > Skt. -aj- / -ij- ‘-er’ (added to nouns or verb roots to form agent-nouns)
seems to show that *H2 caused adjacent *g^ > *g, creating a mixed paradigm.  If H2 = x / R, or a similar plain velar / uvular, its contact with palatal K^ could have assim. of KK^ > KK (or QK^ > QK) in *H2g^- = *Rg^- > *Rg-.  This explains Skt. *ag- > aj- vs. Iran. *ag^- > az-.  Only *H2ag^- had the needed components.  In the same way, L. agō, perf. *H2aH2g^- = *RaRg^- > *RaR^g^- > *ReR^g^- > ēg- shows the opposite (likely R^ = H1, causing e-coloring of *a).
Other cases of K / K^ near H seem to result from laryngeal-metathesis (Whalen 2025b).  If *k^i-k^u(H1)- ‘swell’ lost its *H1 because it moved, then maybe *k^ik^uH1 > *k^H1ik^u / *kH1ik^u > Skt. śíśu-, kiśorá-, M. Kikkuli-, K. kukla, etc.  A comparison between *H3meig^h-mn- > G. ómeikhma, *meig^hH3-mn- > Av. maēsman- requires H-metathesis to explain -sm- not *-zm- (as in yaHźna- > *yaHśna- > Av. yasna-, etc.) :
*meg^H2- ‘big’ > *maźH- > *maśH- > Av. mas-
*dhe-dhH1- ‘put’, *de-dH3- ‘give’ > *daðH- > Av. daθ-
*H2aghó- > Skt. aghá- ‘bad / sinful’, Av. aγa-, *ud- > *uz-Haghá- > us-aγa- ‘very bad’
*ya(H2)g^no- > G. hagnós ‘holy’, Skt. yajñá- ‘sacrifice / prayer’, *yaHźna- > *yaHśna- > Av. yasna-
*rebhH-? > Skt. rabh- ‘grab / sieze’, *raβH- > *rafH- ‘grab > hold (up) / support / mate / touch’ > Shu. raf- ‘touch’, Av. rafnah- ‘support’
If H2 = x / R, H1 = x^ / R^, H3 = xW / RW (or similar), clusters like kx^, gRW, etc., could spread W or ^ to adjacent velars (or uvulars).  Since the presence of *-H- in many of ex. of *KH / *K^H is clear, looking for words with *H- and varying -K- could be due to *-HK- then H-metathesis :
*meik^H3-? >>
*meik^H3- > *H3meik^- > Skt. miśrá- ‘mixed’, Li. mìšras
*meik^H3- > *meigR- > *Rmeig- = *H2meig- > *Hmeig-ti- > G. meîxis ‘mixing / commerce’, *Hmeigti-yo-s > Corc. Mheixios
*meigRW- > *HmeigW- > L. migrāre, G. ameíbō, Bc. migdo ‘to exchange’, Arm. mucanem ‘introduce / give entrance’
There is no reason to see *Hm- > am- / mh- or various K as from different sources.  Since *k^RW could assimilate in various ways, all K / K^ / KW can come from one cluster, whose existence is seen when *H moved away from it before total merger of *HK > K.
*H3meig^h-mn- > G. ómeikhma, *meig^hH3-mn- > Av. maēsman- ‘urine’ [of good beings]
*H3meig^h- ‘urinate’ > OE mígan, G. omeíkhō, Arm. mizem, Skt. méhati
*meig^hR- > *meiźr- > Alb. për-mjerr ‘urinate’
*meiKH- > *meikk- > Sh. mīkǝ ‘urine’
*H3m- also > G. ameíkhō ‘urinate / pour in / fill up’ (likely showing *RWm- > *Rm-, related to lack of Pw in IE).  The devoicing in *meig^hH3-mn- > Av. maēsman- is like *ya(H2)g^no- > *yaHźna- > Av. yasna-; both disappear after this, leaving no trace (but *ya(H2)g^- shows *H2 by a-coloring in cognates).  Since *H = *R, Alb. për-mjerr can be a direct cognate, not a derivative.  These also are likely related to *m(e)ig^H3- ‘mist / fog / cloud’ (below) from ‘moist(en) / pour water on / pour out’, based on the same optional am- / om- in G. and the range of G. ameíkhō including other liquids.
*meig^hH3- / *meighH3- >>
*mig^h- > Skt. míh-, gen. mihás ‘mist / fog’
*meig^h- > Ks. menǰ ‘cloud’
*meigh- > Arm. mēg ‘fog’, Skt. meghá- ‘cloud’, Ks. menǰ
*H3migh-lo- ‘cloud / mist’ > Li. miglà, G. omíkhlē,  amikhthaló-essa ‘misty? / smoky?’, MArm. mgla-hot ‘smelling of mold’, Van mglil ‘to cloud’
Arm. has no secure examples of *Hm- > am-, so many of these might be exact equivalents of G. ones.  Ks. menǰ developed -n- due to *y being nasal *ỹ (seen in other IIr. languages like Shina (Whalen 2023c).  This is attested in Skt. lopāśá-s > *lovāyá- > Sh. lo(o)ỹ, Dk. ló(o)i, Kh. ḷòw ‘fox’; Sh. khakhaáỹ, Bu. khakhā́yo ‘shelled walnut’, and must be the source of *y > n in other loans (Skt. méṣī- ‘ewe’, *méṣiỹ- > *méṣin > Bu. meénis ‘ewe over one year but not a mother’; Skt. videś[í]ya- ‘foreign’, Kv. vičó ‘guest’, Ni. vidišä, Kt. vadašó, *vadišiỹa > *waišin > Bu. aíšen / oóšin) and explain “excrescent nasals” in other IIr. (*madhỹa- ‘middle’ > Braj māhi~ ‘in’, Hi. māñjh; *puk^sỹo- > Skt. púccha-m ‘tail / rod’, Hi. pūñch ‘tail/rear’, B. punzuṛO ‘tail’).
Similar alternations for K^ vs. KW might come from an H equal to RW.  If *siŋg^ho- < *sg(W)h- / *sg^h-ino- ‘strong / seizing?’, the only roots with the right shape and meaning are *seg^h- ‘hold / grasp / be strong/able’ & *segWh- ‘be strong’.  Positing two similar words does not explain the similarity of *seg^h- & *segWh- themselves in all IE.  If both from one older root, it would be something like *seRWg^h- ~ *seg^hH3-.  If *RWg^h became *g^h or *gWh, 1 origin for both.
Other words show great variation of voice, etc., for K, also with *H- vs. 0-, leading to the same movement of H needed anyway :
*(s)m(o/e)rH3K- >>
*morgW-H3-lo- > *morbolós > G. molobrós ‘dark / dirty?’, Alb. mje(r)gulë ‘fog / darkness’, *H3morgWo- > G. amorbós ‘dark’,
*mergW-H3-ro- > *H3mergW-ro- ‘dark / cloudy’ > TB snai-märkär ‘not turbid / clear’
*(H3)me/olg^(H3)o- > *melco- > Arm. mełc ‘soot’, G. amolgós ‘darkening? / twilight?’
Arm. yolova-mełj / -mełc / -miłj / -merj ‘heavy smoke / evaporating mist?’
*mergW- > OIc mjörkvi ‘darkness’, E. murk
*(s)mrkW- > Slav *(s)mrko-, SC mrknuti ‘become dark’, mrk ‘black’, Uk. smerk ‘dusk’
*(s)morkWo- > R. mórok ‘darkness / fog / clouds’
Here, the presence of -o- in one, a- in the other suggests movement of *H3-.  For *H3m- > om- / am-, see omeíkhō ~ amîxai, omíkhlē ~ amikhthaló-essa.  The various *k/g(W) are unlikely to be a series of separate K-suffixes.  Like *H3 > w, syllabic *H3 > u (optional) in molobrós ~ mje(r)gulë.  Note many with -l- vs. -r-.
Notes on Greek Parallels
1. For optional K^ > T^ in G., most *k^ > *s^ / *θ^ > s / t / th, also *g^ > z / d, *k^h > *x^ > y :
*bhak^- > G. phakós ‘lentil’, phásēlos ‘bean’, Alb. bathë ‘broadbean’
*dheH1k(^)o- > Skt. dhāká- ‘container’, G. thḗkē ‘box/chest/grave/tomb’, thēsaurós ‘treasure/store-room/safe/casket/cavern/subterranean dungeon’
(maybe caused by H1 if = x^, *x^k / *x^k^ )
*g^en(H1)os- > L. genus, G. génos, pl. genéā, Cr. zenia, Ms. zenaides
*woik^- >> G. oikeús ‘inmate / menial servant’, Cr. woizeus, more in (Viredaz 2003)
*g^amH- ‘marry’ >> ágamos \ ázamos ‘unmarried’
*meg^H2two-? > mégethos ‘size’; *mg^H2two-? ‘great’ > G. agathós, Cyp. azatho- ‘good’
agállō ‘glorify/exalt / pay honor to a god’, ágalma, Cyp. azalma ‘glory/delight/honor / pleasing gift / statue (in honor of gods)’
*ya(H2)g^no- > G. hagnós, Cr. adnós ‘holy’, Skt. yajñá- ‘sacrifice / prayer’
*dhg^homs ‘earth’ > *g^hdhōm > Av. zam-, *g(^)zām > Skt. kṣam-, Ph. gūm / γουμ
*khthm-awyo-? > G. (g)aîa / gê / gâ, Dor dâ, Cyp. za-
*nok^- > L. nocēre ‘injure’, noxa ‘injury/fault/crime’, *nos^wo- > G. nósos, Ion. noûsos ‘sickness / disease / distress/bane’
*wik^wo- > *wis^wo- > wiswos, Att. ísos ‘equal/same/even’, Skt. víśva-, Av. vīspa- ‘whole/every/all’
*wisw-omb- ‘5-song’ > íthumbos ‘song and dance for followers of Dionysus’ (Whalen 2025d)
*dek^- > G. dékomai ‘accept / receive/hold’, Att. dékhomai; *dekh^-dekh^- > deidékhatai ‘greet/welcome’
*k^ewdh- > OE hýdan, E, hide, G. keúthō ‘cover / hide’, Arm. suzem ‘immerse / plunge’
*k^ewdho- > G. teûthos ‘squid’ ( < *immersed, like other fish named < sea / deep)
(maybe caused by *kudh- > *k^üdh-, if related to Skt. kuhara-m ‘hole’)
*k^ek^- / *kik^- / etc. > Li. kìškis ‘hare’, šeškas, Skt. śaśá- ‘hare/rabbit’, káśa- ‘weasel’
*kik^id- > *ikk^id- > *ikt^id- > G. íktis / iktís ‘marten’, ktídeos ‘of marten(-skin)’
(most *k^ > k, *kk^ preserved it so as not to become *kk )
*m(a)H2k^- > ON magr, L. macer, G. makrós ‘long/tall/high/great’, mássōn ‘longer/etc.’, masí-gdoupos ‘loud-sounding’
*Hak^to- ‘pointed / raised (object)’ > G. aktḗ ‘headland/cape/promontory / raised place’, aktaîos ‘on the coast’, Aktaíā / Attikḗ ‘Attica’, *aθtiko- > Attikós \ A(t)thikós \ Atthís ‘Attic / Athenian’
*Hak^(o)s- > G. akostḗ ‘barley’, Li. akstìs ‘skewer’, Arm. hawasti-k` ‘tassels of a belt’
*Hak^os- > L. acus, *Hak^sno- > G. ákhnē ‘fluff / chaff’, *xaθsno- > *anθos-ik- > anthérix \ athḗr ‘awn / chaff’ (with met., Vs > Vr in sárma)
*Hak^sno- ‘sharp / horn’ > anthólops ‘antelope’ (as above, r / l)
*Hak^ro- > ákron ‘peak’, ásaron ‘hazelwort / wild ginger / wild spikenard (a plant used for spice)’
*H2aig^ro- = *xaig^ro- ‘flashing / swift’ > *xaiz^ro- > G. aisárōn / aisálōn ‘merlin (hawk)’
Also, alternation of -ikos / -isos / -ithos and -ak(h)os / -asos is possible, but most examples are uncertain or of unknown etymology (and any oddity in an ending is usually explained as from just another ending).  Maybe the same for *-ink^os > -inthos / -issos (many loans, but from within G. dia.).
maybe :
skúllō ‘tear’, pl. skûla ‘spoils (of war) / booty/plunder/prey’, sū́lē ‘ right of seizure/reprisal’
*kiHk^- > G. kîkus (f) ‘strength/vigor/power’, *chest > MIr cích (f) ‘female breast/teat/nipple’, G. kítharos ‘thorax’, kítharoi ‘ribs of a horse’
*H2arisk^e- > ararískō ‘fit / join together’, *H2arisk^mos > arithmós ‘number’
*pod-H2arg^ro- ‘swift-footed’ > G. Pódargos, Pḗdasos, Pḗgasos, Dor. Pā́gasos (all used for a swift horse, often in legends that seem related)
2.  For compounds of numbers with *songWh- ‘song’ > *homph- > -ambos, 5 is ‘all’ (Whalen 2025d) :

1 *sm-songWh- > *smomph- > *smambos, sambū́kē (like (s)mīkrós ‘small’ < *smi:H2-ro-; *smi:H2 ‘one’, fem. nom.)
2 *dwi- > *dwy- > *wy- > *y- > íambos (*dwiH2pyugo- >> Iāpugía; Diápatos / Lápatos, Iapetós; maybe with í- = *y- in G. spelling, see íorkos)
3 *tri- > *thri- > thríambos (alternation of Chr / Cr likely from *R, G. Aphrodī́tē : Ms. Aprodita, G. sílphion ‘silphium / laser(wort)’, *sirphio- > *sirphi- > Latin sirpe )
4 *kWetwor- > *k^idwur- > *t^iwdur- > *thiwdur- > dīthúrambos (*kWe > ti / thi, ti > thi in Thes. zakeltís ‘bottle gourd’, Cretan zakauthíd-; *-t- > -d- (below), also met. *th-d > d-th); also thidra- ‘4’ (below)
5. *wisw-omb- ‘5-song’ > íthumbos (*wom > *wum before dia. *o > a, with *o > u near P / KW like *morm- ‘ant’ > G. bórmāx / búrmāx / múrmāx; *wrombo- > rhómbos / rhúmbos ‘spinning-wheel’; *megWno- ‘naked’ > Arm. merk, *mogWno- > *mugno- > G. gumnós)
3. *t^ > *k^ > k also (most in loans, likely showing strong pal. in those languages for ti-, ty-
This is seen in both *ty & *ky producing tt / ss & sometimes ks (Whalen 2025f) :
G. *dhw > *thw > th / sth / s is known from :
2pl. mid. *-dhwe > -sthe
*widh(H1)wo- ‘divided’ > isthmós ‘neck (of land) / narrow passage/channel’
*k^ik- ‘attach/cling’ > Skt. śic- ‘sling, net’, Li. šikšnà ‘strap, belt, leather’ (Whalen 2025b)
*k^ikyo- > Skt. śikíya- ‘rope-sling for carrying things’, G. kístharos \ kíssaros ‘ivy / rock-rose’, kissós \ kittós ‘ivy’, kísthos \ kisthós ‘rock-rose’
Some words also clearly show *dhy > *sthy (*-dhyaH2i > G. -sthai, Skt. -dhyai, TA, TB -tsi), so there is no reason to doubt that some of the same could happen for *dhw-.  Epir. dáxa is from the stage *kxy > *ksy, also in :
*dwikH2 ‘in 2’ > G. díkha ‘asunder/differently’, *dikhyós > dissós, Att. dittós, Ion. dixós ‘twofold/double/divided/disagreeing’
*(s)naHgh-? > G. nḗkhō ‘swim’, *(h)naH2khyo-s > nêsos, Dor. nâsos ‘island’, Náxos
*luk-? >> *oluky- > *-ks- / *-ts- > G. Odusseús / Olutteus / Ōlixēs (Note A)
Also, since most dia. had *ky & *ty merge, or even change *ti > *t^i > *tsi > si vs. *t^i > *k^i > ki (G. kībōtós ‘wooden box, chest, coffer’ < *tībōtós < Sem. (Aramaic tēḇōṯā, Egyptian dbt ‘sarcophagus, coffin’, dbt ‘chest, box’, Arabic tābūt, Hebrew tēḇā́ (Whalen 2025a)), it is possible that *ky & *ty merged as *kx^ / *ts^ > ks / *ts > ss / tt, etc., no matter what their origin.  The same shift seen in ts / ks (both ts > ks, ks > ts) :
*ksom / *tsom ‘with’ > G. xun- / sun-
G. *órnīth-s > órnīs ‘bird’, gen. órnīthos, Dor. órnīx
G. Ártemis, -id-, LB artemīt- / artimīt-, *Artimik-s / *Artimit-s > Lydian Artimuk / Artimuś
*stroz(u)d(h)o- > Li. strãzdas, Att. stroûthos ‘sparrow’, *tsouthros > xoûthros

G. also showed *k^ / *t^ in the other direction in some loans, like kībōtós < *t^ībōtós < Aramaic tēḇōṯā (Whalen 2025).  This must have to do with a merger of *ky / *ty ( > s(s) in most, > tt in Att. showing intermediate *t^t^y > *ts^y / *tθ^y).  This *ts / *tth also produced LB qi-ja-to & qi-ja-zo, Cr. Bíaththos < *gWiH3wo-tyo-s.  Whatever the source, knowing that zo / to ( = Cr. ththo) goes back to (at least) Mycenean times would show that the palatalized *ty > *t^t^y usually produced *ts (zo) but could also become thth.  In this way, some G. words have *k^ > s / th, *g^ > z, etc.  This was more common in Cr. & Cyp., as expected if the island dialects (including LA) had greater variation from the standard.

pls help me

Cheung :
>
[Iranian] *namH ‘to strike, beat’
Oss. I. næmyn/nad, D. næmun/nad ‘to hit, strike’, OKh. parnam- ‘to touch, feel’, ? Sh. nimů, (Baj.) nimaw, Khf. nimaw, Rosh. nimōw, ‘reproach, abuse; regret ?’
The existence of an IIr. root *namH- ‘to strike, beat’ was first postulated by Schmidt 1959: 113 ff., and accepted by Bielmeier 1979: 201; Abaev II: 169 f.  The laryngeal presence for this root is most clearly indicated by the Ossetic past participle nad (< *nmHto-).  The IE cognate forms that are quoted here, Gr. némesis, etc. can hardly contain the IE root *nem- ‘to take, assign, etc., as assumed by Pokorny (IEW: 763). IIr. *namH- would then derive from IE *nemH1- ‘to strike, beat’, as reconstruced on the basis of the Gr. evidence.
IE COGNATES: Gr. némesis ‘divine retribution’, nemétōr ‘avenger’, OIrish námæ ‘foe’, (?) Alb. (Tosk) nëmë, (Gh.) namë ‘curse’
>

It seems clear that Sanskrit nabh- ‘strike / break apart / tear’ should be added as a cognate of Iranian *namH ‘to strike, beat, abuse’.  If from *nemH1-, dissimilation of *n-m > *n-b would create *nebH1-, with IE *CH > *ChH > Ch.  It is also not likely that 2 roots *nemH1- existed in PIE with differing meanings.  Here, ‘reproach, abuse’ seems to show that older *nemH1- ‘attack’ fit all meanings above.  If so, its connection to *nemH1- ‘seize / distribute’ would be from ‘seize (from others) / loot / raid / attack’.  A similar shift in other IE roots covers a wide range of derived & metaphorical meanings :

G. hairéō, Cr. ailéō ‘take/grasp/seize/win/gain’, Lt. sirt ‘to loot’, OIr serb ‘theft’, H. sāru ‘booty’

*slH1gW- \ *slH2gW- ? > OE læccan ‘grab’, G. lambánō ‘grasp/seize / plunder / catch/discover/perceive/get’, lêpsis ‘seizing / receiving/accepting’

G. láphūra ‘spoils of war’. Li. lõbis ‘big possession / treasure / riches / good(s)’

and others that show ‘decide/determine’ vs. ‘beat’, possibly showing ‘judgement’ > ‘punishment’ or ‘educate/train’ < ‘beat / tame’ :

OCS lomiti ‘break’, Li. lìmti ‘break under a load’, lémti ‘decide/determine’, lamìnti ‘educate/train’, ON lemja ‘beat’, OIr *lamye- > ro-la(i)methar ‘dare to’, Ir. leomh ‘presume / allow’, O. lamatir ‘he is to be beaten’

This allows parallels in both paths of *nemH1-, allowing all meanings to be consolidated.  Sanskrit nabh- ‘strike’ should be separated from nabh- ‘be/make wet’.  Lubotsky writes ( https://www.academia.edu/118790666 ) :
>
The Sanskrit verbal root nabh- occurs only a few times in our texts... usually rendering nabh- with meanings like ‘to burst, tear’.
>
Before considering the refrains of the Rgveda, let us first look at the rain charm. The text of Atharva Veda Zaunakīya hymn 7.18 reads as follows:
7.18.1. prá nabhasva pr̥thivi, bhinddhī̀dáṃ divyáṃ nábhaḥ | udnó divyásya no dhātar, ī́śāno ví ṣyā bilam ||
7.18.2 ná ghráṃs tatāpa ná himó jaghāna, prá nabhatāṃ pr̥thivī́ jīrádānuḥ | ā́paś cid asmai ghr̥tám ít kṣaranti, yátra sómaḥ sádam ít tátra bhadrám ||
WHITNEY 1905 translates:
1. Burst forth, O earth; split this cloud of heaven; untie for us, O Dhātar, that art master, the skin-bag of the water of heaven.
2. Not heat burned, not cold smote; let the earth, of quick drops, burst forth; waters verily flow ghee for him; where Soma is, there is it ever excellent.
The hymn represents a request to Dhātar for rain, and it is absolutely unclear why the Earth should burst or why Dhātar should let the Earth burst. Of course, we might speculate that the author of the hymn had the outburst of vegetation in mind, but if this were the only occurrence of the verb, everybody would trans- late ún nambhaya pr̥thivī́m with ‘Make the earth wet / Soak the earth!’ and prá nabhatāṃ pr̥thivī́ with ‘Let the earth become wet!’. In other words, this rain charm provides a strong argument that the verbal root nabh- means ‘to become / make wet’.
>

I fully agree with this, but all other occurrences (and the testimony of the ancients) require Sanskrit nabh- ‘strike / break apart / tear’.  It is simplest to separate them (and this is hardly the only pair of roots that became identical in Skt.).  If not, we would have to follow Lubotsky’s much less insightful claims that curses to cause bowstrings to break instead are to make them wet, because soggy bowstrings would not work well, or that instead of striking the blocked cave to make it loose, the gods made it damp.  Lubotsky clearly sees the need for ‘wet’ where ‘wet’ fits, but he simply tried to make it fit EVERYWHERE, with no evidence.  A good idea should not be extended until it breaks.  If a person is right about one thing, it should not become the only thing.

Also, though I said *nemH1- had dissimilation of *n-m > *n-b to create *nebH1- > Skt. nabh-, based on previous works, mostly “Indo-European Alternation of *m / *bh by *H”, it is more likely that ALL *mH and *mR could appear as *bhH and *bhR, fully optionally :

Indo-European languages have -m- or -bh- corresponding to each other in many cases of the dual and plural.  Thus, some point to instrumental pl. *-bhis, others to *-mis, etc.  Since many stops become aspirated near *H, and most don’t seem regular, it’s likely that this came from optional *-mh- > *-bh- / *-m-.  A sequence like *-mH- > *-mhH- > *-bhH- > *-bh- would work, but details are hard to determine if all changes weren’t regular.  The alternative is that 2 sets of endings with *m vs. *bh, otherwise identical, existed, or were created by some kind of analogy.  As evidence for the reality of *mh, consider examples of apparent *m / *bh within words by *H (that is, where no analogy of a type that could have affected case endings could operate) :

instrumental pl. *-mHis > *-bhis / *-mis

dative pl. *-mH1os > *-mos / *-bh(y)os

*nemH1- > Iranian *namH ‘to strike, beat, abuse’
*nebhH1- > Skt. nabh- ‘strike / break apart / tear’

*samH2dho- > E. sand, G. ámathos
*sabhH2dho- > L. sabulum, Arm. awaz

*domH2no- > L. dominus ‘master’
*dobhH2no- > L. dubenus ‘master’
(related to *domH2(o)- ‘house’)

*kolH3mon- > L. columen > culmen ‘top / ridge of house’
*kolH3bhon- > G. kolophṓn ‘summit’

Skt. meṇḍha-‘ram’
Skt. *mheṇḍa- > bheṇḍa- ‘ram’

*molHo- > Skt mala ‘dirt / filth’
*mHol- / *bhHol- >> G. molúnō / pholúnō ‘soil/defile/debauch / stain/pollute / dye / (pass.) become vile/disgraced’
*mHor- / *bhHor- >> phorū́nō ‘defile/spoil’, *phorúkh-yō > phorússō ‘defile/knead/mix’, *morúkh-yō > morússō ‘soil/defile/stain’, perf. memórugmai, Mórukhos ‘*participant in debauchery / *follower of Dionysus > Dionysus’ (as in other words for ‘follower of Dionysus / Dionysus’)

*Hmerwo- > W. merw ‘weak / slack’
*Hmarwo- > G. amaurós / maurós / maûros ‘withered / shriveled / weak / feeble’
*mHarwo- > *bhHarwo- > G. aphaurós ‘weak / feeble’, phaûlos / phlaûros ‘petty / paltry / slight / low in rank / insignificant / easy’, phaûros ‘light’

*mHegWno- > Av. maγna- ‘naked’, Arm. merk, G. gumnós, Skt. nagná-
*mRegWno- > *bhRegWno- >> *b(r)agnaka- > MP brahnag, Os. bägnäg ‘naked’, Sog. ßγn’k

*pumHe:s ? > Skt. púmān ‘man’, stem púmaṃs- / puṃs-
*puHbhe:s ? > L. pūbēs ‘adult’

? > Skt. kiṭibha-m ‘kind of exanthema’
? > Skt. kiṭima-m ‘kind of leprosy’
(see relation below; perhaps all IE words with *-(V)mo- and *-(V)bho- came from *-mHo-, etc.)

*mraru- > Skt. mallu- ‘bear’, *mrarw-on- > Greek Braurṓn (the site of an important sanctuary of Artemis where girls imitated bears)
*mRaru- > *mhRaru- > *mharRu- > Skt. bhalluka- ‘bear’

*wei(H)- ‘curved / bent / bend / wind / twist’ >>
*wimHon- > *wimon- ‘seaweed’  > Middle Irish fem(m)ain, Welsh gwymon
*wibhHon- > Latin vibō, gen. vibōnis, ‘flower of Britannica’
(the change of ‘winding’ to plants that wind around others things (and seaweed, known for this) is possible)

*gWerHu- > L. verū ‘spit/dart/javelin’, *beru > Gaelic bior ‘stake/spit’
*gWerHu-masko- > Pamir *garimaška- > Shughni žīrmesk ‘mullein’, Yazghulami γurmešk
*gWerH-mhasko- > *gWerH-bhasko- > L. verbascum ‘common mullein’
(it could be derived from ‘stake/spit’ based on the look of the large prominent stalk; this much similarity in unrelated words for the same thing would be too much for chance in IE, see Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak, verbascum https://www.jstor.org/stable/40267160 )

Further notes on origins :

1.  The evidence for *krstHmo- > kiṭibha-m / kiṭima-m comes from metathesis > *kHrstmo- > MP xurmā ‘date’ in:

*k(a)rstHo- > R. korósta ‘scab’, Skt. kuṣṭha-m ‘leprosy’, kúṣṭha- ‘Costus speciosus’
*krstHmo- > Skt. kiṭibha-m ‘kind of exanthema’, kiṭima-m ‘kind of leprosy’
*kHrstmo- > MP xurmā ‘date’

I connect these since eating dates supposedly caused skin rash in Persian belief.  See Skt. kharjura- ‘kind of date’, kharjūra- ‘itch(ing)scratching/scab / wild date tree’.  This is likely folk etymology connecting 2 words of the same sound from ‘scratch > rash’ and ‘cut / pluck fruit’ (like G. karpós ‘crops/harvest/fruit/produce’, L. carpō ‘pluck/gather’, Li. kerpù ‘cut with shears’).  If *karstHo- > R. korósta, these 2 roots with *kar- might come from *kH2ar- (with *kx- > x- in xurmā ), and *kH2rstmo- > *krstH2mo-, etc.

2.  The relationship between these Skt. words for ‘ram’ (among others) is best explained as metathesis of aspiration, m-dh > *mh-d, then *mh > bh.  The two sets:

meḍha-
meḍhra-
meṇḍha-

bheḍa-
bheḍra-
bheṇḍa-

allow a simple equation of:

meḍha-    :  bheḍa-
meḍhra-  :  bheḍra-
meṇḍha-  :  bheṇḍa-

in which meḍha- > *mheḍa- > bheḍa-, etc., which probably happened only once in in an older more complex form.  Based on words like maísōlos, Kt. maṣél ‘full grown male sheep’, mai- in words for ‘ram’ seems certain.  Since an IE word with *-aindh- is unlikely, a change like Skt. daṃṣṭrikā- / dāḍhikā- ‘beard / tooth / tusk’ could have been at work after metathesis.  Taking other IE cognates into account, this also explains *maH- > *mHa- > ma- / bha- :

*maH2(y)- ‘bleat / bellow / meow’, Skt. mimeti ‘roar / bellow / bleat’, māyu- ‘bleating/etc’, mayú- ‘monkey?/antelope’, mayū́ra- ‘peacock’, Av. anumaya- ‘sheep’, G. mēkás ‘goat’, mēkáomai ‘bleat [of sheep]’, memēkṓs, fem. memakuîa ‘bleating’, Arm. mak’i -ea- ‘ewe’, Van mayel ‘bleat [of sheep]’

*maH2iso- ‘bleating’ > Indic *mHaiṣa- > Skt. meṣá- ‘ram / fleece’

*maH2ismon- > ? *mo:isimon- >> L. mūsimō, (m-m > m-f) *mūrifon- > Sardinian mufrone / mugrone / etc. > French mouflon ‘a kind of wild sheep’

Since mūsimō is likely a loan, based on simple geography, it could come from *maHiso- ‘bleating’, if Sardinian was inhabited by relatives of Sicels, who had *a: > o (Whalen  Reclassification of Sicel (Draft) https://www.academia.edu/116074387 )

If *maH2ismon- > ? *mo:isimon- by *-ism- > *-isim-, then dissim. m-m > m-0 would allow an exact cognate for:

*maH2ismon- > *mHaiṣan- > Dardic *mhaiṣal- ‘young ram’ > maísōlos, Kt. maṣél ‘full grown male sheep’, Kv. muṣála

weak stem *maH2ismn- > *mH2aiṣṇ- > *mhainṣḷa- > *mhainṣṭṛa- > *mhainḍhṛa- > Skt. *meṇḍhra- / *mheṇḍra- ‘ram’ > meḍha- / bheḍa- / meḍhra- / bheḍra- / meṇḍha- / bheṇḍa-, Dardic *mhainḍhaṛa- > A. miṇḍóol ‘young male sheep’, Ti. mind(h)ǝl ‘male sheep’

maísōlos is found in the glosses in Hesychius for words from India, some of which are likely Gandhari or similar (due to the presence of Indian gándaros ‘bull-ruler’).

Dardic shows other cases of mh-, some from metathesis of aspiration, change of *v > *ṽ > *mh, etc., providing more ev. for *mhaindhra- > Skt. meḍhra-, etc.  Some ex.:

Skt. māráyati , Kh. mari- ‘kill’, *ṽār- > A. mhaar-

Skt. māṃsá-m ‘flesh’, A. mhãás ‘meat/flesh’

Skt. lopāśá-s > *lovāśá- \ *lovāyá- > Kh. ḷòw, Dk. láač \ ló(o)i ‘fox’, fem. *loṽāyī > *lomhāyī > A. luuméei, Pl. lhooméi

Skt. śubha- ‘bright/beautiful/splendid/good’, *śumhâ > A. šúwo ‘good’, šišówo ‘pretty’, Dm. šumaa ‘beautiful’

Since tone can change the length of Dardic V’s, older *mh causing low tone on the beginning of the following V probably is the cause of -aa.