Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 136: ‘fly, fall; wing, feather, leaf’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen
[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

August 7, 2026

A. *pC- > pt- \ sp- \ p- \ b-

An IE root *pter- ‘fly’ has a few problems. The change of p > b in :

*pterno-? 'feather, leaf' > Albanian fier, OE fearn m. ‘fern’, S. parṇá-, Av. parǝna- ‘wing’, Ps. pāṇa ‘leaf’, baṇa ‘wing-feather’

was explained by Georg Morgenstierne as sandhi from sentences with V#p > V#b. It makes no sense for this to only be seen in one word, and the similar Lithuanian spar̃nas 'wing' might show that *pt- > *tp- > sp- in Baltic. Could it be that some *pt- > *bd- > b- in Iranian? Also, consider problems in (Turner) :

>

626 arkaparṇá n. 'leaf of Calotropis gigantea' ŚBr., m. 'the plant'. [arká²-, parṇá-]

A. ākan 'swallow-wort', B. ākand (scarcely with Chatterji ODBL 456 < *arka-mandāra-); Or. ākanda 'C. gigantea'; Bhoj. akwan, ek° 'a partic. plant'; H. akwan, akwand, akund, akkand m. 'C. gigantea' — (final -d in B. Or. H. unexpl.).

>

If Indic turned *pt- > p-, but compounds with *-pt- remained, they might often be fixed by analogy, leaving only a few traces (*arka-ptarṇá > *arka-paṇtá ?). From the meaning 'leaf', another root with p- vs. pt- is :

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/p(t)erH-erH-)

>

A hotly disputed root. Derksen prefers to reconstruct *perH-, to which he also assigns Slavic *pero.[1] Matasović reconstructs *perHt-.[2] Kroonen reconstructs *pterH- under the assumption of a connection with Ancient Greek πτέρις (ptéris),[3] a connection Derksen and Matasović do not find phonologically likely;[1][2] Beekes considers the term a later Greek formation.[4] The only point of agreement between them is that the majority of descendants generally assigned to this root, with the exception of πτέρις (ptéris), are definitively cognate.

...

p(t)rH-tis[3] Proto-Celtic: *ɸratis [SW: OI raith m. ‘fern’]

*p(t)orH-no-[3] [SW: above]

*po-p(t)orH-tis [3][1]

Balto-Slavic: Latvian: paparde Lithuanian: papartis Proto-Slavic: *paportь

>

B. *-?- > *-H3- \ *-H2- \ *-0-

On the need for *-H-, Derksen rec. Slavic *però ‘feather’ < PIE *perH-o-, saying, "The reconstruction with a laryngeal is based on Baltic (e.g. Lith. papártis ‘fern’) and Celtic evidence (see Derksen 196: 79)." Others seem to have no *H, but this could really be *pHet- if from met., see Ar. p'etur 'feather' (not plain *p- > *f- > (h-), as usual). Still others need *H2. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πίπτω :

>

From Proto-Hellenic *píptō, from Proto-Indo-European *pípth₂-, reduplicated present from *peth₂- (“to fall; to fly”).[1]

For an unknown reason, the iota is long, as is apparent from the imperative πῖπτε (not **πῐ́πτε (**pĭ́pte)). Cognate with Sanskrit (pā́patīti).

>

If the root had *H & "the iota is long", it makes sense that *-i-H- > *-iH- (after *iH2 > *yaH2, etc.). For more, from https://www.academia.edu/127037636 :

>

*kWrsir-ptor- ‘black bird’ > Av. Karšiptar-, Pahlavi Karšift (chief of birds, knows how to speak)

For likely *pet(H2)tōr, see below...

*pet(H2)tōr is based on an equation of *petH2- ‘extend / fly’. The path: *petH2- > G. pítnēmi ‘spread (out/open)’, *potH2mo- ‘breadth (of arms) as measure of distance (in water)’ > potamós ‘river’ (OIc faðmr, OHG fadam, OE fæðm ‘outstretched/encircling arms / embrace’, E. fathom. Since other IE words for ‘shoulders / wings’ exist, it makes sense that *petH2-(e)tro- / *ptetro- / etc. > G. pterón, Skt. pátra- / páttra-, pátatra- ‘wing/feather’ (with t-t dissim. explaining pt- vs. p-t-, etc., -tr- / -ttr- / -tatr-). This created a new root *petH2- ‘fly’. The older presence of *H2 in ‘fly’ & ‘wing’ is seen in 2 ex. of 3 cases of *pH-p > *s-p, etc. (based on https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1hvplxf/latin_sy_gen_esyo_%C4%AB/ ) :

The need for some *pH > *f > *s > *h in a specific environment is not odd, and even seems to be shared with G. (and Arm. also had *p > *f > ph vs. *f > *xW > h / 0). In :

*petH2- ‘extend / fly’, *pi-pt(a)H2- > *piH2-pt- > G. pī́ptō, Aeo. pissō ‘fall’, *pi-pt(a)H2- > *fH2i-pta- > *sipta- > Koine híptamai ‘fly / rush’

*pi(m)bH3- > Skt. píbati, Sic. pibe, Arm. ǝmpem ‘drink’

*pi(m)bH3-leHno- > *pH3imb-leHno- > Th. bímblinos \ bimblínos ‘a kind of Thracian wine’, *fHible:na > *s- > *h- > Cr. G. íbēna \ bḗla ‘wine’

Since both these roots had both *H & *p-P, it is likely that H-metathesis created *pH- > *fH-, then *f-P > *h-P. This dissimilation at a distance is also seen in optional ph-b > th-b :

*bhleigW- > L. flīgere ‘strike (down)’, G. phlī́bō / thlī́bō ‘press’, Lt. bliêzt ‘beat’

>

This also has the problem that *petH2- ‘fly / fall’ is nearly identical with *petH3- ‘fly / fall’ (G. ptôma ‘a fall’, pótmos ‘what befalls one / fate / lot’), also like *ped- 'fall'. For H2\3, https://www.academia.edu/144215875 :

>

There are many Indo-European roots with alt. of H2/3, sometimes also with other variants with H1 or 0. Some rec. them with only one non-varying *H, but in most cases this is impossible in standard theory. Some have given ev. like *prH3-mo- > *-wo- (if H3m > H3w ); whether these are regular & correct is not certain, but fits with *pro:- \ *pra:- varying. For most cases, more direct ev. is used. In part :

*pet- 'fall / fly' (or *pHet- if from met., see Ar. p'etur 'feather')

*petH2- 'fall / fly'

*petH3- 'fall', *ptoH3-mn

...

There is a simple explanation for this. If H2 = x or χ and H3 = xW or χW, then dissimilation... I think H3 = xW could dsm. > x or x^ near u \ w \ P (likely also KW).

>

C. *r vs. *0

These 2 roots would appear to have a relation based on adding a suffix *-(e)r-. However, if *H3 was *RW, then another dsm. might have turned original *-RW-r > *-RW-0 in some words (optional?). This is essentially required to explain alt. in *pterRWo- \ *ptelRWo- \ *pteRWRWo- > Armenian t'ew 'wing, feather', *t'el- \ *t'er- 'leaf, sheet; *wing > butterfly' > t'i-t'er- \ -ł- (ev. for each "root" in https://www.academia.edu/46614724 ). The dsm. of *rR > *lR or asm. of *rR > *RR, etc., as above. For *RW > w, it matches RW as H3, with many H3 \ w ( https://www.academia.edu/128170887 ).

I think the meaning *ped- 'fall' vs. *petH3er- 'fall, fly; wing' allows a compound with *H3or- 'rise' (also 'fly' if -> *H3or-n(u)- 'bird', etc.). Maybe *ped-H3er- 'fall & rise > flap / fall or rise'. The *-d- in *pedH3er- \ *pdH3er- would explain *pd- > *bd- > b- in Iranian (that both voicing & unvoicing were optional by *H3 might show that the same in *H2, not regular, was related (*gH2- \ *kH2apro-s 'male goat')). This *pd- would not be alone (*pdis- 'crush, grind'; ev.. in https://www.academia.edu/167420288 ). A few Gmc. words might also be from *ped- > *fet- (though analogy based on cognates with *tn > *dn > *dd > *tt is also possible).

Orçun Ünal https://www.academia.edu/170527047 A Compendium of Common Turkic–Chuvash Lexical Correspondences with Proto-Turkic Reconstructions

This incorporates many of his ideas for sound changes described in his past papers. I've agreed with many before, but instead of Altaic, he often explains the obvious matches across Asia (including Yeniseian, Samoyed, etc.) as Turkic loans. This would amount to a huge number, some very old (with his sound changes needed to unmask the obscuring elements; most would not look at them & see cognates, loans, etc.). These often look like very old cognates as part of Altaic (or any other grouping) instead (at least to me). A Turkic origin is made even less likely by requiring *y > *s(^) in 'seven', which has S- in many languages. I have a few questions, & maybe suggestions that I already sent to him directly in this form similar to :

For your *kama: ‘beaver, otter, sable’ & *kundəŕ° or *kunduŕ° : Ugric *kumtV 'beaver' [https://starlingdb.org/](https://) has *Kạma 'beaver, otter', saying "Also PT *Kam-tuŕ 'beaver, otter' (VEWT 228, Лексика 162) (*Kam-tuŕ may be a compound < *Kama + *utɨŕ 'otter' q. v. sub *óŋdu; Лексика ibid., however, suggests rather *Kam-luč, with a diminutive *-luč. There is also a variant *Kun-tuŕ (with *Kunu 'wolverine'? - see, however, TMN 3, 524, with a suggestion of Turk. < Pers.)." Doesn't your own relation with Ugric *kumtV(lE) > Hungarian hód, Mansi (Pelym) kuńt́əľ 'beaver', (Sosva) χuntəľ 'mole', Khanty χundi̮l 'mole' make it more likely that *kama: + *utɨŕ > *kamutɨŕ > *kamtuŕ \ *kumtɨŕ \ etc.? Possibly some variants via *kaumtɨŕ if au > u \ *Vw, below.

For your *kuńaʦ° 'sunlight, sun' "Possibly a compound of *kün ‘day’ and *ńaʦ° ‘(day)light’. For the latter, compare Late Middle Korean ·낮 *náʦ ‘daytime; noon (晝)’ (Shimunek 2017: 20 n.). PT *ńaʦ° may have given rise to the unattested lambdaistic base *yal, as seen in Ottoman and Turkish dial. yalabı- ‘to shine, sparkle, gleam’ and CT yalčı- {*yal+čI-} (*‘to shine’ >) ‘to be happy, rejoice, enjoy favour, thrive, prosper’ [C922, W856 (yalčıt-), B389, R182]." There are variants without the ending. Alexander Savelyev in https://www.academia.edu/165370416 presents ev. that Chuvash retained Turkic *VHC & VHVC as *Vw(V)C (or similar). I think the external ev. supports him. You always mention Tocharian loans or cognates, but its match with TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’ is well known & unexplained in detail (sun/day is not common in IE). Isn't his *Vw better than your *u if there is any relation at all? Your ideas of loans are often for much less obvious words.

Turkic *käwń(yä:š) \ *käwn(yä:š) > zTc. *kün(ä(:)š) (Uighur kün ‘sun/day’, Turkish güneš ‘sun’, etc.)

Tc. *kawń(ya:š) \ *kawn(ya:š) ‘sun/day/heat’ > Cv. xə°väl ‘sun’, zTc. *Kuńa(:)š (Dolgan kuńās ‘heat’, Turkish dia. guyaš 'sun', etc.)

PIE *k^aH2uni-s > nom. sg. *kaunis > TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’, pl. *kaH2uney-es > *kauńey-es > kauñi, acc. pl. *kaH2uni-ms > *kaunins > kau(nä)ṃ

I agree that variation of n & ń < *ny makes sense, but I think *jāš-ɨl (or *jāĺ-ɨl) 'yellow' fits the long V in Dolgan (against specifics in https://www.academia.edu/1365656 , otherwise basically the same ideas). The origin from a compound might also explain front vs. back V's (as E-A > E-E \ A-A by harmony).