Appendix II: Late Indo-European Lexicon

This lexicon is available online with regular updates and as automatic dictionary-translator at <>.

An English – Indo-European dictionary is found in Appendix II.1.

For detailed information on the Proto-Indo-European words, its etymology, usage, root and meaning, see the following section, Appendix II.2.

For detailed forms from descendant languages used for the reconstruction of PIE words, see Appendix III.3.

Formal Aspects

The reconstructed artifice schwa *ə (still widely used in modern IE linguistics, cf. e.g. Ringe 2006, de Vaan 2008, etc.) does not represent an actual vowel. It might represent in this reconstructed post-Late Indo-European lexicon:

1) The schwa primum, vocalic output of the older merged laryngeal *H, assimilated to a different vowel in the different IEDs. That laryngeal schwa is omitted if it is word-initial and appears alone, as in *H3bhruH, or if the preceding syllable has full vocalism, as in *klamrós, but it is written elsewhere, as in *p∂ter-. See The Loss of Laryngeals, and Conventions Used in This Book.

2) The results of the so-called Saussure effect. See The Loss of Laryngeals.

3) The schwa secundum, reconstructed for irregular outputs of groups that included resonants, i.e. *C(°)RV or *C(°)R(°)C, due to auxiliary vowels inserted in LIE times. For this alternating auxiliary vowel, a dot below is more commonly written for resonants plus vowel, i.e. CV. See Phonology,especially §2.3.

Some supposed late remains of the LIE merged laryngeal in groups including resonants, i.e. *CRHC, *CHRC, *CRHV, *CHRV, etc. are not written down by convention. A selection is made of the most common west IE evolution; as, Ita., Cel. gnātós (with an evolution equivalent to Gk. gnētós) for an older gəʔtós, born. See above The Loss of Laryngeals, and §2.1.

Middle-passive endings are written with the 1st sg. -ai, -oi, which correspond to NWIE -ar. See above §7.2.2.

Sometimes, forms different to those found in this book are intentionally reconstructed in this lexicon, to complement each other and give an overall image of the possible reconstructions; as, -e- reduplicated athem. dhédhēmi, shown in this lexicon as -i- reduplicated athem. dhídhēmi, and non-reduplicated, them. dhakjō. See §7.4.2. Class BII.

Dubious reconstructions of stative verbs, added in this edition, (see §7.4.2, Class AIIIe vs. Class IIIo) include awējō, bhəwējō, gāudhējō, ghəbhējō, lubhējō; while some appear to be bivalent -ejō-/-ējō-: dgh, kjō, t.

Heteroclite as well as athematic (especially root) nouns are shown according to the general reconstruction paradigms. Some difficult choices have been made, though, if more than one form is found. See §§4.6, 4.7.

On the alternative vocalic reconstruction a/o, as in mari/mori, the Leiden school (de Vaan among others) defends a phonetic law Lat. a < PIE *o (free and accompanied by certain consonants); as, badius, canis, fax, lacus, lanius, manus, malleus, mare, uagus, ualua, uas, uaris, etc. of which badius, canis, lacus, mare,  and maybe manus have correlatives with root vowel O.Ir. o. However, we have some clear counterexamples; as mora, mola, moneō, monīle and maybe focus, forō. According to de Vaan, cohors, dolō, dolus, domus, folium, glomus, hodiē, (h)olus, noceō, oculus, odor, onus, opus, ouis, podium, probus, procus, rota, and toga
do not accomplish the phonetic conditions to be counterexamples.


The dictionary content is referenced at <> and an automatic online Proto-Indo-European dictionary-translator is available at <>.