Loanwords in (P)IE

[Talskubilos]

Do you have established comparanda between IE and Uralic that substantiate loss of initial nasals found in Uralic in comparable IE words, and Uralic *k > IE *g?

This is #1. I'll tell you when I find more.

Edit: Or conversely, as it is probably more likely that if there is any connection between IE and Uralic it is in the direction of IE to Uralic, do you have any evidence of prothetic nasals and IE *g > Uralic *k?

I don't think there's anything of the kind. Given its semantics and regional distribution, the IE word has to be very ancient, likely from the Mesolithic.

[Travis B.]

Do you have established comparanda between IE and Uralic that substantiate loss of initial nasals found in Uralic in comparable IE words, and Uralic *k > IE *g?

This is #1. I'll tell you when I find more.

Edit: Or conversely, as it is probably more likely that if there is any connection between IE and Uralic it is in the direction of IE to Uralic, do you have any evidence of prothetic nasals and IE *g > Uralic *k?

I don't think there's anything of the kind. Given its semantics and regional distribution, the IE word has to be very ancient, likely from the Mesolithic.

Until you can substantiate loss/gain of initial nasality across multiple lexemes and likewise a gain/loss of voicing of word-internal stops between PIE and PU you are on very shaky ground.

[Talskubilos]

Until you can substantiate loss/gain of initial nasality across multiple lexemes and likewise a gain/loss of voicing of word-internal stops between PIE and PU you are on very shaky ground.

We'll see. Thanks to Gemini AI (I must say AIs are quite sloppy at historical liguistics, but sometimes can be useful) I've found another possible match: Uralic *ńila 'sap, juice; to be slippery' ~ IE *h₁elem- (Latin ulmus, English elm), assuming this is a compound whose first element is *h₁el-.

Anyway, it looks like, aside from loanwords, the shared lexicon between those two families mostly into Uralic) is rather tenous and consists essentially of phytonyms. For exemple, Uralic *šuje/šoje 'prick, tip' ~ IE *ksowj-/skwoj- 'needles of a conifer, thorn' (Russian xvója[/b], Lithuanian skujà, Latvian skuja ‘needles of a conifer', Old Irish scé, scíad ‘thorn bush’). This etymology is particularly interesting, because it's also found (as a fossilized compound with metathesis) in NEC *ttsˀwǝ̄-nHē/Hnǝ̄ttsˀwē 'reed, cane' ~ IE *yoini- 'reed' (Latin iuncus, iuniper), but which was also borrowed as *don- 'reed' (Greek dónaks) ~ *ned-o- 'reed, rush' (Sanskrit nadá-).

[Ketsuban]

Thanks to Gemini AI […] I've found another possible match

Bahahahahaha! Yeah, you and AI are a match made in heaven, you both like spewing meaningless gibberish.

*ńila is properly Finno-Permic rather than Uralic, since it's not attested in Hungarian, which makes it as dubious a choice for a Uralic root as "Indo-European" *káput (for which I like Glen Gordon's loanword explanation, since an Etruscan word *kaupaθ making its way across the Alps into the Germanic sphere and being used to produce a religious formula *kaupaθe velaθ which their Latin-speaking neighbours borrowed wholesale and adapted the grammatical structure of to create capite velato makes more sense to me than a weird-looking Indo-European root which only shows up in Latin and Germanic - Sanskrit kapucchala "hanging tuft of hair on the back of the head" is a derivation of puccha "tail" and so not a valid comparandum).

[Talskubilos]

Thanks to Gemini AI […] I've found another possible match

Bahahahahaha! Yeah, you and AI are a match made in heaven, you both like spewing meaningless gibberish.

Please, don't compare me to an AI.

*ńila is properly Finno-Permic rather than Uralic, since it's not attested in Hungarian, which makes it as dubious a choice for a Uralic root as "Indo-European" *káput (for which I like Glen Gordon's loanword explanation, since an Etruscan word *kaupaθ making its way across the Alps into the Germanic sphere and being used to produce a religious formula *kaupaθe velaθ which their Latin-speaking neighbours borrowed wholesale and adapted the grammatical structure of to create capite velato makes more sense to me than a weird-looking Indo-European root which only shows up in Latin and Germanic - Sanskrit kapucchala "hanging tuft of hair on the back of the head" is a derivation of puccha "tail" and so not a valid comparandum).

Of course, this is a substrate loanword, but I don't think the source is Etruscan. BTW, where's now Glen Gordon? Is he alive? His proposed list of Semitic loanwords in IE is dead.

[Talskubilos]

Another fruit name is *golostr-, a derivation of IE *ǵʰelh₃- 'green, yellow' (Greek khlōrós) parallel to Celtic *glast- 'green-blue' and which spread to Ticinese ğüštrún, šištrún 'bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus)' and Sardinian colostri, colóstri(g)u, cóstiu, golosti, bolostru, lóstiu, olosti and Basque gorosti, korosti, koosti, khorostü.'holly (Ilex arquifolium)'. Greek kḗlastros, kḗlastra, which designated a Mediterranean evergreen bush, probably the barbery bush (Berberis vulgaris), would be related but with a different Ablaut.

IE *ǵʰelh₃- could be also the origin of Lituanian gelumbẽ̇̇ ‘blue cloth’, Old Prussian golimban ‘blue’, gołęby ‘greyish, blue-grey’ Russian golubój ‘pale blue’, as well as Old Chuch Slavonic goląbь and Latin columba 'pidgeon'.

[Talskubilos]

*h₂erh₃- is likely a Semitic loanword related to agriculture (Neolithic farmers)

Not buying it, especially if Hittite ḫarra- "crush, grind" shows the derivation of "crush soil" > "plough" to be purely internal to Indo-European.

Semantically it doesn't fit. Mallory-Adams assign instead to IE *h₂erhₓ- 'to destroy' (Lithuanian ìrti ‘to dissolve, to go asunder’, OCS oriti
‘to destroy’).

[Lērisama]

*h₂erh₃- is likely a Semitic loanword related to agriculture (Neolithic farmers)

Not buying it, especially if Hittite ḫarra- "crush, grind" shows the derivation of "crush soil" > "plough" to be purely internal to Indo-European.

Semantically it doesn't fit. Mallory-Adams assign instead to IE *h₂erhₓ- 'to destroy' (Lithuanian ìrti ‘to dissolve, to go asunder’, OCS oriti
‘to destroy’).

Both of which come from a known subfamily¹, and crush > destroy is also highly plausible.

¹ Although for this purpose it's irrelevant whether or not you recognise it, only that you accept they spent a long time together.

[Talskubilos]

Not buying it, especially if Hittite ḫarra- "crush, grind" shows the derivation of "crush soil" > "plough" to be purely internal to Indo-European.

Semantically it doesn't fit. Mallory-Adams assign instead to IE *h₂erhₓ- 'to destroy' (Lithuanian ìrti ‘to dissolve, to go asunder’, OCS oriti
‘to destroy’).

Both of which come from a known subfamily¹, and crush > destroy is also highly plausible.

The question is Kroonen et al. conflated the Hittite word with 'plough'.