Proto-Indo-European Roots of Kurdish Body Part Terminology: An Etymological Comparison with Indo-Iranian Languages

Prepared by the researche : Marwan Hamay – Doctoral Researcher, RWTH Aachen University, Germany – Specialization: Linguistics and Communication

DAC Democratic Arabic Center GmbH

International Journal of Kurdish Studies : Eleventh Issue – October 2025

A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin

:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link

https://democraticac.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84-%E2%80%93-%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1-2025.pdf

Abstract

This study explores the etymological origins of Kurdish body part terminology, tracing its roots to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and its evolution through Indo-Iranian languages, offering insights into the historical development of Kurdish within the Indo-European family. Utilizing a historical-comparative methodology, the research analyzes a collection of Kurdish body part terms, identifying shared PIE roots and cognates in languages like Avestan, Sanskrit, and Pahlavi. Key findings reveal systematic sound changes and morphological patterns, such as subtraction derivation and phonological shifts (e.g., laryngeal loss in “Didan” from *h₁dont-), reflecting a mediated inheritance via Proto-Iranian. These linguistic continuities, potentially linked to Yamnaya dispersal, affirm Kurdish’s Indo-European classification and illuminate its ancient lexical heritage. The comprehensive dataset enhances etymological and comparative linguistics, providing a resource for tracing sound changes and semantic fields across IE languages. Additionally, it supports Kurdish language research, shedding light on its historical divergence in the Zagros region. Beyond linguistics, the findings offer interdisciplinary applications, informing anthropology, archaeology, and cultural studies by revealing migration and cultural exchanges. The study concludes with an unprecedented dataset that bridges past and present, fostering further exploration and contributing to Kurdish language preservation and technology development.

Kurte

Ev lêkolîn li ser koka etîmolojîkî yê  têgihên beşên laş ên zimanê Kurdî vedigere, ku rehên wê yên Proto-Hindû-Ewropî (PIE) û pêşveçûna wê di nav zimanên Hindû-Îranî de dişopîne, ku berhemdariyên dîrokî yên zimanê Kurdî di nav malbata Hindû-Ewropî de pêşkêş dike. Bi karanîna rêbaza dîrokî-muqayeseyî, lêkolîn berhevokeke termên laş ên Kurdî analîz dike, rehên hevpar ên PIE û hevwateyên di zimanên mîna Avestayî, Sanskritî û Pahlavî de destnîşan dike. Encamên sereke guhertinên dengî yên sîstematîk û şablonên morfolojîk, wekî derketina bi kêmbûn û guhertinên fonolojîk (mînak, windabûna laryngeal di “Didan” ji h₁dont-) derdixin holê, ku mîrasa navbeynkar a bi riya Proto-Îranî vedibêje. Ev domdariya zimên, ku dibe bi belavbûna Yamnaya ve girêdayî be, nasnameya Hindû-Ewropî ya Kurdî piştrast dike û mîrata wê ya kevnar ronahî dide. Daneyên berfireh lêkolînên etîmolojîk û berawirdî xurt dikin, lêkolînên zimanê Kurdî piştgirî dikin, û li herêma Zagrosê ji nûve ve jihevketina wê ya dîrokî eşkere dikin. Her wiha serîlêdanên nav-dersên mîna antropolojî û arkeolojî pêşkêş dikin, bi eşkerekirina koçberî û danûstandinên çandî.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Enduring Legacy of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and Kurdish Body Part Terminology

The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language, with its approximate thirty-two-sound phonological system (Mallory & Adams, 2006, p. 54), underpins numerous Indo-European languages, including Kurdish, dating back 6,000–6,500 years (Klein et al., 2017, p. 90; Kapović, 2017, p. 2). This ancient tongue offers a vital framework for tracing the historical evolution of language families, notably the Indo-Iranian branch, from which Kurdish descends via Proto-Iranian. This study examines the etymological roots of Kurdish body part terminology, linking these terms to PIE to elucidate Indo-European linguistic dispersal, a focus for Yamnaya culture scholars. Proto-Kurdish emerged from Proto-Iranian around the second millennium BCE, as Iranian tribes, including the Medes, migrated westward to the Zagros Mountains (De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, p. 2; Haig & Öpengin, 2014, p. 91). Avestan, a key Proto-Iranian resource, highlights its role as the ancestor of Iranian languages like Median and early Kurdish (De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, p. 9), situating Kurdish body part terms within Zagros linguistic exchanges.

Comparative analysis reveals connections to Indo-Iranian languages. For example, Kurdish “dest” (hand) may derive from PIE *gʷeh₃-, shifting from a labiovelar *gʷʰ- to dental *d-, possibly via Proto-Iranian palatalization, while Sanskrit “hasta-” retains *h- (Mallory & Adams, 1997, p. 245). Such phonological shifts reflect migratory and cultural interactions. Proto-Kurdish, shaped in the Zagros region, paralleled Avestan but diverged with Northwestern Iranian features from Median and Parthian influences (Paul, 2017, p. 318; Asatrian, 2009, p. 15), adapting under areal pressures (Jügel, 2014, p. 128). This evolution enriches our understanding of Indo-European diversity, potentially echoing Yamnaya pastoral vocabularies.

1.1.1 Kurdish: A Branch of the Indo-European Family with a Rich History

Kurdish, spoken by millions across the Middle East, represents the northwesternmost Iranian language within the Indo-European family, marking a significant historical divergence (Windfuhr, 2009, p. 2). Indo-Iranian languages, attested from the 15th to 14th century BCE, span the northern Indian subcontinent and Middle East, including eastern Turkey, the Caucasus, Iran, and Afghanistan (Kapović, 2017, p. 3). Some scholars suggest a link to the ancient Median language, spoken by the Medes (700–558 BCE) in western Iran (Skjærvø, 2009, p. 43), though evidence is limited. Building on Proto-Iranian roots, Kurdish evolved distinctly in the Zagros region, with enduring traces in areas like the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, reflecting Indo-European migrations, possibly tied to Yamnaya culture.

Proto-Kurdish crystallized between 1000 BCE and 500 CE, notably after the Median Empire’s fall (550 BCE), suggesting shared ethnic and linguistic origins (Paul, 2008, p. 312). Median influence is evident in vocabulary like “spî” (white) from Median “spaeta” (*sp- > *s- via lenition), “ziman” (tongue) from “zaban,” and “barz” (high) from “barzant-” (Asatrian, 1995, p. 78). Herodotus’ accounts of Median dominance in the Zagros (440 BCE, Book 1, 101–102) support this impact, while Zadok’s analysis of Assyrian “Kardaka” (c. 900 BCE) indicates early Kurdish tribal continuity (Zadok, 2002, pp. 215–220). Windfuhr notes Northwestern Iranian languages, including Median, as Kurdish’s foundation (Windfuhr, 2009, p. 587), highlighting its Indo-European and Iranian heritage.

1.1.2 Unlocking the Linguistic Connections Through Body Part Terminology

This research seeks to establish the etymological roots of Kurdish body part terminology by tracing them back to Proto-Indo-European (PIE), contributing to the understanding of Indo-European language dispersal, potentially linked to the Yamnaya culture. The selection of body part vocabulary for historical and linguistic comparison is grounded in the principle that core, stable lexical elements—such as body part terms, kinship relations, and numerals—provide a robust foundation for comparing languages (Klein et al., 2017, p. 152). This stability stems from their early acquisition by infants, rendering them resistant to replacement and thus ideal for reconstructing ancient linguistic ties.

The study employs a historical-comparative methodology, involving the analysis of Kurdish body part terms against their PIE origins, followed by comparisons with analogous terms in related Indo-European languages, particularly Old Iranian forms like Avestan and Pahlavi. Avestan, the oldest attested Iranian language and the sacred tongue of Zoroastrianism, is documented in texts dating to at least the 7th century BCE (Joseph, 2001, p. 129; De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, pp. 1–2), while Pahlavi, the official language of the Sasanian dynasty (224–651 CE), is preserved in inscriptions and texts (Klein et al., 2017, p. 603). For example, the term dest (hand) may align with Avestan zasta-, reflecting PIE gʷeh₃-, illustrating this method. This approach underscores the historical and structural parallels between Kurdish and other Indo-European languages, which comprise approximately ten major branches exhibiting formal correspondences in phonology, morphology, and vocabulary (Joseph, 2001, p. 128). Examining body part terminology is pivotal in comparative linguistics, as these terms represent some of the oldest lexical items, offering insights into the shared roots and divergences among Indo-European languages. Their conservative nature, as noted by Mallory and Adams (2006, p. 173), facilitates the discernment of ancient interrelationships, enhancing our grasp of PIE’s evolution and its dissemination across ancient cultures.

2. Methodology

This study adopts a historical-comparative etymological approach to analyze and reconstruct the dataset of Kurdish body part terms with their Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots. Ohnesorge (2021) defines this method as a process that juxtaposes historical patterns across cases, integrating in-depth case studies with comparative techniques to focus on causal analysis, temporal processes, and systematic, contextualized comparisons (p. 4). The methodology comprises several structured steps to ensure a rigorous and scientifically grounded investigation.

2.1 Data Collection

The study employs a historical-comparative etymological approach to reconstruct the dataset of Kurdish body part terms with their Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots, as defined by Ohnesorge (2021) as juxtaposing historical patterns with in-depth case studies and comparative techniques for causal and temporal analysis (p. 4). Data collection drew on an extensive array of etymological dictionaries and studies spanning Indo-European languages, tracing Kurdish terms to PIE origins. This resource base facilitated the identification of cognates—e.g., Kurdish “dest” (hand) aligning with Avestan “zasta-” from PIE *gʷeh₃- (Mallory & Adams, 1997, p. 245)—and reconstruction of ancestral forms. As Pyysalo (2017) notes, “The method is based on comparison of originally identical IE morphemes,” with PIE postulation grounded in measurable data (p. 259), illuminating Kurdish’s deep linguistic heritage and its potential ties to Yamnaya dispersal through stable early vocabularies.

2.2 Historical-Comparative Analysis

The historical development of each Kurdish body part term was meticulously traced, identifying cognates in other Indo-European languages and reconstructing their PIE forms using the comparative method, recognized as the gold standard for establishing linguistic relationships (Raipovna, 2021, p. 4987). This involved analyzing phonological shifts—e.g., Kurdish “Didan” (tooth) from PIE *h₂dent- with initial laryngeal *h₂- loss, paralleled in Avestan “dantan” (Mallory & Adams, 2006, p. 174)—to link modern terms to their PIE counterparts. Comparative reconstruction juxtaposed these PIE forms with cognates, providing evidence of shared etymological origins across Indo-European languages. This approach, potentially reflecting Yamnaya phonetic evolution, reinforces Kurdish’s historical ties within the IE family.

2.3 Data Organization and Presentation

Kurdish body part terms with PIE roots were systematically organized and presented in tables under “Body Parts in Kurdish with Proto-Indo-European Roots,” categorized into External Parts, Upper Torso, Lower Torso, and Internal Parts. Each term’s PIE origins were detailed with attributes: Anatomical Group, Kurdish Term, Pronunciation (IPA), Proto-Indo-European Root, Semantic Field, and Meaning. This structure facilitated a comparative study with cognates in ancient and modern Indo-Iranian languages (e.g., Avestan, Pahlavi) and other Indo-European languages, reconstructing PIE roots. The categorization, potentially reflecting early IE organizational patterns linked to Yamnaya dispersal, supports a robust etymological framework.

2.4 Data Validation and Peer Review

The dataset’s accuracy and consistency were ensured through a thorough review against authoritative etymological dictionaries and consultation with experts in historical linguistics and Kurdish studies, validating its reliability for scholarly research. This process included verifying Indo-Iranian cognates (e.g., Avestan forms) and PIE reconstructions, with expert insights potentially reflecting Yamnaya linguistic influences, confirming the dataset’s suitability for further exploration of Indo-European dispersal.

3. 3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Etymological Evidence of PIE Influence

The analysis of a diverse set of Kurdish body part terms reveals a significant presence of shared Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots, affirming the language’s deep historical ties to the Indo-European family and its likely connection to the early dispersal of IE languages, such as those associated with the Yamnaya culture. This finding directly challenges assertions of a non-Indo-European origin for Kurdish, positioning it within the broader IE linguistic continuum. The identification of cognates with common PIE roots in fundamental vocabulary, such as body parts, suggests a shared lexical heritage and evolutionary trajectory with other IE languages, including early Indo-Iranian forms. The antiquity of these etymological links, traceable to the Proto-Indo-European period, illuminates the historical development of Kurdish and its enduring integration into the IE language family. These results reinforce the Indo-European classification of Kurdish and underscore the remarkable preservation of ancient PIE lexical elements within its linguistic tradition. Table 1 presents a representative selection of Kurdish body part terms, categorized by anatomical group, alongside their reconstructed PIE roots and associated semantic fields. This table serves as a critical tool for examining the linguistic and etymological affinities between Kurdish and Proto-Indo-European, providing a foundation for further exploration of IE dispersal patterns.

3.2 Phonological and Morphological Continuity

A detailed linguistic analysis of the data in Table 1 further corroborates the genetic relationship between Kurdish body part terminology and PIE roots, reflecting a historical continuity that aligns with the journal’s interest in early IE forms. This kinship is manifested in phonological and morphological parallels across the two linguistic strata. For example, the Kurdish term “Didan” (/diˈdan/), meaning “tooth,” corresponds to the PIE root *h₂dent-, which also underpins terms like Latin “dens,” Greek “odous,” and Avestan “dantan.” The initial laryngeal *h₂- appears to have been lost or reduced in Kurdish, a common feature in IE languages, while the dental cluster *-nt- simplified to *-n-, reflecting a phonetic shift consistent with the evolution of Indo-Iranian languages. Similarly, the Kurdish “Pişt” (/pɪʃt/), denoting “back,” aligns with the PIE root *pos(ti), seen in Sanskrit “paścāt” and Old Persian “pati.” The retention of the initial *p- and the reduction of *-ti to a simpler ending in Kurdish illustrate a gradual phonetic adaptation, preserving the semantic field of body support and posture linked to early IE physical concepts.

This phonological evolution is further evidenced by systematic sound changes that have shaped Kurdish vocabulary from its PIE origins. The study’s historical-comparative analysis revealed several sound changes over time, which influenced the development of Kurdish terms for body parts from their Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots. These regular sound changes represent the linguistic processes that facilitated the development of Kurdish vocabulary from its Indo-European roots. One such example that illustrates these systematic sound changes is the Kurdish word “ser” /sɛɾ/, meaning “head.” This word originates from the PIE root “*kerh₂-s,” which carries the same semantic meaning (Pokorny, 2007, p. 1711). This root evolved into the Old Indo-Iranian languages, experiencing a phonetic shift from the voiceless velar stop “k” to the voiceless alveolar fricative “s.” The transformation can be seen in the Avestan word “*sarah” and the Sanskrit term “śíras,” which both translate to “head,” as noted by Mallory and Adams (2006, p. 174). The root further evolved into the Pahlavi form “sar” with the same meaning (Mackenzie, 1986, p. 74). From the Pahlavi form, the word ultimately transitioned into the contemporary Kurdish language in its current form, “ser.” The change from the voiceless velar stop “k” in the PIE root “*kerh₂-s” to the voiceless alveolar fricative “s” is a well-documented sound change in the evolution of Iranian languages. This shift from “k” to “s” occurred early in the Proto-Iranian stage and continued in the diverging Iranian language branches (Mallory and Adams, 1997, p. 460). These sound shifts, consistent across Indo-Iranian and Kurdish, reinforce the hypothesis of a shared IE ancestry, potentially linked to the Yamnaya cultural and linguistic dispersal, and provide a deeper understanding of the phonological continuity that has preserved PIE elements in Kurdish.

Table 1: Body Parts in Kurdish with Proto-Indo-European Roots

3. 3. 3 Patterns of Derivational Morphology: Subtraction Derivation

The historical-comparative analysis conducted in this study has identified distinct patterns of derivational morphology, particularly the process of subtraction derivation, which has significantly shaped the evolution of Kurdish body part terminology from its Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots. This derivational mechanism, involving the systematic deletion or alteration of phonological elements such as vowels and consonants, reflects the dynamic linguistic processes that have contributed to the diversification of Kurdish vocabulary within the IE family, aligning with the journal’s interest in tracing early IE and Indo-Iranian forms. A prime example is the Kurdish term “pî” (/piː/), meaning “foot,” which can be traced back to the PIE root “*pē̆d-” (Pokorny, 2007, p. 2386), also reflected in Hittite “pat(a)” (Puhvel, 1984, p. 196) and Sanskrit “pāda-,” all denoting “foot.” The derivation process reveals a historical linkage to these early IE languages, suggesting a shared lexical heritage tied to the Yamnaya dispersal.

The subtraction derivation in “pî” is marked by the loss of the final consonant *d from the PIE root “*pē̆d-,” a process consistent with the simplification observed in other IE branches during the Proto-Iranian stage. Additionally, a vocalic shift from the short vowel *ĕ to the long vowel *ī in Kurdish indicates a compensatory lengthening, a phenomenon noted in the evolution of Iranian languages (Lieber, 2017, p. 8). This transformation highlights a systematic phonological adaptation that preserves the semantic core while adapting to Kurdish phonetic norms. The parallel with Hittite “pat(a),” which retains the medial *t- but loses the final *d in some contexts, further supports the hypothesis of a common IE derivational pattern, potentially influenced by early contact during IE expansion.

This pattern of subtraction is not isolated to “pî” but is evident across other Kurdish terms in Table 2. For instance, the term “Didan” (/diˈdan/), meaning “tooth,” derives from PIE “*h₂dent-,” where the final *-t- is partially retained but the laryngeal *h₂- is lost, reflecting a subtractive process accompanied by vocalization (as noted in Table 2, loss of initial laryngeal). Similarly, “Birû” (/biˈruː/), meaning “eyebrow,” from PIE “*bhrū-,” undergoes a loss of the final consonant and a vowel lengthening, aligning with the prothesis and backing changes outlined in the table. These examples suggest a recurring morphological strategy in Kurdish, possibly inherited from Proto-Iranian stages, where subtraction serves to streamline complex PIE roots into more phonetically economical forms.

Table 2 delineates the intricate sound changes, including subtraction derivation, that have molded Kurdish body part terms from their PIE origins. These changes—encompassing consonant loss, vowel alteration, vocalization, palatalization, and metathesis—illustrate the morphological processes that have driven lexical evolution. The loss of the final syllable in “*h₂dent-” to form “Didan” and the subtraction of *d in “*pē̆d-” to yield “pî” reflect a broader trend of simplification that may trace back to the Yamnaya linguistic framework. Comparative analysis with Avestan “dantan” (from “*dent-“) and Sanskrit “danta-” reveals a parallel retention of the dental root with varying degrees of subtraction, suggesting a shared IE morphological inheritance. This analysis not only enhances our understanding of Kurdish’s diachronic development but also contributes to the broader study of IE morphology, offering insights into the linguistic diversification associated with early Indo-European dispersal, a key focus of the journal’s mandate.

Table 2: Sound Changes from Proto-Indo-European Roots to Kurdish Body Part Terms

3. 3. 4 Shared semantic fields:

The analysis of a diverse set of Kurdish body part terms reveals a striking consistency in their semantic fields and meanings when compared to their reconstructed Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots, providing compelling evidence of a profound historical connection between Kurdish and the broader Indo-European language family. This shared conceptual framework, traceable to the PIE period, underscores the enduring legacy of this ancestral language in shaping Kurdish vocabulary and reflects a linguistic heritage linked to the early dispersal of IE languages, potentially associated with the Yamnaya culture. The stability of these semantic fields strengthens the argument for a shared linguistic origin and reinforces the Indo-European classification of Kurdish, aligning with the journal’s interest in exploring ancient IE roots.

For instance, the Kurdish term “dest” (/dɛst/), meaning “hand,” aligns semantically and etymologically with the PIE root “*gʷʰeh₁s-” (Mallory & Adams, 2006, pp. 180-181), which also underlies English “hand,” German “Hand,” Albanian “dora,” and Old Lithuanian “žastìs.” The shift from the PIE labiovelar *gʷʰ- to the Kurdish dental *d- suggests a phonetic adaptation common in Iranian languages, with the retention of the sibilant *-s- indicating morphological stability. Similarly, the Kurdish “pî” (/piː/), meaning “foot,” derives from PIE “*pē̆d-” (Pokorny, 2007, p. 2386), reflected in Hittite “pat(a),” Sanskrit “pāda-,” Greek “poús” (πούς), Latin “pēs” (De Vaan, 2008, p. 462), and Romance forms like Italian “piede.” The loss of the final *-d- and the lengthening of *ĕ to *ī in Kurdish mirror phonological trends in Proto-Iranian, suggesting a shared evolutionary path with early IE branches.

The Kurdish “lêv” (/lɛːv/), meaning “lip,” further exemplifies this kinship, tracing back to PIE “*lē̆b-” (Ringe, 2006, p. 98), with cognates in Sanskrit “lopāśá,” Avestan “aošta,” Pahlavi “lab” (Mackenzie, 1986, p. 52), Persian “lab,” Tajik “лаб” (lab), Hittite “lipp,” Proto-Italic “*labjo-” (leading to Latin “labium” and Romance forms like French “lèvre”), and Germanic “*lepjan-” (e.g., Old English “lippa”). The reduction of the PIE labial cluster *-b- to a simpler consonant in Kurdish, coupled with vowel lengthening (*ĕ to *ē), reflects a systematic phonetic shift also observed in Indo-Iranian and Italic branches. This stability in the semantic field of oral features across millennia highlights a shared PIE conceptualization of the body, potentially rooted in the Yamnaya cultural context.

These cognates, with their consistent meanings and traceable phonological evolution, illustrate the robust influence of the PIE linguistic system on its descendant languages, including Kurdish. The shared semantic fields–encompassing basic anatomical concepts–suggest a common cognitive framework among PIE speakers and their descendants, offering insights into the linguistic and cultural dynamics of IE dispersal. Comparative analysis with early IE languages like Tocharian “paiyä” (foot) and Old Irish “lám” (hand) further supports this continuity, indicating that Kurdish retains archaic features that may trace back to the Yamnaya horizon. This evidence not only solidifies the Indo-European origin of Kurdish but also contributes to the broader understanding of IE lexical stability and diversification. Table 3 summarizes these shared semantic fields and their cognates, offering a visual representation of the phonological and morphological continuity that underscores the Indo-European origin of Kurdish, with potential ties to the Yamnaya linguistic framework.

Table 3: Shared Semantic Fields of Kurdish Body Part Terms with Proto-Indo-European Roots

3. 3. 5 Sound Changes in Indo-Iranian Roots: Evidence for Kurdish Etymology

The findings indicate that sound changes affecting Kurdish body part terms did not occur directly from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) but were mediated through Indo-Iranian roots, particularly Old Iranian languages (e.g., Avestan, Pahlavi), with subsequent transmission to Kurdish. This pattern suggests that Kurdish inherited these terms with pre-existing phonological modifications, reflecting a historical process tied to the eastward dispersal of IE languages, potentially linked to the Yamnaya cultural horizon. The analysis reveals that these changes were more pronounced in Old Iranian languages than in Old Indic languages, likely due to the geographical proximity of the eastern Iranian region to the epicentre of these linguistic shifts, while Old Indic retained a more conservative phonetic system.

This Indo-Iranian mediation is evident in specific sound changes patterns. For example, the Kurdish “Ran” (/rɑn/), meaning “thigh,” derives from PIE *h₂r-en (Pokorny, 2007, p. 2534) via Avestan “rāna” (Mackenzie, 1986, p. 136) and Pahlavi “rān” (Mackenzie, 1986, p. 136), where the initial laryngeal *h₂- was lost, and the vowel *e shifted to *a, a common Iranian vowel adjustment. Similarly, “Nav” (/nav/), meaning “navel,” traces from PIE *h₃nobh- (Mallory & Adams, 1997, p. 16) through Avestan “nāfa” (De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, p. 32) and Pahlavi “nāf” (Mackenzie, 1986, p. 57), showing the loss of the initial laryngeal *h₃- and simplification of the labial cluster *-bh- to *-v-. The term “Jinû” (/ʒinu/), meaning “knee,” from PIE *ĝḫneu- (Pokorny, 2007, p. 1185), via Sanskrit “gānu” (Macdonell, 1893, p. 101), Avestan “zānu” (De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, p. 35), and Pahlavi “zānūg” (Mackenzie, 1986, p. 98), exhibits palatalization of *ĝḫ- to *ʒ- and the addition of a suffix *-ūg. “Hestî” (/hɛsti/), meaning “bone,” from PIE *h₂óst- (Mallory & Adams, 2006, p. 187) via Sanskrit “ásthi” (Macdonell, 1893, p. 35) and Avestan “ast” (De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, p. 19), retains the initial *h-, unlike the loss in Indo-Aryan. “Guh” (/guh/), meaning “ear,” from PIE *h₂ous- (Pokorny, 2007, p. 2270) via Sanskrit “śrótraḥ” (Mallory & Adams, 1997, p. 17) and Avestan “uši” (De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, p. 62), shows a shift from *ou to *u and loss of the initial laryngeal.

Further examples include “Mist” (/mɪst/), meaning “fist,” from PIE *musti- via Avestan “mušti-” (Pokorny, 2007, p.2100) and Pahlavi “mušt” (Mackenzie, 1986, p.57), where the root remains relatively stable with minor vowel adjustments. “Kemer” (/kɛmɛɾ/), meaning “waist,” traces from PIE *kam-er (Pokorny, 2007, p. 1435), via Avestan “kamarā”  (Mallory/Adams,1997, p.620) and Pahlavi “kamar” (Nyberg, 1974, p. 111) showing retention of the initial consonant with vowel variation. “Enî” (/eni/), meaning “forehead,” from PIE *h₂ent- (Mallory/Adams,1997, p.60) via Sanskrit “ánti” (Macdonell, 1893, p. 18), Avestan “ainīka” (Mallory/Adams, 2006, p.175), and Pahlavi “anig” (Mackenzie,1986, p.10), reflects the loss of the laryngeal and vowel shift. “Dil” (/dil/), meaning “heart,” from PIE *kérd- (Mallory/Adams,1997, p.262), via Sanskrit “kŕd“, Avestan “zered”(Mallory/Adams,1997, p.262-3) and Pahlavi “dil” (Nyberg, 1974, p. 63) shows palatalization and vowel change. “Didan” (/diˈdan/), meaning “tooth,” from PIE *h₁dont- via Sanskrit “dant,” Proto-Aryan *dans-, Avestan “dantan” (Mallory/Adams (2006, p.174-175) and Pahlavi “dandān” (Mackenzie,1986, p.24) mirrors the loss of the initial laryngeal. “Parsû” (/pɑrˈsuː/), meaning “rib,” from PIE *pérḱus (Mallory/Adams, 2006, p.179) via Sanskrit “párśu,” Avestan “Parǝsu” (Pokorny, 2007, p. 2339) and Pahlavi “Pahlūg” (Mackenzie, 1986, p.64), retains the initial *p- with suffix aaaddition. “Ceger” (/d͡ʒeˈɡer/), meaning “liver,” from PIE *iekw(t) via Sanskrit “yákr̥t,” Avestan “yākarǝ” (Pokorny, 2007, p.1393) and Pahlavi “jagar” (Mackenzie, 1986, p.122) shows ppalatalization. “Birû” (/biˈɾuː/), meaning “eyebrow,” from PIE *bhrū-1via Sanskrit “bhrṹ,” Avestan “brvat “(Pokorny, 2007, p.514) and Pahlavi “brūg” (Mackenzie, 1986, p.24) exhibits vowel lengthening. Finally, “Bazû” (/bɑˈzuː/), meaning “arm,” from PIE *bhāghú-s (Pokorny, 2007, p.322) via Sanskrit “bāhú” (Mallory/Adams, 1997, p.26) Avestan “bāzu” (De Vaan & Lubotsky, 2014, p. 127) and Pahlavi “bāzā” (Mackenzie, 1986, p.18) shows simplification of the initial cluster.

Comparative analysis with other IE branches reinforces this pattern. These examples highlight a systematic phonological evolution mediated through Indo-Iranian, distinct from direct PIE inheritance. Table 4 provides a detailed overview of these sound change patterns, illustrating the Indo-Iranian mediation in Kurdish etymology through specific examples and their phonological transformations. This continuity suggests that Kurdish etymology reflects a synthesis of Iranian and Indo-Aryan influences, potentially rooted in the Yamnaya dispersal, offering insights into the complex interplay of sound changes and language evolution within the IE family.

Table 4: Sound Changes in Indo-Iranian Roots to Kurdish Body Part Terms

4. Conclusion and Implications

This study’s findings have significant implications for advancing our understanding of the historical development of Kurdish vocabulary and its connections to other Indo-European languages. The comprehensive dataset presented herein serves as a valuable resource for researchers and linguists, offering insights into several key areas:

4.1 Etymology and Historical Linguistics

The dataset provides a rich source of data for investigating the etymological origins and historical development of Kurdish vocabulary. By tracing the roots of Kurdish body part terms back to their Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ancestors, this study contributes to the field of historical linguistics, enabling scholars to unravel the intricate threads that connect contemporary Kurdish lexical items to their ancient origins. This deeper understanding of the historical development of Kurdish vocabulary sheds light on the linguistic processes that have shaped the language over time, revealing patterns of sound change, semantic shifts, and borrowing from other languages.

4.2 Comparative Linguistics

The dataset facilitates comparative studies across Indo-European languages, shedding light on shared etymological roots, sound changes, and the evolution of language families. The inclusion of cognates from various Indo-Iranian and Indo-European languages, particularly early forms like Avestan and Sanskrit, allows researchers to explore linguistic connections and identify patterns of change, offering insights into the complex tapestry of language relationships within the broader Indo-European family, potentially linked to the Yamnaya dispersal.

4.3 Kurdish Language Research

Significantly, the dataset serves as a valuable resource for researchers and linguists specifically interested in the Kurdish language, its etymology, and its historical connections. By providing a comprehensive analysis a collection of Kurdish body part terms, their etymological roots, and their linguistic features—rooted in early Indo-Iranian stages—this study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on Kurdish linguistics, fostering a deeper understanding of the language’s historical development and its place within the Indo-European linguistic landscape. This detailed analysis of body part terminology provides insights into the semantic and phonological changes that have shaped Kurdish vocabulary over time.

4.4 Applications

The findings of this study have implications that extend beyond the realm of linguistics. The insights gained from tracking the historical development of vocabulary can shed light on the cultural interactions, migrations, and societal exchanges that have shaped the Kurdish language over millennia, possibly reflecting the Yamnaya cultural exchanges. This interdisciplinary perspective offers valuable contributions to fields such as anthropology, archaeology, and cultural studies, enhancing our understanding of the intricate relationships between language, culture, and human history. Furthermore, the dataset can be used to develop educational resources and dictionaries for Kurdish language learners and researchers. The findings can inform the development of language technology tools for Kurdish, such as machine translation and speech recognition systems. The study’s insights can contribute to the revitalization and preservation of the Kurdish language and its cultural heritage.

4.5 Conclusion

This groundbreaking study culminates in an unprecedented dataset, tracing the roots of Kurdish body part terminology to Proto-Indo-European, spoken over 6,000 years ago. This meticulously analyzed dataset, with its wealth of cognates from various Indo-European languages, including early Indo-Iranian forms, illuminates the shared linguistic heritage and cultural exchanges that have shaped these languages over millennia, likely influenced by the Yamnaya dispersal. This work bridges the gap between past and present, showcasing the enduring legacy of Proto-Indo-European and its indelible imprint on human linguistic diversity. It serves as a catalyst for further exploration, fostering cross-disciplinary collaborations and advancing our understanding of language, culture, and human history.

About the Researcher

Marwan Hamay is a doctoral researcher in linguistics and communication at RWTH Aachen University, Germany. His work centers on communication-content analysis and the historical development of Iranian languages. He has published refereed articles in international journals on journalistic editing and comparative linguistics, with a particular focus on the Kurdish language. He is the author of five scholarly books covering journalistic editing, economic journalism, newspaper-text analysis, entertainment-media content, and linguistics studies.

References

Asatrian, G. (2009). Prolegomena to the study of the Kurds. Iran and the Caucasus, 13(1), 1–58.

De Vaan, Michiel (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (vol. 7 in the series “Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary”). Leiden/Boston: Brill.

De Vaan, M., & Lubotsky, A. (2014). Introduction to Avestan. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Haig, G., & Matras, Y. (2002). Kurdish linguistics: a brief overview. In: Language typology and universals = Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung: STUF, Vol. 55, Nr. 1, 3-14. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, doi:10.1524/stuf.2002.55.1.3

Haig, Geoffrey & Öpengin, Ergin. 2014. Kurdish: A Critical Research Overview. Kurdish Studies, 2(2), 99–122.

Joseph, Brian (2001). The Indo-European Family – The Linguistic Evidence. In: Istoria tis elinikis glosas apo tis arxes eos tin isteri arxeotita [History of the Greek Language from the beginnings up to later antiquity], ed. by A.-Ph. Christides.  Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language. pp, 128-134.

Jügel, Thomas (2014). On the linguistic history of Kurdish. Kurdish Studies 2(2). pp, 123–142.

Kapović, Mate (2017). Indo-European languages: Introduction. In Mate Kapović (ed.), The Indo-European languages, 2nd edn., 1–9. London: Routledge.

Klein, Jared/ Joseph, Brian / Fritz, Matthias/Mark, Wenthe (2017). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.

Köbler, Gerhard (2007). Altgriechisches Wörterbuch: Altgriechisches Abkunfts- und Wirkungswörterbuch. Erlangen.

Lieber, R. (2017, March 29). Derivational Morphology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Retrieved 12 Oct. 2024, from https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-248.

Mackenzie, D. N. (1986). A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary (School of Oriental & African Studies). London: Oxford University Press; New York; Toronto.

Macdonell, Arthur A. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1893.

Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. (2006). The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. United States: Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Mallory, J. P. /Adams, D. Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. United States: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

Nyberg, Henrik (1974). A Manual of Pahlavi. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

Ohnesorge, Hendrik W. (2021). The Method of Comparative-Historical Analysis: A Tailor-Made Approach to Public Diplomacy Research, “Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, online first; https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00227-1.

Paul, L. (2017). The Historical Grammar of Kurdish. In the Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia. De Gruyter.

Pokorny, Julius (2007). Indo-European; Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary. Indo-European Language Revival Association. Moscow: Dnghu Association.

Puhvel, Jaan (1984). Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Trends in Linguistics Documentation 1. Mouton Publishers: Berlin· New York· Amsterdam.

Pyysalo, J. O. (2017). Proto-Indo-European Lexicon: The Generative Etymological Dictionary of Indo-European Languages. In NoDaLiDa 2017: 21st Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (pp. 259–263). (NEALT Proceedings Series; Vol. 29). Linköping University Electronic Press.

Raipovna, V. S. (2021). Comparative methods in linguistic. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, 14(1), 4986-4992.

Ringe, Don (2006). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, A linguistic history of English, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skjærvø, P. O. (2009). Old Iranian. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages, chap. 6,43–165. London: Routledge.

Windfuhr, Gernot (2009). Introduction to The Iranian Languages. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages, chap. 6,1–4. London: Routledge.