Of the rise and split of the Borean language(s)

Spiro Ergo Sum

🇬🇧 This paper is dedicated to my Chinese, Japanese, and Korean language learning community, NicoDico, which has been as eager as its founder to really understand the languages they learn and speak.
I also dedicate it to Sergei Starostin, who would have thoroughly enjoyed this analysis.

🇫🇷 Ce document est dédié à ma communauté d’apprentissage du chinois, japonais et coréen, NicoDico, qui est tout aussi désireuse que son fondateur de réellement comprendre les langues qu’elle apprend et parle.
Je souhaite aussi le dédier à Sergei Starostin, qui eût profondément apprécié cette analyse.

Introduction

         🇬🇧 As we may be tempted to believe, languages did not emerge suddenly during the Neolithic era (circa 12-2 Ky BCE) with the advent of agriculture. Neither are resembling words due to mere coincidences, for human history has never been linear since its beginning, from the remote times of the Palaeolithic (circa 3.3 Mya to 12 Kya).

                Human history is more complex than the continuity of a straight line, and it has witnessed many migrations and intricate mixings between archaic and recent populations, as well as their languages. Neolithic rather seems the era where languages split more frequently from their ancestral roots, the Borean language(s) — which I also designate as Proto-Sapiens — that seemed to belong mainly to Homo sapiens, thus being its predominant language. Since their split(s) from (a) similar root(s), some words were more frequently and mutually borrowed into the languages of our world when local communities congregated or were influenced by each other through human migrations.

                Often, words resemble each other very closely as they have evolved in a similar fashion from the same root, such as “dul (둘)” in the Korean language and “two” in the English language which both originate from the Borean root *« dwo(l) » (two). (cf. entry 88) This phenomenon can be observed in the rather remarkable case of Indo-European, the ancestor of European and Indian languages, and Sino-Tibetan, the ancestor of Chinese, Tibetan and approximately forty languages, and their daughter languages, wherein we can often witness striking resemblances between Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European, and especially in the heirs, (Medieval) French and English and Medieval Chinese.  (For such comparisons, cf. entry 11, 15, 58)

                As for Transeurasian, the ancestor of Japanese, Korean, Mongol, Turkish and Tungusic languages, its speakers seem to have had a diametrically opposed mind to the one of the Indo-Europeans, hence probably the great cultural differences between East Asian and Indo-European people. This difference that I call the “eg | ga thinking”, is discussed below and related to entry 79.

                We should now, with the help of genetics, archaeology and linguistics, explore the deepest roots of the language(s) of our ancestors, the Borean language(s).

Introduction

🇫🇷 Comme nous pourrions être tenté de le croire, les langues n’ont pas apparu soudainement au Néolithique (environ -12 000 à -2000) à l’invention de l’agriculture. Les mots similaires ne sont, eux non plus, fruits du hasard car l’histoire de l’Humanité n’a jamais été linéaire depuis ses prémices, les temps éloignés du Paléolithique (environ 3.3 millions d’années à 12 000 avant notre ère).

L’histoire de l’Humanité est bien plus complexe qu’un trait continu et a été témoin de maintes migrations et mixtions complexes entre les populations archaïques et récentes, ainsi que leurs langues. Le Néolithique semble plutôt la période durant laquelle les langues se sont divisées plus fréquemment de leur(s) racine(s) ancestrale(s), le boréen — aussi désigné sous le nom de proto-sapiens — qui semble principalement appartenir à l’Homo sapiens, étant ainsi sa langue prédominante. Depuis leur division d’une racine commune, certains mots ont été plus fréquemment empruntés de manière mutuelle dans les langues de notre monde quand les communautés locales ont congrégé ou ont été influencées les unes par les unes au travers de migrations.

Bien souvent, les mots se ressemblent fortement car ils ont évolué d’une façon similaire depuis la même racine, tels que “dul (둘)” en coréen et “deux” en français qui proviennent tous deux de la racine boréenne *« dwo(l) » (deux). (cf. entrée 88) Ce phénomène peut s’observer dans le cas plutôt remarquable de l’indo-européen, l’ancêtre des langues européennes et indiennes, et le sino-tibétain, l’ancêtre du chinois, du tibétain et près de quarante langues, ainsi que leurs descendantes (langues filles) auprès desquelles nous pouvons observer de frappantes ressemblances entre le sino-tibétain et l’indo-européen, particulièrement emmi leurs descendants, le français et l’anglais (médiéval) ainsi que le chinois médiéval. (Ces comparaisons s’observent entrées 11, 15, 58)

Quant au transeurasien, l’ancêtre du japonais, coréen, mongol, turc et tongouse, ses locuteurs semblent avoir arboré un esprit diamétralement opposé à celui des Indo-Européens, d’où la probable, mais grande, différence culturelle entre les Asiatiques de l’Est et les Indo-Européens. Cette différence que j’appelle « la pensée eg | ga » est discutée ci-dessous et se doit lier à l’entrée 79.

Nous allons maintenant, à l’aide de la génétique, l’archéologie et la linguistique, explorer les racines les plus ancestrales de la langue de nos aïeux, le boréen.

The Nature of this Paper

           🇬🇧 In July 2020, I discovered this paper, written by Tsung-tung Chang, who compares resembling words in Indo-European and old Chinese (or Sino-Tibetan); however, I did not believe in simple borrowings for such an amount of words. Basal words cannot be borrowed so frequently at such a deep point in human history’s past due to a fundamental lack of rapid communication and the amount of time needed for communities to exchange basal words and for them to impregnate the target language. The Sino-Platonic series has nevertheless instilled doubts and intrigued me; it sparked the beginning of my research until I discovered the Borean language(s).

                I have hereafter organised one hundred basal words in Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Transeurasian, and Proto-Sino-Tibetan languages that bear similarities between each other, and whence I have begun to see some patterns appear. My database currently contains more than three hundred patterned words (as of September 2020) of which I disclose the following hundred and one samples, hoping that they may shed light upon the deep history of humanity and palaeo-linguistics. The last word, entry 101, is a (detailed) attempt to reconstruct the lost word for “mammoth”.

                Sergei Starostin and many other linguists did also notice these patterns at least fifteen years ago and he called the ancestor of all languages of the Northern hemisphere the Borean language, which I had independently designated as “Proto-sapiens” before knowing about this appellation and his research. For my research, I was using his Sino-Tibetan database included in the Starling database until I discovered the name of the Borean language also comprised within the same database. We thus had independently reached the same conclusion whereby languages did not appear suddenly in the Neolithic but rather seemed to originate from a long evolution of at least several hundreds thousands of years.

                Starostin heavily relied upon linguistics, and unfortunately did not have the time to refine his discovery before his sudden demise in 2005; nonetheless, now that genetics allows us to analyse whole genomes of ancient human beings, we can understand the deep past of humanity and its languages, namely the Borean language(s).

La nature de ce document

🇫🇷 En juillet 2020, j’ai découvert cette analyse, rédigée par Tsung-tung Chang, qui compare des mots similaires en indo-européen et en chinois archaïque (voire sino-tibétain) ; mais je n’ai cependant point cru en de simples emprunts pour une telle quantité de mots. Les mots basaux ne peuvent pas être empruntés si fréquemment à si grande ancestralité dans l’histoire de l’Humanité au vu du manque crucial de communications rapides et du temps requis à des communités pour s’échanger des mots de cet ordre et que ceux-ci les imprègnent. La série sino-platonique a néanmoins instillé le doute en moi et m’a intrigué : cela a provoqué l’étincelle de mes recherches sur le boréen.

J’ai ci-dessous organisé une centaine de mots basaux en proto-indo-européen, proto-transeurasien et proto-sino-tibétain qui comportent des similarités mutuelles, et au sein desquels j’ai commencé à voir apparaître des patrons linguistiques. Ma base de données contient actuellement plus de trois cents mots « patronnés » (septembre 2020) dont je dévoile les cent et un suivants, en espérant qu’ils puissent jeter leurs lumières sur l’histoire ancestrale de l’Humanité et de la paléolinguistique. Le dernier mot, entrée 101, est un essai (détaillé) de reconstruction pour le mot « mammouth », vraisemblablement perdu.

Sergei Starostin et de nombreux autres linguistes ont également remarqué ces patrons linguistiques il y a près de quinze ans et ce dernier a appelé « boréen » l’ancêtre de toutes les langues de l’hémisphère nord, langue que j’avais indépendamment désignée par « proto-sapiens » avant de connaître cette appellation et ses recherches.
Pour mes recherches, j’utilisais sa base de données sino-tibétaine comprise en la base de données Starling jusqu’à ce que je découvrisse le nom de boréen, également inclus dans la même base de données. Nous étions ainsi parvenus à la même conclusion selon laquelle les langues n’ont pas émergé soudainement au Néolithique mais semblent plutôt issues d’une longue évolution d’au moins plusieurs centaines de milliers d’années.

Starostin se basait fortement sur la linguistique et n’a hélas guère eu le temps de peaufiner ses découvertes avant son trépas en 2005. Néanmoins, à présent que la génétique nous permet d’analyser le génome complet d’hommes préhistoriques, nous pouvons comprendre le passé ancestral de l’humanité et sa langue : le boréen. Il conviendra en revanche de noter qu’il a très certainement existé plusieurs formes de boréen.

Methodology

         🇬🇧  In my endeavour, I have realised that basal words derived from Borean roots were highly diluted but had kept their primeval essence in all language families and their daughter languages, hence the possibility to observe a linguistic pattern. Some words have also interwoven and derived differently from their source word(s), which might have provoked many miscommunications amongst scholars; some other words seem to be native creations that were coined by associating two words into one, and thus lost the source word root.

We should therefore redefine the very essence of a native word, which cannot be defined as an isolated and different word from all other languages within a certain linguistic area, as we might have previously thought. A native word should rather be defined as a basal human word that derives from one or several ancestral Borean word(s) and has acquired the native pronunciation of its local linguistic area.

                When building my comparative table, I used the dictionaries, glossaries and databases mentioned hereafter. I have conscientiously applied a very broad spectrum to my table in order to avoid the comparison of daughter languages between each other (Japanese with Korean, Arabic with English, French with Chinese, etc). Only a broad spectrum could confirm some word reconstructions and the accuracy of my findings but also avoid the oblivion of a great part of language history which could have been conducive to a certain bias or have narrowed my view.

                For instance, I was able to confirm the potential existence of the Proto-Korean-Japanese word *“sanora” (sky) (cf. entry 15) only because I had previously investigated other language families’ roots and confirmed a steady pattern that resembled the Proto-Korean-Japanese one before it split into Korean and Japanese. A broad spectrum allowed me to confirm or infirm word reconstructions, but also alter words that were too over-permissive or lacked in some glossaries with others that seemed more befitting or accurate. This spectrum has also helped me to surmise a reconstruction for the lost word of “mammoth”.

                The following table does not consequently prove a simple word list, but it is the fruit of many hundreds of hours of research via a heuristic approach whereby I was allowed to gain accuracy in my reconstructions and deepen my understanding of human languages. I have also tried to avoid relying too heavily upon sole linguistics, as archaeology, history and genetics can confirm or infirm word borrowings and their history.
Since languages do not originate from a simple linear evolution, many words harbour interwoven etymologies that I have assembled as precisely and clearly as possible for the reader to understand. I have also analysed reconstructed words between each other and drawn parallels when they seemed obvious.
I beg the reader to pardon me when an entry reference belongs to another outside of the list below, for I cannot share the entirety of my database.

                My analysis is therefore heuristic and holistic and aims to be the most accurate as possible and to avoid the general bias of sole linguistics research.

Méthodologie

🇫🇷 Dans mon entreprise, j’ai réalisé que les mots basaux dérivés de leur racine boréenne étaient fortement dilués mais avaient conservé leur essence première dans toutes les familles de langues et leurs descendantes, d’où la possibilité d’observer un patron linguistique. Certains mots se sont également entremêlés et ont dérivé différemment de leur mot-source, ce qui a probablement engendré de nombreuses incompréhensions parmi les chercheurs ; d’autres vocables semblent des créations natives qui furent forgées en associant deux mots en un seul, et perdant ainsi le mot-source.

Nous devons par conséquent redéfinir l’essence même d’un mot natif, qui ne se peut plus définir comme un mot isolé et différent des autres langues du monde au sein d’une certaine zone linguistique, comme on l’avait précédemment pensé. Un mot natif se pourrait plutôt définir comme un mot humain basal qui dérive d’un ou plusieurs mots boréens ancestraux et a acquis la prononciation native de sa zone linguistique.

En construisant mon tableau comparatif, j’ai fait usage des dictionnaires, glossaires et bases de données mentionnés ci-après. J’ai consciencieusement appliqué un spectre très large à mon tableau afin d’éviter les comparaisons de langues récentes (filles) entre elles (japonais et coréen, arabe et anglais, français et chinois, etc.) Seul un spectre élargi m’a pu confirmer certaines reconstructions de mots et la précision de mes découvertes, mais également éviter l’oubli d’une grande partie de l’histoire des langues qui eût pu conduire à quelque biais ou une vue étriquée.

En guise d’exemple, j’ai pu confirmer la potentielle existence du mot proto-coréen-japonais  *“sanora” (sky) (cf. entry 15) seulement parce que j’avais précédemment investigué d’autres racines de familles de langues et confirmé un patron régulier qui ressemblait au proto-coréen-japonais avant qu’il ne se scinde en coréen et japonais. Un spectre élargi m’a permis de confirmer ou infirmer des reconstructions de mots mais aussi de modifier certains mots qui étaient trop éloignés sémantiquement ou encore manquaient dans certains glossaires, à l’aide d’autres qui semblaient plus congruents ou précis. Ce spectre m’a également aidé à supposer une reconstruction pour le mot perdu du mammouth.

Le tableau suivant ne consiste ainsi point en une simple liste de mots, mais est le fruit de plusieurs centaines d’heures de recherche via une approche heuristique par laquelle j’ai pu gagner en précision pour mes reconstructions et approfondir ma compréhension des langues humaines. J’ai également essayé d’éviter de me baser trop fortement sur la linguistique car archéologie, histoire et génétique peuvent affirmer ou contredire les emprunts de certains mots et leur histoire.
Les langues n’étant guère issues d’une simple évolution linéaire, de nombreux mots présentent des étymologies entretoisées que j’ai rassemblées aussi précisément et clairement que possible pour que le lecteur puisse mieux comprendre. J’ai enfin analysé les mots reconstruits entre eux et esquissé des parallèles quand ils semblaient évidents.
Je saurais gré au lecteur de me pardonner si un renvoi mentionne une entrée externe à la liste suivante, car je ne peux partager l’entièreté de ma base de données.

Mon analyse est de ce fait heuristique et holistique et vise à être la plus précise possible afin d’éviter le biais général de la simple analyse linguistique.

Credibility

         🇬🇧 Sergei Starostin had analysed more deep language ancestors for his Borean pre-reconstruction, but here I only analyse three of four proto-languages, for I prefer to build a table that I can really explain with credibility and confidence.

                Until the Neolithic and the advent of agriculture that provoked a split amongst language families, languages seemed to harbour certain stability, as proved by an evident regular pattern that appears between proto-languages at greater depths than the Neolithic, such as Middle-Later Borean. Even Middle-Later Borean seemed to be a stable language that was spoken throughout Eurasia and that had begun to cross the Bering Strait to be spoken by Proto-Native Americans.

                The most important part in this analysis does not seem to be the number of languages used to reconstruct the Borean language(s), but rather the precision of the reconstruction through meticulous analysis of the basal words.

                Therefore, this analysis appears more credible than a simple linguistic analysis as it is corroborated by other domains, and can explain the patterned proto-words in the table below.

Crédibilité

🇫🇷 Sergei Starostin avait analysé davantage de langues ancestrales pour ses pré-reconstructions du boréen ; or j’analyse en l’occurrence seulement trois ou quatre proto-langues car il me paraît préférable de construire un tableau que je peux réellement expliquer avec crédibilité et confiance.

Jusqu’au Néolithique et à l’arrivée de l’agriculture qui a provoqué une scission parmi les familles de langues, celles-ci semblaient présenter une certaine stabilité, comme le prouve un patron linguistique évident et régulier qui apparaît entre les proto-langues à plus grande ancestralité que le Néolithique, tel que pour le boréen moyen-supérieur.
Même cette forme de boréen semblait être une langue stable parlée à travers l’Eurasie et qui avait commencé à franchir le détroit de Béring pour être parlée par les proto-natifs américains.

Le plus important dans cette analyse ne semble guère le nombre de langues utilisées pour reconstruire le boréen, mais plutôt la précision de ladite reconstruction à travers une analyse méticuleuse des mots basaux.

Cette analyse apparaît par conséquent comme plus crédible qu’une simple analyse linguistique car elle est corroborée par d’autres domaines et peut expliquer les proto-mots patronnés du tableau ci-dessous.

A brief History of the genus Homo and its language(s)

                🇬🇧 Long before Homo sapiens, Homo erectus was one of the first hominids to leave Africa to explore the Eurasian continent, circa 1.8-1.6 Mya (Barnes 2015). We can follow its tracks back to East Asia where bones where retrieved that belong to its species, in the Zhoukoudian cave in China, and date of circa 400 Kya (Barnes, 2015). Homo erectus language must therefore have existed in simple sounds and language patterns as migrations require coordination, hence a supposed archaic form of language.

                Homo erectus disappeared circa 400 Kya (Miki Ben-Dor et al. 2011) or circa 100 Kya for some resilient and isolated individuals (Rizal Yan et al. 2020), and was followed by Homo sapiens, Neanderthal  and Denisovan who are estimated to have originated circa 800-600 Kya (Henry 2019) and split from each other circa 400 Kya (Prüfer Kay et al 2014; Kuhlwilm et al. 2016; Henry 2019), until the demise of the two latter ones circa 40-30 Kya (Harvati 2012; Henry 2019; Vaesen et al. 2019).

Homo sapiens started venturing upon the Earth circa 200-100 Kya (Demeter et al., 2012; B. Harrod 2014; Lipson and Reich 2017; Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Henry 2019), perhaps through several migration waves from Sub-Saharian Africa. This species, which is now predominantly ours, prevailed upon others such as Neanderthal or Denisovan. Homo sapiens may have contributed to the demise of other species (Harvati 2012), such as Neanderthal or Denisovan that declined around 40-30 Kya. It is however more probable that they proved insufficient to adapt to the changing climate of the Earth (Harvati 2012), or else the animals they hunted for their diet disappeared (Harvati 2012), but the main reason seems to reside in natural selection, the scarcity of their populations, and Homo sapiens whose appearance in Eurasia coincides circa 50-40 Kya with the decline of the two latter ones (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Vaesen et al. 2019; Henry 2019) through natural selection.
Homo sapiens has thus been the species who survived and prevailed upon others hitherto, and genetics presently allows us to know that it interbred with other species such as Neanderthal (Prüfer Kay et al. 2014; Kuhlwilm et al. 2016; J. Bae. et al. 2017; Reich 2018; A. Villanea 2019; Hallast et al. 2020) or Denisovan (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018).

                The Borean language(s) seems(s) to be the main language(s) of Homo sapiens and were used to communicate and ensure successful migrations on Earth, but it remains difficult to determine precisely how many forms of Borean were really spoken due to a lack of data. At present, we seem to be able to reconstruct only a single form of Borean, Middle-Late Borean, by combining proto-languages.
                Due to the admixture of Homo sapiens with other species and the continuity of human languages since the Lower Palaeolithic, the form(s) of Borean spoken across Eurasia must have consequently proved a mixing of the ancestral language(s) of the ancestors of Homo sapiens including that of the venerable Homo erectus and probably some tiny fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan languages. Although the exact amount of language mixing is now nigh-on impossible to determine accurately, we could surmise that at least some words or word patterns of the ancestors of Homo sapiens are contained in the Borean language(s) which were passed down by mouth to us until the invention of writing circa 3500 BCE in Mesopotamia or circa 6-5000 BCE in China, if we consider Chinese Neolithic signs as a form of writing (Demattè 2009). Writing has allowed us to specify and record the outlines of languages, prevent words from disappearing, and ensure a better transmission of traditions.

                Even though Homo sapiens left the African continent circa 200-100 Kya, it did not spread across the Earth until circa 60-40 Kya (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Gakuhari et al. 2019; Henry 2019; Hallast et al. 2020), hence a probable stability in its language(s) and movements before this time. Homo sapiens reached East Asia circa 40 Kya from Southern and Northern routes (J. Bae et al. 2017; Gakuhari et al. 2020) which are explained below where he may have encountered an ancestral species of Altaï Neanderthal (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016) and Denisovan (R. Browning 2018; Hublin 2018).

                We can therefore surmise that from 200 Kya to 60 Kya, before Homo sapiens ventured upon the Earth, it spoke an ancestral form of Borean (Early Borean (circa 200 Kya to 60 Kya)); then, as Homo sapiens split into groupuscules and colonised the Earth, its language(s) split into Middle Borean (circa 60 kya to 30 kya) and Late Borean (circa 30 kya to 10 kya) (B. Harrod 2014), until the great Neolithic language split, mainly caused by agriculture and new technology.

Une brève histoire du genre Homo et sa ou ses langue(s)

🇫🇷 Bien avant Homo sapiens, Homo erectus était l’un des premiers hominidés à quitter l’Afrique pour explorer le continent eurasien, aux environs de 1,8-1.6 millions d’années (Barnes 2015). On peut suivre ses traces jusqu’en Asie de l’Est où des os ont été retrouvés appartenant à son espèce, dans la grotte de Zhoukoudian en Chine, et datant d’environ 400 000 ans (Barnes 2015). La langue d’Homo erectus a par conséquent dû exister en sons et patrons linguistiques simples car les migrations requièrent coordination, d’où une forme supposée de langue archaïque.

Homo erectus a disparu vers -400 000 (Miki Ben-Dor et al. 2011) ou -100 000 pour quelques individus isolés et résilients (Rizal Yan et al. 2020), et a été suivi par Homo sapiens, Néandertal et Dénisovien dont on estime l’origine vers -800-600 000 (Henry 2019) et qui se sont séparés l’un de l’autre vers -400 000 (Prüfer Kay et al 2014; Kuhlwilm et al. 2016; Henry 2019), jusqu’à la chute des deux derniers aux environs de -40-30 000 (Harvati 2012; Henry 2019; Vaesen et al. 2019).

Homo sapiens a commencé à s’aventurer sur la Terre vers -200-100 000 (Demeter et al., 2012; B. Harrod 2014; Lipson and Reich 2017; Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Henry 2019), peut-être au travers de plusieurs migrations de l’Afrique sub-saharienne. Cette espèce, qui est maintenant principalement la nôtre, a prévalu sur d’autres comme Néandertal ou Dénisovien. Homo sapiens pourrait avoir contribué à la chute des autres espèces (Harvati 2012), telles que Néandertal et Dénisovien qui ont trépassé vers -40-30 000. Il est néanmoins plus probable que ces espèces se soient révélées incapables de s’adapter au climat changeant de la Terre (Harvati 2012), ou encore que les animaux qu’elles chassaient pour leur subsistance aient disparu (Harvati 2012) ; mais la raison principale semble résider en la sélection naturelle, le caractère épars de leurs populations et Homo sapiens dont l’apparence en Eurasie coïncide vers -50-40 000 avec le déclin des deux autres (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Vaesen et al. 2019; Henry 2019) par sélection naturelle.
Homo sapiens a ainsi été l’espèce qui a survécu et s’est imposée sur les autres jusqu’à présent, et la génétique nous permet à présent de savoir qu’il s’est reproduit avec d’autres espèces telles que Néandertal (Prüfer Kay et al. 2014; Kuhlwilm et al. 2016; J. Bae. et al. 2017; Reich 2018; A. Villanea 2019; Hallast et al. 2020) ou Dénisovien (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018).

Le boréen semble être la langue principale d’Homo sapiens et était utilisé pour communiquer et assurer entre autres le succès des migrations sur la Terre, mais il demeure difficile de déterminer avec précision combien de formes de boréen étaient réellement parlées dû à un manque de données sur le sujet.
À présent, il semble possible de reconstruire une seule forme de boréen, le boréen moyen-supérieur, en combinant les proto-langues.

Compte tenu de l’admixtion d’Homo sapiens à d’autres espèces et de la continuité des langues humaines depuis le Paléolithique inférieur, les formes du boréen parlées de par l’Eurasie doivent avoir de ce fait consisté en un mélange de langues ancestrales des ancêtres d’Homo sapiens incluant la langue du vénérable Homo erectus et probablement quelques fragments des idiomes de Néandertal et Dénisovien. Quoique la quantité exacte de mélange linguistique soit désormais quasiment impossible à déterminer avec précision, on pourrait conjecturer qu’au moins quelques mots ou patrons linguistiques des ancêtres d’Homo sapiens se retrouvent en boréen qui nous a été transmis oralement jusqu’à l’invention de l’écriture vers -3500 ou -6-5000 en Chine si l’on considère les signes du Néolithique chinois comme une forme d’écriture (Demattè 2009). L’écriture nous a permis de spécifier et d’enregistrer les contours des langues, afin d’empêcher les mots de disparaître et d’assurer une meilleure transmission des traditions.

Nonobstant la sortie d’Homo sapiens d’Afrique vers -200-100 000, il ne s’est répandu sur Terre qu’aux environs de -60-40 000 Kya (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Gakuhari et al. 2019; Henry 2019; Hallast et al. 2020), d’où une probable stabilité dans sa ou ses langue(s) et mouvements avant cette époque. Homo sapiens a atteint l’Asie de l’Est vers -40 000 par des routes septentrionales et méridionales (J. Bae et al. 2017; Gakuhari et al. 2020) qui sont expliquées ci-dessous, et via lesquelles il a pu rencontrer une espèce ancestrale de Néandertal de l’Altaï (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016) et de Dénisovien (R. Browning 2018; Hublin 2018).

On peut conséquemment supposer qu’entre -200-60 000, avant qu’Homo sapiens ne s’aventurât sur Terre, il parlait une forme ancienne de boréen (le boréen supérieur (vers -200 000 à -60 000)), ensuite alors qu’il s’est séparé en groupuscules et a colonisé la Terre, sa ou ses langue(s) se sont séparées en boréen moyen (vers -60 à 30 000) et boréen inférieur (vers -30 000 à -10 000) (B. Harrod 2014), jusqu’à la grande scission néolithique des langues, principalement causée par l’agriculture et les nouvelles technologies.

Middle-Late Borean 

           🇬🇧 The language I have found by comparing Sino-Tibetan, Indo-European and Transeurasian roots seems to belong to Late Borean (30 kya to 10 kya), for, without other forms of Borean, it seems nigh-on impossible to reconstruct anterior forms of the language. This late form of the Borean language seemed to exist before the great Neolithic language split and already showed a certain stability amongst proto-languages roots, as attested by the table below.

                Since Sergei Starostin and I have independently reached the same conclusion that there existed a(t least one) Borean language which encompassed most of the languages families of the Northern hemisphere, and that derived words seem to show a genuine phonological and semantic pattern, the existence of (the) Borean (languages) does not seem to be a simple myth anymore.

                In his analysis, in the database Sterling, Sergei Starostin compares all extant great language families (Eurasiatic, Sino-Caucasian, Austroasiatic) and even includes Afroasiatic (Proto-Semitic), which I sometimes include, for I only have an intermediate level in Semitic languages (modern standard Arabic) and cannot judge or analyse the quality of words such as with other proto-languages. Nevertheless, even Proto-Semitic seems to fit the Borean derivative phonology and semantics.

                Starostin employed the appellation “Borean” as it designates with accuracy all languages spoken in the Northern hemisphere (however excluding many African languages), after Homo sapiens issued from Africa circa 200-100 Kya.
The word table below is accompanied by a holistic analysis and corroborates the hypothesis whereby human languages are a long and rather steady evolution from Early Paleolithic to our time (circa 3.3 Mya to present).

Boréen moyen-supérieur

🇫🇷 La langue que j’ai découverte en comparant les racines sino-tibétaines, indo-européennes et transeurasiennes semble appartenir au boréen supérieur (vers -30 000 à -10 000) car sans autres formes de boréen, il semble presque impossible de reconstruire des formes antérieures de la langue. Cette forme finale du boréen semble avoir existé avant la grande scission néolithique des langues et montrait déjà une certaine stabilité parmi les racines des proto-langues, ainsi qu’attesté dans le tableau ci-dessous.

Comme Sergei Starostin et moi sommes indépendamment parvenus à la même conclusion disant qu’il existait (au moins) une langue boréenne qui englobait la plupart des familles de langues de l’hémisphère nord et que les mots dérivés semblent présenter un véritable patron phonologique et sémantique, l’existence du boréen ne semble désormais plus un mythe.

Dans son analyse, Sergei Starostin compare toutes les grandes familles de langues existantes (eurasiatique, sino-caucasien, austroasiatique) et inclut même l’afroasiatique (proto-sémitique) que j’inclus parfois car je ne possède qu’un niveau intermédiaire en langue sémitique (arabe standard) et ne puis juger ou analyser la qualité des mots tel que pour les autres proto-langues. Malgré cela, même le proto-sémitique semble s’adéquater à la sémantique et phonologie dérivées du boréen.

Starostin a employé l’appellation « boréen » car elle désigne avec précision toutes les langues parlées dans l’hémisphère nord (en excluant cependant de nombreuses langues africaines), après la sortie d’Afrique d’Homo sapiens vers -200-100 000.
Le tableau de mots ci-dessous est accompagné par une analyse holistique qui étaie l’hypothèse selon laquelle les langues du monde sont une longue et stable évolution depuis le Paléolithique supérieur jusqu’à nos temps (vers 3.3 millions d’années jusqu’à présent).

Genetics and Archeology

            🇬🇧 Thanks to the work of many genetics laboratories, such as David Reich’s laboratory or the Biorxiv laboratory, we can now understand more precisely the outlines of humanity’s deep history and corroborate or disprove some ancient theories. Whole genome analyses of Neanderthal, Homo sapiens, Jômon man, Austro-Asiatic, Han, Tibetan, Japanese and Korean people, allow us to understand that the world, as we presently know it, was gradually populated from around 60 Kya by Homo sapiens (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Gakuhari et al. 2020) and that the Borean language(s), one of the most ancestral languages of humanity, may have begun to split from this time.

From Africa to the World (with a focus upon Asia)

           🇬🇧 It is estimated that non-African populations split from African populations circa 82 Kya and that Eurasian populations split into European and Asian populations circa 50-35 Kya (Yuchen Wang et al., 2018; Hallast et al., 2020), which concords with the first populations of East Asia and Europe by Homo sapiens circa 40 Kya (Gakuhari et al. 2020). At approximately 50-40 Kya, Eurasia was populated by hunter-gatherers-fishers, such as the Denisovan or the Altaï Neanderthal (Prüfer Kay et al., 2014), who may have shared a different language from the then-Middle Borean language spoken by Homo sapiens. This medium form of Borean may have split further into Later Borean (30 Kya to 10 Kya) and underwent the great language split during the Neolithic circa 12-10 Kya.

                East Asia seems to have been populated from two routes departing from the African continent: a Northern route from the Eurasian steppes and the North of the Himalaya mountains until a vast region around the Amur River basin; and a Southern route from North India to South Asia via the South of the Himalayan mountains (R. Browning 2018; Hublin 2018; Gakuhari et al., 2020). The southern migration separated into several groups of Homo sapiens which gave rise to the Austroasiatic populations (Demeter et al., 2012; McColl et al., 2019) and their languages, but also reached the Australian continent (J. Bae et al., 2017; Henry, 2019). Other groups of Homo sapiens ascended along the East Asian coast where they might have met the Northern groups, hence the probable diversity in the Jômon man genes (Gakuhari et al., 2020) as explained below.

                East Asia seems to have been inhabited since at least 40 Kya by Homo sapiens (Gakuhari et al., 2020), as proved by the discovery of the Tianyuan-man near Beijing (de Boer et al., 2020), and many languages such as the Dene-Caucasian and the Eurasiatic languages that seemed mostly spoken in Eurasia until their initial split from the Late Borean language. These daughter languages seem to be the continuation of the ancestral form of Late Early-Middle Borean that was spoken in East Asia, and from which originate Sino-Tibetan (circa 10 Kya to 6 Kya) and Transeurasian (circa 15 Kya to 6 Kya) whose speakers seemed to inhabit a vast region of the Amur river basin and the Northern part of China (Sagart et al., 2019; Wang Chuan-Chao et al., 2020).

Génétique et archéologie

🇫🇷 Grâce aux travaux de nombreux laboratoires de génétique tels que David Reich’s laboratory ou encore Biorxiv laboratory, il est désormais possible de comprendre avec davantage de précision les contours de l’histoire ancestrale de l’Humanité et de corroborer ou infirmer certaines théories anciennes. Des analyses génomiques de Néandertal, Homo sapiens, de l’homme de Jômon, ou encore des peuples austro-asiatiques, hans, tibétains, japonais et coréens nous permettent de comprendre que le monde tel que nous le connaissons à présent, a été graduellement peuplé aux alentours de -60 000 par Homo sapiens (Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao 2018; Gakuhari et al. 2020) et que le boréen, l’une des langues les plus ancestrales de l’humanité, pourrait avoir commencé à se scinder vers ces temps-là.

De l’Afrique au monde (focus sur l’Asie)

🇫🇷 On estime que les populations non africaines se sont séparées des populations africaines aux environs de -82 000 et que la population eurasienne s’est séparée en européenne et asiatique vers -50-35 000 (Yuchen Wang et al., 2018; Hallast et al., 2020), ce qui concorde avec les premiers peuplement de l’Asie de l’Est et de l’Europe par Homo sapiens vers -40 000.

Aux alentours de -50-40 000, l’Eurasie était peuplée de chasseurs-cueilleurs-pêcheurs, tels que Dénisovien, le Néandertal de l’Altaï (Prüfer Kay et al., 2014), qui ont très certainement partagé une langue différente du boréen moyen parlé par Homo sapiens. Cette forme médiale du boréen s’est ensuite probablement séparée en boréen supérieur (vers -30 000 à -10 000) et a subi la grande scission des langues du Néolithique vers -12-10 000.

L’Asie de l’Est semble avoir été peuplée par deux routes partant du continent africain : une septentrionale par les steppes eurasiennes et le nord de l’Himalaya jusqu’à une vaste région autour du bassin du fleuve Amour ; et une route méridionale du nord de l’Inde jusqu’à l’Asie du Sud via le sud de l’Himalaya (R. Browning 2018; Hublin 2018; Gakuhari et al., 2020).

La migration méridionale s’est scindée en plusieurs groupes d’Homo sapiens qui ont donné naissance aux populations austroasiatiques (Demeter et al., 2012; McColl et al., 2019) et leurs langues, mais ont aussi atteint le continent australien (J. Bae et al., 2017; Henry, 2019). D’autres groupes d’Homo Sapiens ont remonté le long des côtes est-asiatiques où ils ont probablement rencontré les groupes septentrionaux, d’où la probable diversité des gènes de l’homme de Jômon (Gakuhari et al., 2020), comme expliqué ci-dessous.

L’Asie de l’Est semble avoir été habitée depuis au moins -40 000 par Homo sapiens (Gakuhari et al., 2020), comme prouvé par la découverte de l’homme de Tianyuan près de Pékin (de Boer et al., 2020), et de nombreuses langues comme le déné-caucasien et les langues eurasiatiques qui semblaient principalement parlées en Eurasie jusqu’à leur scission initiale du boréen inférieur. Ces langues affiliées semblent être la continuation de l’ancestrale forme de boréen moyen-supérieur que l’on parlait en Asie de l’Est et duquel est issu le sino-tibétain (vers -10 000 à -6000) et le transeurasien (vers -15 000 à -6000), dont les locuteurs semblaient habiter une vaste région du bassin de la rivière Amour et du nord de la Chine (Sagart et al., 2019; Wang Chuan-Chao et al., 2020).

The Jômon language, an early branch of Transeurasian languages

           🇬🇧 Transeurasian is the appellation used by Martine Robbeets, who has proved that Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Tungusic and Mongol were related and originate from a common ancestor, Transeurasian. This term now replaces the controversial term “Altaic”.

The Jômon language (probably spoken circa 30 Kya) was spoken by the Jômon man, one of the ancestors of modern Japanese people. It seems to have been an early split from Eurasiatic, as the Jômon man seems to share more genes with the Early East Eurasian population (rather than recent Korean-Mumun farmers) who colonised Japan through the Northern island of Hokkaïdô circa 40-30 Kya (J. Bae. et al., 2017; Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al., 2019; Gakuhari et al., 2020; de Boer et al., 2020). The Borean language chart introduced above also attests this split with the Ainu language, which originates from the Jômon language.
Other groups of Homo sapiens speaking a similar early language seem to have split circa 26-24 Kya (Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al. 2019), and to have reached the Bering Strait to colonise the American continent, hence the resemblance between Native American languages (pertaining to Dene-Daic languages) and early Eurasiatic languages, as well as the closeness of their genes (Gakuhari et al., 2020; Wang Chuan-Chao et al., 2020). This early split is also attested in the chart above.

                Archaeology only yields circa 16-15 Kya for the first remains of Jômon Palaeolithic in situ settlements and archaic pottery, probably due to the acidic nature of the Japanese soil, which may have erased previous traces of the Jômon man (Watanabe et al., 2019; Gakuhari et al., 2020).
                However, the Jômon man, a genetic mixing of the Northern migration and the Southern migration (Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al., 2019), did not stay completely isolated during 30 Ky as we had previously thought, for it also bears some Austroasiatic genes, hence probable encounters and exchanges with Austroasiatic people, before the arrival of the Mumun-Yayoi Korean men (circa 1000 BCE) who crossed the seas from the Southern part of the Korean peninsula (de Boer et al., 2020).

                The Korean Mumun-Yayoi men pertain to the Korean culture of Mumun (1500 to 300 BCE) (de Boer et al., 2020), and their second appellation, Yayoi, is due to an ancient district of Tokyo where a distinctive pottery was discovered, which differed from the one of the Jômon period. The term Yayoi-Mumun is used here to describe the Korean migrants and the Japanese period itself (circa 1000 BCE to 250 AD).
Korean Yayoi-Mumum men have brought agriculture, their technology (metallurgy, weaving) and their language (proto-Japanese) into Japan via the Western Japanese island of Kyûshû (Gakuhari et al., 2020; de Boer et al., 2020), and seem to be themselves a long mixing of the East Asian Palaeolithic inhabitants whom had gradually shifted from hunter-gatherer-fishers to farmers. It is however difficult to distinguish with precision the exact nature of Korean genes as they are closely intermixed with Chinese Han genes, since these populations lived in similar North-East Asian regions during Upper Palaeolithic, until the closely related rise of Chinese and Korean civilisations (Yuchen Wang et al., 2018; Wang Chuan-Chao et al., 2020) circa 2500-2000 BCE.

                The technological contribution of the Yayoi-Mumun men to Japan may have helped the Jômon man to recover from the population loss it had suffered because of the late Neolithic cool climate (Watanabe et al., 2019), and were therefore probably warmly welcomed as they brought rice farming, a new fashion of surviving which proved more easily than hunting, fishing and gathering. This late Jômon situation could have possibly favoured the assimilation of the Proto-Japanese language into the Jômon language, rather than a conflictual and bellicose situation. The Proto-Japanese language has nevertheless almost completely assimilated the Jômon language of which relics are scarce in the Japanese language.

                The continuity of the Jômon man gave descendance to the Ainu culture and language (Watanabe et al. 2019) circa 250 AD, which coincides with the rise of the Yamato in Japan, the ancient name of Japan’s first archaic government, and the flight of the Jômon-Ainu men to the lands of their ancestors, Hokkaïdô (Bruneteau 2020). This ancestral split and the significant isolation of the Jômon language might explain the divergence between modern Japanese and the Ainu language, but also the origin of Ryûkyûan languages and their speakers, who seem to be the direct heirs of the Jômon men and language (Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al. 2019; de Boer et al. 2020).
               

By investigating into the deepest roots of Eurasiatic languages, we can observe several common points between Ainu and Middle Borean-Transeurasian languages as well as the amplitude of their evolution.
I shall carry further reconstructions of the Jômon language through another heuristic and holistic examination: by comparing Ainu language basal words with the Middle-Late Borean language reconstructed below and eliminating late Transeurasian words that were brought afterwards by the Yayoi-Mumun men.
This reconstruction already seems interesting with basal vocabulary such as “upas” (snow) (cf. entry 42 (or 116 (undisclosed)), “ni” (wood) (cf. entry 40) or else “ru” (route, way) (cf. entry 248 (undisclosed)).

La langue de Jômon, une branche précoce du transeurasien

🇫🇷 Le transeurasian est l’appellation utilisée par Martine Robbeets, qui a prouvé que le japonais, le coréen, le turc, le tongouse et le mongol étaient liées et issues d’un ancêtre commun, le transeurasien. Ce terme remplace désormais le controversé « altaïque ».

La langue de Jômon était probablement parlée vers -30 000 par l’homme de Jômon, l’un des ancêtres des Japonais actuels. Elle semble s’être précocement scindée de l’eurasiatique, car l’homme de Jômon semble partager davantage de gènes avec les premières populations de l’Asie de l’Est (plutôt que les agricultures Coréens de Mumun plus récents) qui ont colonisé le Japon par le nord de l’île d’Hokkaïdô aux environs de -40-30 000 (J. Bae. et al., 2017; Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al., 2019; Gakuhari et al., 2020; de Boer et al., 2020). 

La charte de la langue boréenne introduite précédemment atteste également de cette séparation en regardant la langue ainue, l’ancêtre direct de la langue de Jômon.
D’autres groupes d’Homo sapiens parlant une langue similaire semblent s’être séparés vers -26-24 000 (Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al. 2019), et ont atteint le détroit de Béring pour coloniser le continent américain, d’où la ressemblance entre les langues natives américaines (appartenant aux langues déné-daïques) et les langues eurasiatiques précoces, ainsi que la proximité de leurs gènes (Gakuhari et al., 2020; Wang Chuan-Chao et al., 2020). Cette séparation précoce est aussi indiquée dans le tableau ci-dessus.

L’archéologie ne donne que les alentours de -16-15 000 pour les premiers vestiges d’habitations paléolithiques de Jômon in situ et d’une céramique archaïque, cela étant probablement dû à la nature acide du sol japonais, lequel pourrait avoir effacé les traces d’hommes de Jômon antérieurs (Watanabe et al., 2019; Gakuhari et al., 2020).
Cependant, l’homme de Jômon, un mâtinage de gènes des migrations nord et sud (Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al., 2019), n’est pas resté aussi isolé qu’on ne le pensait durant 30 000 ans, car il possède également des gènes austroasiatiques, provenant de probables rencontres et échanges avec les peuples austroasiatiques, avant l’arrivée des péninsulaires coréens de Yayoi-Mumun (vers -1000) qui ont franchi les mers du sud de la péninsule coréenne (de Boer et al., 2020).
Ces hommes coréens de Yayoi-Mumun appartiennent à la culture coréenne de Mumun (-1500 à -300) (de Boer et al., 2020), et leur seconde appellation, Yayoi, est due à un ancien quartier de Tokyo où l’on a découvert une poterie qui leur est propre, et qui différait de celle de Jômon. Le terme Yayoi-Mumun sert en l’occurrence à décrire les migrants coréens et la période japonaise en elle-même (vers -1000 à 250).

Ces hommes coréens ont apporté l’agriculture, leur technologie (métallurgie, tissage), et leur langue (le proto-japonais) au Japon via l’île de Kyûshû à l’est du Japon (Gakuhari et al., 2020; de Boer et al., 2020), et ils semblent eux-mêmes un long mélange d’habitants paléolithiques d’Asie de l’Est qui ont graduellement changé leur activité de chasseur-cueilleur-pêcheur à celle d’agriculteur. Il est en revanche difficile de distinguer avec précision la nature exacte des gènes coréens car ils sont étroitement liés aux gènes hans chinois, ces populations vivant dans des régions avoisinantes du nord-est de l’Asie depuis le Paléolithique supérieur, jusqu’à la montée concomitante des civilisations chinoise et coréenne (Yuchen Wang et al., 2018; Wang Chuan-Chao et al., 2020) aux alentours de -2500-2000.

La contribution technologique des hommes de Yayoi-Mumun au Japon aura sûrement aidé l’homme de Jômon à recouvrir d’une perte de population dont il avait souffert à cause du refroidissement climatique de fin du Néolithique (Watanabe et al., 2019), et ces derniers étaient par conséquent plutôt bienvenus tandis qu’ils apportaient la culture du riz, une nouvelle manière de survivre qui se révélait plus facile que la chasse, la pêche ou la récolte.
Cette situation du Jômon final pourrait avoir facilité l’assimilation du proto-japonais dans la langue de Jômon, plutôt que de provoquer une situation conflictuelle et belliqueuse. Le proto-japonais a néanmoins presque complètement assimilé la langue de Jômon dont les reliques sont rares dans la langue japonaise actuelle.

La continuité de l’homme de Jômon a donné descendance à la culture et langue ainue (Watanabe et al. 2019) vers 250 ce qui coïncide avec la montée de Yamato au Japon, le nom du gouvernement archaïque de l’archipel, et la fuite des hommes de Jômon-Ainu vers les contrées de leurs ancêtres, Hokkaïdô (Bruneteau 2020). Cette séparation ancestrale et la significative isolation de la langue de Jômon pourrait expliquer la divergence entre le japonais moderne et la langue ainue, mais aussi l’origine des langues des Ryûkyû et leurs locuteurs, qui semblent être les descendants directs de l’homme de Jômon et de sa langue (Kanzawa-Kiriyama et al. 2019; de Boer et al. 2020).

En investiguant les plus profondes racines des langues eurasiatiques, on peut observer plusieurs points communs entre l’ainu et le boréen moyen-supérieur (transeurasien), mais aussi l’amplitude de leur évolution.
J’effectuerai de plus amples reconstructions de la langue de Jômon à travers un nouvel examen heuristique et holistique, en comparant les mots basaux de l’ainu avec ceux du boréen moyen-supérieur reconstruits ci-dessous et en éliminant les mots transeurasiens récents apportés par les hommes de Yayoï-Mumun.
Cette reconstruction semble déjà intéressante avec les mots suivants : “upas” (neige) (cf. entrée 42 (ou 116 (non dévoilée)), “ni” (bois) (cf. entrée 40) ou encore “ru” (route, way) (cf. entrée 248 (non dévoilée)). 

Dene-Daic (Sino-Tibetan) and Transeurasian (Korean) speakers

          🇬🇧  Modern Korean and Chinese speakers seem to be the legitimate, albeit widely intermixed, descendants of the East Asian deep-past population who slowly evolved from hunter-gatherer-fishers into farmers since 40 Kya (Gan Rui-Jing et al. 2007; Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020). This intermixing explains that Japanese people carry genes that are not precisely recognisable between Han Chinese and Korean people (Yuchen Wang et al. 2018, Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020), who bequeathed a part of their genes after migrating to the Japanese island of Kyûshû circa 3 Kya.

                The Sino-Tibetan language (circa 10 Ky to 6 Ky BCE) was spoken in a vast area of Northern China (Sagart et al., 2019), and split into archaic Chinese and Tibetan circa 6 Kya probably due to the spread of agriculture (Gan Rui-Jing et al. 2007; Sagart et al., 2019; Ning et al. 2020). Nonetheless, the Tibetan region was not exploited for agriculture until circa 3600-3000 BCE, coinciding with the slow rise of the Chinese (Xia-Shang-Zhou) civilization and agriculture (Bruneteau 2020) and the influence of Han Chinese population on the non-han population of the Tibetan region (Gan Rui-Jing et al. 2007; Zhao Yong-Bing et al. (2015); Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020).

An identical agriculture-language split occurred within Transeurasian (circa 15 Ky to 6 Ky BCE) into Proto-Korean-Japanese, Proto-Mongol, Proto-Turkish and Proto-Tungusic with the arrival of technological innovations and millet farming (Li Tao et al. 2020; Robbeets et al. 2020; Cui Yinqiu et al. 2020; Ning et al. 2020) from the Fertile Crescent. Transeurasian speakers lived in a vast region of the Amur Basin, expanding as far as Anatolia, until Transeurasian split further around 6000 BCE (Proto-Japanese-Korean, Proto-Mongol, Proto-Turkish, Proto-Tungusic), 3500 BCE (Proto-Korean-Japanese), and further around 1000 BCE (Proto-Japanese). Cui Yinqiu et al. (2020) show that the Amur Basin populations are genetically related and are a continuum since Mesolithic, which supports the Late Palaeolithic East Asian continuum, characterized by the Middle-Late Borean language until the Neolithic split of Transeurasian.

Les locuteurs du déné-daïque (sino-tibétain) et du transeurasien (coréen)

🇫🇷 Les locuteurs du coréen et du chinois moderne semblent être les dignes descendants (quoique fortement entre-mélangés) de la population ancestrale de l’Asie de l’Est qui a lentement évolué de chasseur-cueilleur-pêcheur à agriculteur vers -40 000 (Gan Rui-Jing et al. 2007; Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020). Ce mâtinage explique pourquoi les Japonais portent des gènes qui ne sont pas précisément reconnaissables entre les Chinois hans et les Coréens (Yuchen Wang et al. 2018, Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020), qui leur ont légué une partie de leurs gènes après avoir migré vers l’île japonaise de Kyûshû il y a près de 3000 ans.

La langue sino-tibétaine (vers -10 000 à -6000) était parlée dans une vaste région du Nord de la Chine (Sagart et al., 2019), et s’est séparée en chinois archaïque et tibétain vers -6000 probablement dû à la propagation de l’agriculture (Gan Rui-Jing et al. 2007; Sagart et al., 2019; Ning et al. 2020).
Néanmoins, la région tibétaine n’a pas été exploitée pour l’agriculture avant -3600-3000, ce qui coïncide avec la lente montée de la civilisation chinoise (Xia-Shang-Zhou) et de l’agriculture (Bruneteau 2020), ainsi que l’influence des populations chinoises hans sur les non-hans de la région du Tibet (Gan Rui-Jing et al. 2007; Zhao Yong-Bing et al. (2015); Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020).

La même scission agriculture-langue est survenue au sein du transeurasien (vers -15 000 à -6000) en proto-coréen-japonais, proto-mongol, proto-turc, proto-tongouse à l’arrivée d’innovations technologiques et de la culture du millet (Li Tao et al. 2020; Robbeets et al. 2020; Cui Yinqiu et al. 2020; Ning et al. 2020) du Croissant Fertile.
Les locuteurs du transeurasien vivaient dans une vaste région du bassin de l’Amour, s’étendant aussi loin que l’Anatolie jusqu’à la scission du transeurasien vers -6000 (proto-coréen-japonais, proto-mongol, proto-turc, proto-tongouse), -3500 (proto-coréen-japonais) et d’avantage vers -1000 (proto-japonais). Cui Yinqiu et al. (2020) nous montre que les populations du bassin de l’Amour sont génétiquement liées et forment un continuum depuis le mésolithique, ce qui étaie le continuum paléolithique moyen-supérieur de l’Asie de l’Est, caractérisé par le boréen moyen-supérieur jusqu’à la scission néolithique du transeurasien.

Eurasian people (with a focus upon Indo-European speakers)

            🇬🇧 Groups of Homo sapiens migrated to Europe during Upper Palaeolithic (50 Kya to 10 Kya), gradually replacing the local hunter-gatherer-fishers such as the Neanderthal before its demise circa 40 Kya. The Neolithic Homo sapiens (circa 10 Kya to 2 Kya) shifted from hunting-gathering-fishing to farming circa 6000 BCE (Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020) as agriculture spread from the Fertile Crescent to Europe.

                More recently, the Yamnaya culture (circa 3500-3000 BCE) (Kristian Kristiansen et al. 2017; Linderholm et al. 2020), ancestral steppe Eurasiatic nomads related with the spread of Indo-European language, seem to be the continuation of a complex canvas of interwoven Upper Palaeolithic-Neolithic Eurasian populations (Haak Wolfgang et al. 2015) who lived in the Eurasian steppes. The Eurasian steppes themselves may have acted as a possible melting pot of cultural exchanges contributing to European and East Asian technology (Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020).

Yamnaya culture was formerly associated with the spread of a disease, Yersinia pestis, but local adaptation to and admixture with other cultures seem to explain the Yamnaya successful expansion throughout Europe (Kristian Kristiansen et al. 2017). When comparing the position of Indo-European and Transeurasian languages in the language chart above, we can observe that both stem from Eurasiatic; we could thus support the hypothesis whereby the Eurasiatic nomads of the Yamnaya were closely related to the East Asian Palaeolithic dwellers or their legitimate heirs. Indo-European could therefore appear as a minor part of Eurasiatic that prevailed upon other Neolithic European inhabitants and their language(s).

Les peuples eurasiens (focus sur les Indo-Européens)

🇫🇷 Des groupes d’Homo sapiens ont migré vers l’Europe durant le Paléolithique supérieur (vers -50 000 à -10 000) remplaçant graduellement les chasseurs-pêcheurs-cueilleurs tels que Néandertal avant leur trépas vers -40 000. L’Homo sapiens du Néolithique (vers -10 000 à -2000) a changé son occupation de chasseur-cueilleur-pêcheur pour celle d’agriculteur vers -6000 (Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020) tandis que l’agriculture se répandait du Croissant Fertile vers l’Europe.

Plus récemment, la culture de Yamnaya (vers -3500 à -3000) (Kristian Kristiansen et al. 2017; Linderholm et al. 2020), des nomades ancestraux des plaines eurasiatiques associés à la propagation des langues indo-européennes, semblent être la continuation d’une toile complexe de populations eurasiennes du Paléolithique moyen-supérieur et du Néolithique (Haak Wolfgang et al. 2015) qui demeuraient dans les plaines eurasiennes. Celles-ci auront en outre pu servir de creuset d’échanges culturels, contribuant ainsi à la technologie européenne et est-asiatique (Wang Chuan-Chao et al. 2020).

La culture de Yamnaya fut autrefois associée à la propagation d’une maladie, Yersinia pestis, mais l’adaptation locale par admixtion aux autres cultures semble expliquer la réussite de l’expansion de Yamnaya de par l’Europe (Kristian Kristiansen et al. 2017).
En comparant la position des langues indo-européennes et transeurasiennes dans le tableau de langues ci-dessus, on peut observer que les deux proviennent de l’eurasiatique ; ce qui nous permet d’étayer l’hypothèse selon laquelle les nomades eurasiatiques de Yamnaya étaient fortement associés aux habitants paléolithiques est-asiatiques ou leur descendants légitimes. L’indo-européen apparaît ainsi comme une branche mineure de l’eurasiatique qui s’est imposée sur les habitants européens néolithiques et leur(s) langue(s).

The “eg | ga” thinking: a placement of ego

            🇬🇧 Transeurasian and Indo-Europeans speakers seem to have diametrically opposed minds, which seem at the root of fundamental culture differences between East Asian and Indo-European people.
Transeurasian speakers’ way of thinking might convey information more effectively through a unique grammar where the most important part is heard at the end of a sentence, and where numerous words are thus inverted by metathesis. These two languages seem to stem from the Borean language(s) brought about by Homo sapiens, and a possible admixture of local language patterns of prior Upper Palaeolithic East Asian dwellers. This fundamental difference seemingly originates in the form of Borean(s) spoken by pre-Indo-European and pre-Transeurasian people due to the admixture of their deep genes with Homo sapiens and anterior Palaeolithic men.

            East Asians firstly seem to be the mixture of Northern and Southern Denisovan, and Neanderthal (R. Browning 2018; Hublin 2018), who mainly populated East Asia and whose mental structure and genes seemed different from that of Homo sapiens, hence probably the metathesis in words and general syntax, as attested by entries 14, 19, 22, 39, (especially) 79 and others that are not disclosed in this paper.

            We could thus surmise that East Asians are a mixture of Altaï Neanderthal, Southern and Northern Denisovan, who interbred with Homo sapiens when the species intermixed with the local population. However, due to the opposite usage of “eg | ga”, as attested in entry 79, Homo sapiens has either locally adapted or it has assimilated a part of local culture and mindset, causing the metathesis which is located at the very root of Transeurasian thinking. The same local adaptation could be seen with Yamnaya culture and anterior Neolithic populations resulting into the Corded Ware Culture and Proto-Germanic, which may have formed between 2800-2400 BCE (Kristian Kristiansen et al. 2017).

This fundamental use of “eg | ga” is still visible through East Asian and Indo-European culture: in the former, the speaker tends to relate more inwardly of themselves. In the latter, the speaker tends to relate more outwardly of themselves. This difference is visible in daily and professional life, and shall be discussed in another article, with further details.

La pensée « eg | ga » : un placement d’ego

🇫🇷 Les locuteurs du transeurasien et de l’indo-européen semblent avoir des esprits diamétralement opposés, ce qui semble être à l’origine des différences culturelles fondamentales entre les Asiatiques de l’Est et les Indo-Européens.
La manière de parler transeurasienne transmet sans doute l’information plus efficacement par une grammaire unique où l’information la plus importante s’entend à la fin de la phrase, et où bon nombre de mots sont inversés par métathèse. Ces deux langues semblent issues du boréen apporté par Homo sapiens, et une probable admixtion des patrons linguistiques des populations est-asiatiques antérieures du Paléolithique moyen-supérieur. Cette différence fondamentale semble provenir du boréen parlé par les pré-Indo-Européens et pré-Transeurasien, et due au mélange de leurs gènes ancestraux avec Homo sapiens et des hommes paléolithiques antérieurs.

Les Asiatiques de l’Est semblent tout d’abord être le mélange de Dénisoviens du Sud et Nord, et de Néandertal (R. Browning 2018; Hublin 2018), qui ont principalement peuplé l’Asie de l’Est et dont la structure mentale et les gènes différent de ceux d’Homo sapiens, d’où probablement les métathèses dans les mots et la syntaxe en général, comme attesté par les entrées 14, 19, 22, 39 (mais surtout) 79 et d’autres qui ne sont pas révélées dans ce document.

Nous pourrions ainsi supposer que les Asiatiques de l’Est sont issus d’un mélange de Néandertal de l’Altaï et Dénisovien du sud et du nord qui se sont accouplés avec Homo sapiens quand ce genre s’est mêlé à la population locale. Néanmoins, dû à l’utilisation opposée de « eg | ga », comme attesté à l’entrée 79, Homo sapiens s’est soit adapté localement, ou a assimilé une partie de la culture locale et de son état d’esprit, causant la métathèse qui se situe aux fondements de la pensée transeurasienne. La même adaptation locale se peut observer au sein de la culture de Yamnaya et de populations néolithiques antérieures ayant résulté en la culture de la céramique cordée et du proto-germanique, qui s’est sûrement formé entre -2800 et -2400 (Kristian Kristiansen et al. 2017).

Cet usage fondamental de « eg | ga » est toujours visible au sein de la culture est-asiatique et indo-européenne : dans la première le locuteur tend à parler de manière plus introvertie de lui-même. Dans la deuxième, le locuteur tend à se mettre plus en avant. Cette différence est toujours visible dans la vie quotidienne et professionnelle, et sera discutée dans un article ultérieur, agrémentée de détails.

Indo-European and East Asian Borean

🇬🇧 As mentioned above, non-African populations split from African populations circa 82 Kya and Eurasian populations split into European and Asian populations circa 50-35 Kya.
This ancestral split seems still observable in Borean roots and basal words: if one basal word has evolved in an Indo-European language and has now become common, but the same word from the same root is literary or specialised in an East Asian language and vice versa, this phenomenon must be related to the fundamental language split circa 50-35 kya.

Basal words locate at the very source of languages and can testimony of profound linguistics divergences; therefore, the intercrossed etymologies in the table below show that basal words allow us to fathom how words have diverged since their ancestral split.

This split shall be corroborated by more roots as I reconstruct them, but it is presently observable in the following entries:

entry 14 *“pǝw(g) » (to cook) where the Indo-European word is common when the Transeurasian word is literary or dated;

entry 15 *« s(k)ew(g)u » (sky) where the Chinese word is now literary but both Transeurasian and Indo-European words are common;

entry 26 *« p(w)ep ; p(w)ap» (lungs) where the Transeurasian word is now dated but the Indo-European and Chinese words are common;

entry 30 *« g(w)eor(p) ; k(w)eor(p) » (body) where the Chinese word is now literary but the Indo-European and Transeurasian words are common;

entry 53 *“men; nime” (mountain (top)) and *“pet(e); dap(a)”(cross a mountain (via a pass or a summit)) where the Transeurasian word is common and the Indo-European word rather uncommon and vice versa;

entry 58 *”panga”  and *“ple(r); pla(r)” (flower; bloom) where the Transeurasian word is common and the Indo-European word rather uncommon and vice versa;

and many other entries but especially the two following entries (undisclosed) showing dated words in one language and common words in another:

entry 130 *« nera » (sun; day) which yields the common Korean word nal 날 (day) but the very rare Indo-European word “nitescent”.

entry 161 *« diagu » (fish (dated)) which yields two common Transeurasian words for fish: uo (うお|魚 ) (fish) (the original word for “fish” as “sakana » is a combined word which has almost replaced the former) and the Korean suffix chi 치 which is a widely used suffix for fish, but the root yields “ichthyology” in Indo-European languages. Whereas *« (pe)sku » (fish) yields fish names in Transeurasian and the common word “fish; poisson” in French and English.

These roots and many others, that shall be analysed as soon as I reconstruct them, seem to be related to the ancestral language split that has decided the fate of basal words.

Basal words are the very axis of all languages of the world; therefore if basal words are fundamentally different, it must be related to an ancestral split that occurred during Palaeolithic migrations or that is related to the kind of Borean spoken by East Asian and Indo-European speakers.

Boréen indo-européen et est-asiatique

🇫🇷 Comme expliqué ci-dessus, les populations non-africaines se sont séparées des populations africaines vers -82 000 et les populations eurasiennes se sont séparées en populations européennes et asiatiques vers -50-35 000.

Cette scission ancestrale semble encore observable dans les racines boréennes et les mots basaux : si un vocable basal a évolué en indo-européen pour devenir commun, mais que le même vocable de la même racine est désormais littéraire ou spécialisé dans une langue est-asiatique et vice versa, ce phénomène doit être associé à la scission linguistique fondamentale qui s’est produite vers -50-35 000.

Les mots basaux se situent aux sources mêmes des langues et peuvent témoigner de divergences linguistiques profondes ; les étymologies croisées dans le tableau ci-dessous montrent par conséquent que les mots basaux nous permettent de sonder la profondeur de divergence des mots depuis leur scission ancestrale.

Cette scission sera corroborée par davantage de racines tandis que je les reconstruis, mais elle s’observe présentement dans les entrées suivantes :

entrée 14 *“pǝw(g) » (cuisiner) où le mot indo-européen est commun et le transeurasien littéraire ou désuet ;

entrée 15 *« s(k)ew(g)u » (ciel) où le mot chinois est maintenant littéraire mais les transeurasiens et indo-européens sont communs ;

entrée 26 *« p(w)ep ; p(w)ap» (poumons) où le mot transeurasien est maintenant désuet mais les mots indo-européens et chinois sont communs ;

entrée 30 *« g(w)eor(p) ; k(w)eor(p) » (corps) où le mot chinois est désormais littéraire mais les mots transeurasiens et indo-européens sont communs ;

entrée 53 *“men; nime” (montagne (sommet)) et *“pet(e); dap(a)” (franchir une montagne (via un col ou un sommet)) où le mot transeurasien est commun et le mot indo-européen assez peu commun et vice versa ;

entrée 58 *”panga” et *“ple(r); pla(r)”(flower; bloom) où le mot transeurasien est commun et le mot indo-européen assez peu commun et vice versa ;

ainsi que de nombreuses autres entrées, mais surtout les deux suivantes (non dévoilées) montrant des mots désuets dans une langue et communs dans l’autre :

entrée 130 *« nera » (soleil ; jour) qui donne le mot coréen commun nal 날 (jour) mais le mot indo-européen très rare « nitescent ».

entrée 161 *« diagu » (poisson (désuet)) qui donne deux mots transeurasiens communs pour le poisson : uo (うお | 魚) (poisson) (le mot originel pour « poisson » car« sakana » est un mot combiné remplaçant graduellement le premier) et le suffixe coréen chi 치 qui est largement utilisé pour les poissons, mais la racine engendre aussi le mot « ichtyologie » dans les langues indo-européennes.
Tandis que *« (pe)sku » (poisson) s’applique à des noms de poissons en transeurasien et donne le mot commun “fish; poisson” en français et anglais.

Ces racines et de nombreuses autres qui seront analysées dès reconstruction, semblent associées à la scission linguistique ancestrale qui a décidé du destin des mots basaux.

Les mots basaux constituant l’axe fondamental de toutes les langues du monde, s’ils diffèrent, cela doit être associé à une scission ancestrale qui s’est produite durant les migrations paléolithiques et qui est liée à la forme de boréen parlée par les locuteurs est-asiatiques ou indo-européens.

Observations and discussions

            🇬🇧 The spread of Homo sapiens around the globe (circa 200 Kya to 40 Kya) and the advent of agriculture during the Neolithic era (circa 12-10 000 BCE) seem to coincide with the gradual split of Borean during Middle-Upper Palaeolithic, and the spread of most languages of the Northern Hemisphere. It is presently arduous to discern the probable existence of fragments of Homo erectus, Neanderthal and Denisovan languages within the Borean language which may belong to deep historical vocabulary such as “fire”, “you”, “me”, “man”, and “woman”, but at least a tiny part of it must still survive. Great research and analyses of the Borean language may yield the key to finding them.

            The steady rise of Eurasian civilisations triggered by agriculture and sedentarisation during the Neolithic also seems to correspond with the expeditious language split that occurred in the same era. The ages that ensue saw the steady growth of human population, as different populations widely intermixed and words began diverging. As attested in the table below, we can still discern ancient phonological patterns in basal words of modern languages when we know how and where to find them. These patterns appear gradually more obvious as we delve deeper into paleolinguistics.
By the great coincidence of human languages, some words sharing the same root(s) have underwent a similar phonological evolution, whilst keeping their primeval Borean meaning, such as “bone” and “hone” (bone; os) in Japanese and English (cf. entry 37), which are now pronounced in their local pronunciation.

Observations et discussions

🇫🇷 La propagation d’Homo sapiens à travers la planète (vers -200 000 à -40 000) et l’arrivée de l’agriculture au Néolithique (vers -12-10 000) semble coïncider avec la scission graduelle du boréen durant le Paléolithique moyen-supérieur et la propagation de la plupart des langues de l’hémisphère nord. Il est présentement ardu de discerner la probable existence de fragments des langues d’Homo Erectus, Néandertal ou encore Dénisovien dans le boréen qui pourrait appartenir au vocabulaire ancestral tel que « feu », « toi », « moi », « homme », « femme », mais au moins une once doit encore survivre. De grandes recherches et analyses de la langue boréenne pourraient céder la clef pour les trouver.

La montée graduelle des civilisations eurasiennes provoquée par l’agriculture et la sédentarisation durant le Néolithique semble également correspondre avec la scission linguistique expéditive qui est survenue durant cette même ère. Les âges qui ont suivi ont vu une croissance graduelle de la population humaine, cependant que les différentes populations se sont grandement entremêlées et que les mots ont commencé à diverger.

Ainsi qu’attesté dans le tableau ci-dessous, nous pouvons toujours observer d’anciens patrons phonologiques dans les mots basaux des langues modernes lorsque l’on sait où et comment les trouver. Ces patrons apparaissent de plus en plus évidents à mesure que l’on sonde les profondeurs de la paléolinguistique.

Par la grande coïncidence des langues humaines, certains mots partageant la ou les mêmes racines ont subi une évolution phonologique similaire, tout en conservant leur sens premier du boréen, tels que “bone” et “hone” (bone; os) en japonais et anglais (cf. entrée 37), qui sont maintenant prononcés de manière locale.

References

1) A. Villanea Fernando and Joshua G. Schraiber, Multiple episodes of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans (2019)

2) de Boer et al., Japan considered from the hypothesis of farmer/language spread (2020)

3) B. Harrods James,  The 200,000-Year Evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens Language and Myth Families based on the mtDNA Phylotree, Fossil mtDNA and Archaeology: A Thought Experiment (2014)

4) Bordenave Vincent, Comme Néandertal, l’Homme de Denisova s’est accouplé avec Homo Sapiens (2018)

5) Bruneteau Nicolas, L’homme de Jômon et les mots des Aïnus (2020)

6) Bruneteau Nicolas, Chroniques mêlées des langues japonaise et coréenne (2020)

7) Callaway Ewen, Ancient human genomes shed new light on East Asia’s history (14 May 2020)
(https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01456-9)

8) Cepelewicz Jordana, Fossil DNA Reveals New Twists in Modern Human Origins (29 August 2019)
(https://www.quantamagazine.org/fossil-dna-reveals-new-twists-in-modern-human-origins-20190829/)

9) Cui Yinqiu et al., Bioarchaeological perspective on the expansion of Transeurasian languages in Neolithic Amur River basin (2020)

10) Demattè Paola, The Origins of Chinese Writing: the Neolithic Evidence (2009)

11) Demeter Fabrice et al., Anatomically modern human in Southeast Asia (Laos) by 46 ka (2012) 

12) Dolgova Olga and Oscar Lao, Evolutionary and Medical Consequences of Archaic Introgression into Modern Human Genomes (2018)

13) Dorey Fran, Homo neanderthalensis – The Neanderthals (2019)
(https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/homo-neanderthalensis/)

14) Gakuhari Takashi et al., Ancient Jomon genome sequence analysis sheds light on migration patterns of early East Asian populations (2020)

15) Gan Rui-Jing et al., Pinghua population as an exception of Han Chinese’s coherent genetic structure (2007)

16) Haak Wolfgang et al., Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions (2015)

17) Harvati Katherina, What Happened to the Neanderthals? (2012)
(https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happened-to-the-neanderthals-68245020/)

18) Hallast Pille et al., A Southeast Asian origin for present‑day non‑African human Y chromosomes (2020)

19) Henry Jean-Pierre, Génétique et origine d’Homo Sapiens (2019)

20) J. Bae Christopher et al., On the origin of modern humans: Asian perspectives (2017)

21) J. Mark Joshua, Writing (2011)
(https://www.ancient.eu/writing/)

22) Kanzawa-Kiriyama Hideaki et al., Late Jomon male and female genome sequences from the Funadomari site in Hokkaido, Japan (2019)

23) Kuhlwilm Martin et al., Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals (2016)

24) Kristian Kristiansen et al., Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe (2017)

25) L. Barnes Gina “Archaeology of East Asia: The Rise of Civilization in China, Korea and Japan”, Oxbow books, United Kingdom (2015)

26) Lipson Mark and David Reich, A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa (2017)

27) Linderholm Anna et al., Corded Ware cultural complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis from southeastern Poland (2020)

28) Li Tao et al., Millet agriculture dispersed from Northeast China to the Russian Far East: Integrating archaeology, genetics, and linguistics (2020)

29) McColl et al., The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia (2019)

30) Miki Ben-Dor et al., Man the Fat Hunter: The Demise of Homo erectus and the Emergence of a New Hominin Lineage in the Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant (2011)

31) Ning Chao et al. Ancient genomes from northern China suggest links between subsistence changes and human migration (2020)

32) Prüfer Kay, The complete genome sequence of a Neandertal from the Altai Mountains (2014)

33) R. Browning Sharon et al., Analysis of Human Sequence Data Reveals Two Pulses of Archaic Denisovan Admixture (2018)

34) Rizal Yan et al., Last appearance of Homo erectus at Ngandong, Java, 117,000-108,000 years ago (2020)

35) Sagart et al., Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan (2019)

36) Vaesen et al. Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinction (2019)

37) Wang Chuan-Chao et al., The Genomic Formation of Human Populations in East Asia (2020)

38) Wang Chuan-Chao et al., Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions (2020)

39) Wang Yuchen et al. Genetic structure, divergence and admixture of Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean populations (2018)

40) Watanabe Yusuke et al. Analysis of whole Y-chromosome sequences reveals the Japanese population history in the Jomon period (2019)

41) Zhao Yong-Bing et al., Ancient DNA Reveals That the Genetic Structure of the Northern Han Chinese Was Shaped Prior to 3,000 Years Ago (2015)

The following table is based upon the following documents and database (all perused and accessed between July 2020 and September 2020):

S. A. Starostin, A. V. Dybo, O. A. Mudrak, An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages (2003)

Robbeets Martine, Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? (2005)

Wiktionary (based upon Baxter-Sagart (2014) and Zhengzhang (2003) old Chinese reconstructions, Proto-Indo-European)

STED (Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus)
https://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl

Sergei Starostin database Starling
https://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=\data\sintib\stibet&root=config&morpho=0

The American Heritage of English language
https://ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html#gher%C9%99-

Ainu language dictionary
http://tommy1949.world.coocan.jp/aynudictionary.htm

Basic phonology | Phonologie de base

Proto-Borean	Proto-transeurasian	Proto-Sino-Tibetan	Proto-Indo-European
b (or (light) « p »)	b (/p)	b (/p /l)	b (/p)
c
ch	ds	ch	s
d	d (/n)	t (/ l / d)	d
f
g	g (/ k)  (initial ‘’g/ k’’ loss)	k or q	g
h (light)	b	q (/g)	h
h (voiced)	p	p	h
j
k	k (/ g) (frequent loss of initial  k/ g)	k (/g)	k
l (/r)	l (/n)	l	l
l/n	t	l	m
m	m (/b)	m (/nj)	m
n	n	m (/nj)	n
nj	j	j	nj
p	p (initial «  p » drop) (/b or light « p »)	p	p
q
r (/l)	l	l	r
s	s (/z)	s (/ts/ch/kr)	s (/t)
t	t(s) (/k)	t(s) or (d(s))	t (/d)
ts	j	t	t
v
w	b / p k d /t	t / d / b w d/t	w w w
x
z
a	eo	a	a
e [ei]	è	e(y)	ei
e [ə]	ia	a	ə
i
o
u (open) [ou]	u	u	u
y	j	j	y

My analysis being heuristic, the following words are subject to change.

Mon analyse étant heuristique, les mots suivants sont sujets à modifications.

Word (etymon)	Proto-Borean (alias Proto-sapiens) (circa 60 000 | 30 000 to 10 000 BCE) (1)	Proto-Indo-European (circa 10 000 to 3500 BCE) (2)	Proto-Transeurasian (circa 15 000 to 6000 BCE) (2)	Proto-Sino-Tibetan (circa 10 000 to 6000 BCE) (2)	Ancient (circa 2200 BCE to 300 AD) and medieval (circa 600 to 1300 AD) Chinese (3)	Mandarin Chinese (from 1918 AD) (4)	Proto-Korean-Japanese (3500 BCE) (3)	Japanese (1900 AD) (4)	Korean (1900 AD) (4)
1) to seek (chercher)	*« seg(a); sig(a) »	*seh2g-   (to seek) and *(s)ker- (to turn around: chercher)	*« siga » (to look, to search)	*sɨāk (索) (to search)	*[s]ˤak/ /sɑk̚/ (索) (archaism) or /*ʔsruːʔ/  /t͡ʃˠauX/ (找)  (more recent)	索 [suǒ] or 找 [zhǎo]	* « tság‹áts-»	sagasu (さがす | 探す) (to look for; to find)	chatta (찾다) (to search)
2) to scoop water (écoper)	*« sku(a)p » (Perhaps from the noise one makes when scooping water)	*(s)kep-   (to cut: écoper, scoop)	*« suku » (to scoop; bucket)	*guap (汲) (to scoop water)	/*krɯb/ */kˠiɪp̚/ (汲)	汲 [jí]	*« suk »	sukuu (すくう | 掬う) (to scoop)	sokuri (소쿠리) (scoop; ladle)
3) to seat ((s‘)asseoir)	*« sieob; sieod »	*sed-   (to seat, (s’as)seoir)	*« siabu » (to seat)	*ĆōjH or *dzojs (坐) (to seat) yielding 座 (seat)	/*zoːls/ or  /*[dz]ˤo[j]ʔ/, /*m[dz]ˤo[j]ʔ/, /*[dz]ˤo[j]ʔ-s/  /d͡zuɑX/ or /d͡zuɑH/ (坐(|座))	坐 [zuò] (nowadays:座)	*« suab »	suwaru (すわる | 座る) (to seat)	jari (자리) (seat) but formerly (s(t)at) (seat) or saori 사오리 (seat, bench) (archaism)
4) to follow, to seek (suivre)	*« sieog; sieok »	*sekʷ- (to follow: suivre)	*« sioci » (to flee; to pursue)	*(s)jŏj (隨) (to follow (formal))	/*sə.loj/ /ziuᴇ/ (隨)	隨 [suí]	*”tseot (co)”	shitagau (したがう | 従う) (to obey; to follow)	jotta (좇다) (follow)
5) to come, to go (venir; aller)	*« graem; kraem »	*gʷem- (to come, venir) and *h₁ey- (aller) and *ǵʰeh₁- (to go) (cf. entry 78)	*« gele » (to come) and (different etymon)	*krɨā(H) (~g-; -ŋ) (行) (to go) cognate with 去 (to go) and *la-j ~ ra (來) (to come) cognate with 迨 ( “to reach; until”), 賚 ( “to bestow”) and 蒞 (OC *rɯbs, “to arrive”).	/*ɡraːŋ/ or /*Cə.[ɡ]ˤraŋ/  /ɦˠæŋ/ (行) and /*m·rɯːɡ/ /*mə.rˤək/, /*mə.rˤək/ /lʌi/ (來)	行 ([xíng]) [háng] 來[lái]	*« kea »	kuru (くる | 来る) (to come) and iku (いく | 行く) (to go) (different etymon)	kada 가다 (to go) and oda 오다 (different etymon)
6) to catch, to grab (capter)	*« kw(r)ap; kw(r)ag » (to catch, to grasp) and *“greub (?)” (to grab, to catch) and *“deug; teuk” (to lift, to take)	*kap- (to catch) and *gʰrebʰ- (to grab) and  *deh₁g- (to touch, to take)	*“upi” (to grasp, to snatch) (initial drop in Transeurasian) and *« tuku » (to grab, to catch) and *“tiro” (to take)	*kʷ(r)ăk (~gʷ) (攫) or (獲) (to catch; to seize) and *rV̆m or *greum (禽|擒) and  *dhjē(k) (提) (to lift, to take)	/*kʷaɡ/ or /*C.qʷ(r)ak/  /kʉɐk̚/ (攫) and /*ɡrɯm/ /*C.ɢ(r)[ə]m/ /ɡˠiɪm/ (禽|擒) and  /*dje/  /*[d]ˤe/  /dei/ (提)	攫 [jué] (to catch) (formal) 獲 [huò] (to catch) and 禽|擒 [qín] (to catch birds) and 提 [tí] (to carry, to lift)	*“tak; teok” and *“teor” and *“upa”	tsukamu (つかむ | 掴む) (to catch) and toru (とる | 取る) (to take) and ubau (うばう | 奪う) (to steal, to snatch)	datta 닿다 (to touch) and deulda 들다 (to take) and ubida 우비다 오비다 (to snatch (by luring))
7) mosquito; fly (mouche, moustique)	*« mut; mat » (May originate from the buzzing sound of the mosquito or the fly.)	*mūs- or*mus- (mosquito; fly)	*« mab(ci) » (worm, insect) (« ci » seems to be a suffix for animals)	*mVn (蚊 (螡 | 蟁)) (mosquito) related to 蠓 (mosquito) cognate with 蛑 |蟊 (a kind of fly)	/*C.mə[r]/ or /*mɯn/  /mɨun/ (蚊) (« s » is nasalized into “n”)	蚊 [wén] (mosquito)	*“mu(s)”	mushi (むし | 虫) (insect) (shi = animal suffix)	mogi (모기) (mosquito) (assimilation « s » into « g » +i (이) suffix for animals)
8) crab (crabe)	*« g(r)ebn(e); k(r)ebn(e)»	*grobʰ- (to catch: crab(e))	*« kejna » (crab)	*q(r)ē(j)H or   *d-k(j)aːj (蟹) (crab)	/*ɡreːʔ/ or /*m-kˤreʔ/ /ɦˠɛX/ (蟹)	蟹 [xiè]	*“keni; kani”	kani (カニ | 蟹) (crab)	kae (게) (crab)
9) sparrow (passereau)	*”seor(k)”	*spḗr (sparrow)	*“sercu” (sparrow)	*ćĕkʷ (雀) (sparrow)	/*ʔsewɢ/ or /*[ts]ewk/ /t͡sɨɐk̚/ (雀)	雀 [què]	*« susunmai » *« cheomsae »	suzume (すずめ | 雀) (sparrow)	sae (새) (bird (common)) chamsae 참새 (sparrow) = 雀 (sparrow) + 새 (bird)
10) crow, raven (corbeau ; corneille)	*”g(a)ra; k(a)ra” (May originate from the crow or raven croaking: the one that croaks.) Proto-Semitic: *ḡurayb- (crow, raven), hence غُرَاب (gurab)	*gerə- (to croak: crow) or  *ḱorh₂(wós) (corbeau, raven)	*“kiaro” (crow; raven)	*ɣā or  *ka-n (烏 | 鴉 | 鵶) (crow) yielding 鴰 (crow)	/*qaː/ /*[ʔ]ˤa/, /*qˤa/, /*ʔˤa/ /ʔuo/ (烏) and /*qraː/ or /*qˤra/ /ʔˠa/ [鴉]	鴉 [yā] 烏 [wū] (both “crow”)	* « ker; kar »	kara(su) (カラス) (crow) (su = animal suffix)	(kamagwi) 까마귀 (crow)
11) key; hook (clef; crochet)	* “k(r)ag; k(r)og” (May originate from the sound of a locking door or clinking metal) French: cric crac English: click Japanese: がちゃん (gatchan). Many words resembling hooks or keys have “k” beginning.)	*kog- or *keg- or *keng- (hook; key; crochet)	*“guka” (to curve; hook)	*khjŏk (句 | 鉤) (to be crooked; hook)	/*[kˤ](r)o/ or /*koː/ /kəu/ (鉤)	鉤 [gōu]	* « kog ; kag »	kagi (カギ | 鍵) (key)	(kal)gorangi (갈)고랑이 (hook) which might have yielded kuburida or kubda 구부리다 or 굽다 (to be crooked as a hook))
12) seagull (mouette)	*“gwarmo” (May originate from the seagull cry: the one that cries.) (The Transeurasian word seems a combination of the two PIE roots or the two PIE roots separated from the Borean etymon)	*gʷel- (throat: gull, goéland) and *mew (mew: mouette)	*“karmo” (seagull)	*“qo” word lost or absent in Sino-Tibetan 鷗 (seagull) (maybe related to entry 176) 鷖 (seagull; widgeon) being also onomatopoeic	/*qoː/  /ʔəu/ (鷗) (seagull)	鷗 [ōu]	*« kalmeo »	kamome (カモメ | 鷗)(seagull) from kamo (カモ | 鴨) (duck) かも (duck (aquatic bird) + め (bird living in flocks suffix) (cf. entry 176)	galmegi 갈매기 (seagull) 갈매 (aquatic bird) + 이 or 기 (animal suffix)
13) high; great (haut, élevé)	*“kreowk(e)” (Proto-semitic: kbr, hence كَبِير‎ (kabir (big; great))	*kewk- (arch; vault: high) and  *gʰer- (to rub, grind: great, grand (but unrefined))	*« koke » (big)	*k(r)ā̆w or *m/s-gaw (head) whence (高 | 蕎) (high; great)	/*kaːw/ or /*Cə.[k]ˤaw/ /kɑu/ (高)	高 [gāo]	*« keo(k) »	ookii (おおきい|大きい) (big) perhaps from ooi (おおい|多い) (plenty)	(keuda) 크다 (big)
14) to cook, to bake (cuire)	*« bege” (to roast, to bake) and *“pǝw(g) » (to cook)	*bʰeh₃g- (to roast: to bake) and  *pekʷ- (to cook: cuire)	*“giube” (to roast, to smoke) (Metathesis in Transeurasian) and *“pial(ag)” (house (related space or vessel))	*[ph]ǝw (炮) (to fry; to sauté) related to 焙 (/*[b]ˤə-s/) (to cook, to bake) and 昲 (to bake, to heat)	/*pʰruːs/ (炮)	炮 [páo]	*“keor” / “*kup” and *« pey »	kaoru (かおる | 香る) (to smell (of smoke ?) and he (瓮 | へ) (archaism: jar-vessel for food) or (へ | 竈) (hearth (to cook food))	kubda 굽다 (to bake) and param 바람 (wall (of a house))
15) sky (ciel)	*« s(k)ew(g)u » (sky) and *“kel; kal” (to hide (something hiding the sky)) (The bronze script of 宵 (sky) clearly indicates that the moonlight diminishes to leave the (hidden) night sky behind) Proto-Semitic:  *šamāy- hence سَمَاء (samah (sky))	*keh₂i(-lom) (whole: ciel) and *(s)keu- (to hide; to mask: sky)	*“sieogu” (sun; sky) and *“gela” (to screen) (Also cf. entry 282)	*s(k)ew (霄 | 宵) (sky (literary)) and *m-ka-n(heaven; sun; sky) (乾) cognate with 穹 (sky; vault) and (this word is optional as it seems more recent) *s-riŋ or s-r(j)aŋ (to live; fresh)applied to蒼 (sky) cognate with 青 (blue-green), 生 (to live) and 晴(clear sky)	/*sew/  /*[s]ew/  /siᴇu/ (霄 | 宵) and /*ɡran/ /*[ɡ](r)ar/ /ɡˠiᴇn/ (乾) and *sʰaːŋ/, or /*sʰaːŋʔ/ or /*[tsʰ]ˤaŋ/  /t͡sʰɑŋ/, /t͡sʰɑŋX/ (蒼)	霄 | 宵[xiāo] 乾 [qián] 蒼 [cāng]	*« sanor(a) » and *“geulim; kaseum”	sora (そら |空) (sky) and kasumu (かすむ | 霞む) (to be misty)	haneul (하늘) (sky) and geurimja 그림자 (shadow)
16) to cut (couper)	*« keod » (Many cutting-related imitate a cutting abrupt sound.) Proto-Semitic: *ḳud- (to cut) hence قطع (to cut)	*(s)ker- or *kes (to cut)	*”kiro” (to cut) or *« puge » (to tear off, sever) or *“gioro” (to cut, to shear)	*ch[ē]t (切) (to cut) (palatalisation of « k » into « ts/ch ») and  *brat (to cut apart) (別)	/*[tsʰ]ˤi[t]/ or /*sn̥ʰiːd/  /t͡sʰet̚/ (切) and /*bred/, /*pred/ /*N-pret/, /*pret/ /bˠiᴇt̚/, /pˠiᴇt̚/ (別)	切 [qiè] 別 [bié]	*« kieor » and *« peog » and *“keor”	kiru (きる | 切る) (to cut) and hagu (はぐ | 剥ぐ) (to tear off) and karu (かる | 刈る) (to shear; to mow)	kalda (갈다) (to hone) and beda 베다 (to chop wood) and (?)
17) to call (seems absent in French)	*« ge(r)a; ke(r)u » (May originate from the sound one makes when calling someone.)	*gal(o)s-, *glōs-, *golH-so- (“voice, cry”)	*“kero” (to shout; to speak)	*g(r)a (to call) (乎 | 呼 | 虖) cognate with 謂 (to call; to say)	/*ɢaː/ /*ɢˤa/ /ɦuo/ (呼)	呼 [hū]	*« ka(ta)r »	kataru (かたる | 語る) (to speak; to narrate)	karoda 가로다 (to speak (archaism))
18) to deceive, to lure (tromper ; duper)	*“d(r)ala; d(r)aga”	*dʰrewgʰ (to deceive; to mislead)	*“tala” (to plunder; to seduce)	(r+n)gwar(+) (惑) (to cheat; to deceive) or  *lem (詒) (to deceive) (Initial drop in Sino-Tibetan for this word)	/*ɡʷɯːɡ/ or  /*[ɢ]ʷˤək/  /ɦwək̚/ (惑) (to delude) /*l’ɯːʔ/, /*lɯ/ or  /*lˤəʔ/  /jɨ/, /dʌiX/ (詒) (to deceive)	惑 [huò] 詒 [yí] (formal)	*« dala »	tarasu (たらす | 誑す) (to deceive)	dallaeda 달래다 (to coax)
19) to lead ((em)mener)	*« leit; leid » (to lead (along the road)) and *“meyr; mior” (to lead; to follow a road)	*leit-, *leith- (to go, to die: to lead) and *mey- (small animal: mener)	*“teol; tal” (Metathesis in Transeurasian) and *“miori” (road, track; to follow)	*lu (道) (road) which yielded 導 (to lead) and  *lǝ̆m (冘) (road) (metathesis in Sino-Tibetan)	/*duːs/ or /*lˤuʔ-s/ /dɑuH/ (導) and /*lum/  /jiɪm/ (冘)	導 [dǎo] (to lead) 冘 [yín] (road (archaism))	*« teol(i) » and *« miti; meol »	tsureru (つれる | 連れる) (to bring to) and michi (みち | 道) (road)	terida (데리다) (to bring to) and molda 몰다 (to follow)
20) (to)broom; besom (balai ; balayer)	*« pub; pus » (to broom) (Perhaps from the noise made by rubbing the floor when brooming.) and *“bak(a)” (to sweep, to rub (with a besom) and *“s(w)eu(r)b” (to rub, to sweep)	*bʰenH-tlo- (clear the way: balai) and  *bʰés-mō ~ *bʰs-m̥nés (to rub: besom) and  *ksweybʰ- (to move swiftly: to sweep)	*“pub(aga) and *« baka » (to sweep) and *“siure” (to rub off)	*p[ua/ue]k (to clean, to sweep) (帚) and *“sau(r)” (?) 掃 (to rub, to sweep)	/*pjuʔ/ or /*[t.p]əʔ/  /t͡ɕɨuX/ (帚) and /*suːʔ/ or /*suːs/ /sɑuX/, /sɑuH/ (掃)	帚 [zhǒu] (broom (archaism)) 掃 [sǎo] (to broom, to sweep)	*« papaki; pui » and *“bak” (lost in Korean) and *“sur”	hôki (ほうき | 箒) (broom) and haku (はく | 掃く) (to broom) and suru (する | 擦る、擂る) (to rub, to grind)	bi (비) (broom) and (?) and sseulda 쓸다 (to rub, to broom)
21) strong (fort)	*“(s)tre(n)g”	*(s)trenk- (taut, stiff: strength, strong)	*“tuji” (thick) (This root seems related but rather uncertain)	*krăŋ (強) (strong; robust) related to 勍 (strong) and 壯 (strong man) (Possible palatalization of “t” into “k”)	/*ɡaŋ/  /*N-kaŋ/  /ɡɨɐŋ/ (強)	強 [qiáng]	« tuje; ten »	tsuyoi (つよい | 強い) (strong)	(perhaps) tantan hada (탄탄하다) (strong; robust)
22) to sleep; slumber (dormir ; sommeil)	*« ch(w)ep; ch(w)ip » (to sleep) (May originate from the sound one makes when sleeping) and *“djeum” (to sleep, to lie in bed) Proto-semitic:  *nwm / *neoum hence نَامَ (nama (to sleep)) *wsn hence وسن (wasana (to slumber))	*slēb- or  *swep- (to sleep, sommeil) and  *dre(m)- (to sleep, drowse: dormir)	“ne(p)” (to sleep, to lie in bed) and *“djelo” (weak; quiet)	*r/s-mwəj (to sleep, to dream) (寐) (metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) and  *chĭmH (to sleep) (寢)	/*mids/  /*mi[t]-s/  /miɪH/ (寐) and  /*sʰimʔ/ or /*[tsʰ]imʔ/ /t͡sʰiɪmX/ (寢)	寐 [mèi] 寢 [qǐn]	*« neu(p) » and * « daswi »	neru (ねる | 寝る) (to sleep)   and yasui (やすい | 安い) (peaceful sleep))	nupda (눕다) (to lie in bed)  and swida 쉬다 (to rest)
23) gold (or)	(*« geom(o) ») (This word might have referred to a precious metal before referring to gold as metallurgy spread during Neolithic, or else some precious stone cherished during Palaeolthic era.)	*ǵʰl̥tóm‎ (« gold ») possibly from  *ǵʰelh₃-‎ (yellow; gleam; to shine)	* “keno” (metal of a blade) and *“kona” (bell) (Both etymons seem closely related to entry 134)	*gǝ̆m (金) (metal; gold)	/*k(r)[ə]m/ or /*krɯm/ /kˠiɪm/ (金)	金 [jīn]	both from *”kanai”	kane (かね | 金) (metal; gold) and  (鐘 | かね) (bell) ultimately from ki (き | 黄) (yellow)	gawi 가위 (scissors) and (perhaps) guri (구리) (copper)
24) carve; engrave (graver)	*« gerb; kerb » (May originates from the sound of wood carving or from a scratching sound.)	*gerbʰ-‎ (to scratch: to carve)	*“kir; keor” (to cut; to carve)	*khē̆-t (契) (to separate; to divide)	/*[kʰ]ˤet-s/, /*kʰˤet/ or /*kʰeːds/ /kʰeiH/ (契) or /*[kʰ]ˤək/ /*kʰɯːɡ/  /kʰək̚/ (刻)	契 [qì] 刻 [kè]	*« kir ; keor » see (kiru | 切る) (entry 16)	kizamu (きざむ | 刻む) (engrave) from kiru (切る | きる) (to cut) (Cf. entry 16)	saekida (새기다) (to carve) 새 seems to be a suffix
25) to fight; to struggle (se battre ; lutter)	*« dau(d); deou(t) » (May originate from a battlecry uttered before fighting, or fighters utterances)	*dāu-‎, *deu-‎ or*dhegwh- (to injure, destroy, burn)	*“tat(aka)” (to hit, to fight)	*daw  (鬥 | 鬭) (to fight; to defy)	/*toːɡs/ or /*tˤok-s/ /təuH/ (鬥) (to fight)	鬥 [dòu]	*« tatak ; datak »	tatakau (たたかう | 戦う) (to fight)	(daduda) 다투다 (to fight)
26) lungs (poumon)	*« p(w)ep; p(w)ap » (Perhaps related to the noise of filling or emptying lungs.)	*pléwmō (floaters: poumon) from *pléw or *pleu (to blow)	*“opik(a)” (lungs)	*ph(r)ap or  *p-wap (肺) (lungs)	/*pʰo[t]-s/ or /*pʰobs/ /pʰʉɐiH/ (肺) (lungs)	肺 [fèi]	*« puk(oa) »	fukufukushi (ふくふくし) (archaism) hai (はい | 肺) is more used nowadays, but Chinese borrowing	Bua (부아) pe (폐 | 肺) is more used but Chinese borrowing
27) vast body of water (often sea) (Also see entries 112, 228, 230)	*« m(w)er; m(w)ur » (Proto-Semitic: *māy- hence ماء (maha (water)) (The Borean word has influenced Afro-Asiatic and the Egyptians and Pheonicians when inventing the alphabet, hence the letter “m” depicted as “waves”)	*mer- (sea: mer, marine)	*“miuri” (water)	海 (sea) is either from muːŋ ~ r/s-muːk (black; dark: sea) cognate with (冥，蒙，曚, 昏|昬，晦) or from *m(r)ǝ̆w (mist; fog) (cognate)	/*m̥ˤəʔ/ or /*hmlɯːʔ/ /hʌiX/ (海) (sea) (Sea is compared to an ocean of clouds such as high mountain fogs and mists. Corroborated by the sinograms 海霧 (sea of fog))	海 [hǎi]	*« meolu »	mizu (みず | 水) (water)	mul (물)  (water)
28) to die (mourir)	*« meol; mal » (to die) and *“da(w)t ; da(w)n” (to mourn, to die) and *“sewj” (to be grieved, saddened) (Could we surmise that corpses had their ashes spread or bodies inhumed into sea water? Also implied by 歿| 沒 (to sink; to die))	*mer- (to die: mourir) and *dʰew- (to die) and *sewg- (grieved, troubled: sick)	*“niabi” (decease, funeral) and *“tane” (mourn, condolence) and *“uju” (sad, ashamed (often related to mourning)) (possible initial loss in Transeurasian)	*mǝ̄ŋ (to die) (薨) or  *ma (亡) (negation + to die) cognate with 喪 and *”dat ; daw” (逝) (to decease, to pass away) and *səj (死) (to die)	/*hmɯːŋ/ or  /*m̥ˤəŋ/ /hwəŋ/ (薨) and /*[d]at-s/ /d͡ʑiᴇiH/ (逝) and /*sijʔ/ /sˠiɪX/ (死)	薨 [hōng] (archaism) 死 [sǐ] 逝 [shì]	*“mweo” and “tomurap” and *“(s)u(j)”	mo (も | 喪) (mourning) which gave mogari (もがり | 殯) (funerals) and tomurau (とむらう | 弔う) (to mourn) and u(re)i (う(れ)い | 憂い) (melancholy, sadness)	mukda (?) (묵다) (to become old) or mudda (?) 묻다 (to bury) and (?) and perhaps shireum 시름 (worries; distress)
29) salt (sel)	*« (t)sel(t); (t)sal(t) »	*séh₂ls or *sal- (salt, sel)	*“sibi” (bitter; salty)	*tsa (鹺) (salt) probably from 鹵 (salt) *la or *hjam or *g-rjum 鹹 (salt(y))	/*zlaːl/ or  /*N-[ts]ˤaj/  /d͡zɑ/ (鹺) (archaism) and /*ɡrɯːm/ /*Cə.[ɡ]ˤr[o]m/ /ɦˠɛm/ (鹹)	鹺 [cuó] (salt (archaism)) 鹹 [xián]	*« sieo(k) » However the Korean word seems the fusion of the two Chinese words for salt*tsa  and *g-rjum or a borrowing from archaic Chinese 鹹	shio (しお | 塩) (salt)	sogum (소금) (salt)
30) body; rib (corps ; côte)	*« g(w)eor(p); k(w)eor(p) »	*kwrep- (body; shape: corps)	*“kera” (belly; body)	*khǝ̆w (軀) (body)	/*kʰo/ /kʰɨo/ (軀) (body)	軀 [qū] (body (formal)	*« kal; gal »	karada (からだ | 身体) from kara (から) (skin, enveloppe) and da た|だ (limb)	galbi 갈비 or gari (가리) (rib)
31) finger, toe (doigt)	*« deyt; tsip » (Fingers are often related to showing or indicative words)	*deyǵ- or *deyḱ- (to show: doigt, toe) and *pénkʷrós, *penkʷ-ros (the five ones, hence finger)	*“tiupo” (nail) and *“jipo” (to pinch with fingers)	*“tsit; mkit” (指) (finger; to show)	/*kjiʔ/ or /*mə.kijʔ/  /t͡ɕˠiɪX/ (指) (finger; to show) /*təʔ/ or /*kjɯʔ/ /t͡ɕɨX/ (趾) (toe)	指 or 趾 [zhǐ] (finger; toe)	*« t(s)um(p)e » and *« jubi »	tsume (つめ | 爪) (nail) and yubi (ゆび | 指) (finger)	teop (톱) (nail) (nail) and jibta (집다) (to pinch)
32) to thrust (donner un coup ; frapper)	*« treud; treuk » (May originates from the sound one makes when hitting something: toc, tap. This entry seems also related to hitting something to pierce it.) (Closely related to entry 84)	*trewd- or *treud- (to thrust)	*”tolu” (to pierce)	*dat; dut (突) (to pierce)	/*m-tʰˤut/, /*tʰˤut/ or /*tʰuːd/, /*duːd/  /duət̚/, /tʰuət̚/ (突)	突 [tū]	*“teor”	tsuranuku (つらぬく | 貫く) (to pierce, to penetrate)	ddulda 뚫다 (to pierce, to bore (hole))
33) boat, naval (bateau, nef, toue)	*« beod; preon » (general appellation) and *“ neow” (a kind of light boat) and *« dew(l)ki » (a big boat) (دَاو‎dhow seems to be related to an ancient word for boat with 舟)	*bheid- or  *bʰeyd- (to break; to separate (woodwork for a boat): boat, bateau) and  *néh₂us (nef, naval) and  *dewk- (to haul, to tow : touer, toue, to tow)	*“peojna” (boat, general appellation) and *“niame” (light boat) and *“telki” (small boat, raft)but also *“temu” (big boat)	*m-lawŋ (boat) (船) 舟 seems to be borrowed from Austoasiatic, Proto-Mon-Khmer *ɗuuk ~ *ɗuk 舫 (big boat) and 航 (navigate) seem to be related to a kind of bit boat	/*ɦljon/  /*Cə.lo[n]/  /ʑiuᴇn/ (船)	船 [chuán]	*« ponye » and *“niemul” (?) and *“di(r)k(anta); teor”	fune (ふね | 船) (boat) and “n” (lost in Japanese) and ikada (いかだ | 筏) (raft) or t(s)umu (舩) (big boat)	bae (배) (boat) and imul (이물) (prow) and ddae 떼 (raft, boat)
34) defecate (to shit; chier)	* « sked(a) » (May originate from a defecating sound.)	*skeid‑. or*skei- (to cut; to separate: (to) shit)	*“sera” (to defecate; buttocks)	泄 and 潟 are either from *r/s-kya(k/ŋ) (shit, excrement) or *(t)swa-y ⪤ *t(s)wa-y (excrement)	/*s-lat/ or /*sled/  /siᴇt̚/ (泄) or /*s-qʰAk/ or /*sjaːɡ/ /siaX/, /siaH/ (潟) (to defecate)	泄 or 潟[xiè]	*« seor »	shiri (しり | 尻) (buttocks)	ssada (싸다) (to urinate; to defecate)
35) soup; to drink a liquid (soupe ; boire un liquide)	*« s(r)eo(p) ; s(r)eu(p) » (May originate from the noise someone makes when drinking a liquid, as many words implying liquid (drinking) begin with “s” or “x”)	*srebʰ- (to sip, to slurp)	*“siopu” (to suck)	*[k]rĭp (juice ; water) possibly stemming from 吸 (to inhale) or  *χrup (to sip) related to 嚌 (to sip) and 歃 (to drink) (« s »  palatalisation or own sound vision)	/*kjub/ or /*[t.k][ə]p/  /t͡ɕiɪp̚/ (汁) (liquid; soup)	汁 [zhī]	*« su(p); spa(l) »	suu (すう | 吸う) (to inhale)	bbalda (빨다) (to suck) but formerly (spboelda)
36) to float (flotter)	*« p(l)ew(k) » (May originate from the sound something makes when immersed into water: plouf, splash)	*plew- (to fly; to float; to run)	*“uku” (wet; wash) (Initial drop in Transeurasian)	*pyaw (浮) (to float) which yielded *phĕw(H) (漂)  (to derive, to float) or *phjǝ̆m (泛|汎) (to float) Cognate with 蜉(dragonfly) and 桴 (raft) and 泭(raft)	/*bu/  /*m.b(r)u/ /bɨu/ (浮) which yielded /*pʰew/ /pʰiᴇu/ (漂) or /*pʰoms/ /*pʰ(r)[o]m-s/ /pʰɨɐmH/ (泛 | 汎)	浮 [fú] 漂 [piāo] 泛 | 汎 [fàn]	*« (h)uk(u) » (lost in Korean)	uku (うく | 浮く) (to float) which gave ukabu (うかぶ | 浮かぶ) (to float (to the surface))	heojeom (헤염(치다)) (to swim) (Also see entry 289 for ddeuda (뜨다) (to float) but formerly (bteuda)
37) bone (os)	*“beyn; peyn” (bone (general term)) and *« k(r)ost » (hips bone)	*bʰeyh₂- (to hit: bone) and *kost- or *h2ost‑, (bone: os)	*“pejne” (bone) and *« kele » (belt; waist)	*kūt ou *s/m/g-rus (骨) (bone) Cognate with 骼 (squeletton), 呂|膂 (spine), 骸 (corpse), 馗 (zygomatic) and 軱 (big bone) probably related to  *gyu-k or *gewk (腰) (hips)	/*kuːd/ or /*kˤut/  /kuət̚/ (骨) which perhaps yielded  /*qew/  /*ʔew/  /ʔiᴇu/ (腰)	骨 [gǔ] 要 [yāo]	*« pyeo(nye) » « nye » is a suffix and *« kesi »	hone (ほね | 骨) (bone) and koshi (こし | 腰) (waist)	ppyeo (뼈) (bone) and heori (허리) (waist)
38) to happen; to fit (convenir ; arriver)	*“kup; keop”	*kob- (to fit: to happen)	“eba” (to join; to meet) (« k » initial drop in Transeurasian)	*kV̄p (合) (to fit)	/*kuːb/ or /*kˤop/ /ɦʌp̚/ (合)	合 [hé]	*“apu”	au (会う | あう) (to meet) or (合う | あう) (to fit)	aouruda (to rejoin; to reunite) 아우르다
39) to give (donner)	*“gep ; gap” (to give; to receive (as a gift) and *“dam ; da(h)” (to give; to present) (May originate from the interjection someone makes when presenting something: gei ni, tiens, here you are, dôzo, ne)	*ghabh- or *ghebh- (to give; to receive) and  *deh₃- (to give)	*“ega” (to rise; to lift) (Metathesis in Transeurasian) and *“tama” (to give; to present)	*qǝ̆p (to give; to provide) (給) and  *g-la (to give; to pay) 予 cognate with 賙 (to bestow alms) and 施 (to grant)	/*krub/ or /*[k](r)[ə]p/  /kˠiɪp̚/ (給) and /*laʔ/  /*laʔ/  /jɨʌX/ (予)	給 [jǐ] or [gěi] 予 [yǔ]	*“aek ; eok” and *“tamap” (perhaps lost in Korean)	ageru あげる (to give) and tamau (たまう | 給う) (to grant, to confer)	ollida 올리다 (to ascend; to offer) and (?)
40) stump; tree; wood (souche ; arbre ; bois)	*”deo(r); teo(r)” (tree; stump) and *“ker(d) ; her(d)”(big tree) and *« beog; meok » (tree; wood) (Tree names and trees themselves are too mingled to be extremely accurate in comparison. Compare entries 242, 243, 244 with bird names)	*deru- *dreu-. (firm, solid: tree) and *bʰuH- (big: bois) and  *(s)tewg- (to push, to hit: souche, stump (to cut, hit a tree to get the stump?)) and  *h₃erdʰ- (high: arbre)	*« calu » (broad leaved plant (tree-creeping vine)) and *« keor » (tree; stump)	*t(r)ŏ (stump) (株) hence perhaps 樹(tree) *“tu; do” and  *siŋ ~ sik (bois) 薪 (faggot) and  *mōk (木) (tree; wood)	/*tro/ or /*to/ /ʈɨo/ (株) and  /*siŋ/  /*[s]i[n]/ /siɪn/ (薪) and /*moːɡ/  /*C.mˤok/  /muk̚/ (木)	株 [zhū] 木 [mù] 薪 [xīn]	*“turu(gi)” and *« keor »	tsuru (つる | 蔓) (vine) and ki (き | 木) (wood; tree)	chulgi (줄기) (stem) or deonggul 덩굴 (vine) and kuru 그루 (tree counter)
41) name (nom)	*“(hno)men” (Something more seems to be associated with the name of a person, as implied by the prefix. Perhaps a certain rank in archaic Palaeolithic-Neolithic society.)	*nō̆-men- or *h1no(h3)-mn̥ or *h₃nómn̥ (name; nom)	*“(liomo)na(n)” (name, spell, divination) (Also see entry 278) (Vowel reduction in Transeurasian (apophony))	*miǝ̆ŋ* or r-miŋ (name) (名)	/*C.meŋ/ or /*meŋ/  /miᴇŋ/ (名)	名 [míng]	*”na(n)”	na (名 | な) (someone; name) onna, otona, okina	nam (남) (someone (else’s name))
42) cold, freeze (froid, gel)	*”gil, gel ; glan(g) (Also see entry 105) and *“biud; preum” (Also see entry 302) and *“s(a)nog ; s(a)not” (Also see entry 116) (All words beginning with “g(l)” or “br, pr” are probably onomatopeic: glaglagla, brrr, of the noise someone makes when it’s cold)	*gel- (cold, cool, chill) and  *prews- (to freeze: frost, froid (?)) and *sneygʷʰ- (to snow)	*“gilo” and *« biudo » (cold, winter) and *« sano » (cold; cool)	*gān (寒) (cold) whence  *răŋ / *răk (k-) or *m/s-glak ~ m-glaŋ  (凉) (to freeze; cold) whence 冷 (cool) (according to the ancestry of all sinograms, 寒 (cold) seems to be the oldest form and pronunciation) and  *r-p(w)am (to freeze; ice) (冰) and 雪 or 霜 /*[s]ot/  (see entry 116)	/*Cə.[ɡ]ˤa[n]/ or /*ɡaːn/  /ɦɑn/ (寒) or /*C.raŋ/ or /*ɡ·raŋ/, /*ɡ·raŋs/ /lɨɐŋ/, /lɨɐŋH/ (涼) and  /*pŋrɯŋ/  /*p.rəŋ/ /pɨŋ/ (冰)	涼 [liáng] or 寒 [hán] and 冰 [bīng]	* « kirze or kisereg » and *“puju” and *“samu; sanu”	kisaragi (きさらぎ | 如月) (February (lunar calender) (Maybe « the month of the second moon » ?) and fuyu (ふゆ | 冬) (winter) and samui (さむい | 寒い) (cold)	kyeoul (겨울) (winter) but formerly (kyeojul) and (?) and ssaneul (싸늘하다) (cool)
43) to burn, to strike (fire) (brûler, allumer un feu)	*”bʰerw“ (to burn) and “(s)tshek”(to light fire) (Probably originate from the sound (friction) of rubbed materials to produce fire)	*bʰrenw- (to burn: brûler) or *bʰerw-, *bʰrew- (to boil: to burn) and *streyg- (to rub: strike fire)	*“nuje” (warm; to burn) (metathesis in Transeurasian) and *“ceka” (to light fire)	*năn 燃 from 然 (to burn) (metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) and *[dh]ĕkʷ 灼 (to burn)	/*njen/ or /*C.na[n]/ /ȵiᴇn/ (燃) and *čiŏᵏ /t͡ɕɨɐk̚/ (灼)	燃 [rán] 灼 [zhuó]	*“muaja” (lost in Korean) and “ta(k)”	moeru (もえる | 燃える) (to burn) and taku (たく | 焚く)	(?) and tada 타다 (to burn)
44) star, bright (étoile, astre, briller)	*“hazwara; haswara” (star: shining body (still visible in the clearness of dawn?)) and (?) and *« guca; kuca » (Proto-Semitic *”naj” (?), whence نَجْم (najm) (star) (rhotacism of “s” into “n”)	ster-*or*h2ster‑. (star; aster, étoile: the shining one) from *h₂eHs- (to burn: arder) and (?) and ǵʰwoyǵʰ-dʰeh₁- / *ǵʰwoydʰ-dʰeh₁-. (star (lost in Latine languages and English))	*”saja” (clear; dawn) (Metathesis in Transeurasian) and *“piolo” (star) and *“kuca” (star (lost in Japanese and Korean))	*sēŋ (star) (星) (Metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) Cognate with  *chĕŋ or*(t)s(y)aŋ (清) (bright, clean) and 晶 (bright; star) (Sky and stars seem to be considered as natural purity in Sino-Tibetan)	/*s-tsʰˤeŋ/ or /*sleːŋ/ /seŋ/ (星) related to  /*sʰleŋ/ or  /*tsʰeŋ/  /t͡sʰiᴇŋ/ (清)	星 [xīng] 清 [qīng]	*“saj” and “byeol; pyeol ”	sayaka さやか (bright; clear) and (?) and  hoshi (ほし | 星) (star)	sae(byeok) 새(벽) (dawn) 벽 being closely related to entry 161 and a phonetic derivative of 밝다 새벽 = (clearness of) dawn) and (?) and byeol (별) (star))
45) sapiens; savour (savoir; sapiens)	*”seor ; sa(p)” (Borean nuance seems to imply: to know the world by tasting and examining. Probably related to the sound of someone tasting something.)	*sep- or *seh₁p- (to taste, to try: sapiens, savoir, savour)	*“sari” (to know; to feel)	The following three words are cognates: *(s)ra ; (z)ra (to see; to examine) (查) or *(t)re (to know) (知) or *siǝ(H) (思) (to think; to know)	/*zraː/ /d͡ʒˠa/ (查) or /*ʔl’e/ or /*tre/ /ʈiᴇ/ (知) or /*[s]ə/ /sɨ/ (思)	查 [chá] 知 [zhī] 思 [sī]	*« seor » (possible initial drop in Korean (cf. entry 15))	shiru (しる | 知る) (to know)	alda 알다 (to know)
46) core; heart (coeur ; noyau)	*« k(r)eok; k(r)ek » (May originate from the cracking sound of a shell, core, kernel, pith one breaks) (cf. entry 109)	*ker(d)- (core; heart; coeur)	*“keok; kok” (heart; breast)	*rǝ̄k (核) (core) (Intial “k” drop or lightly pronounced)	/*[ɡ]ˤ<r>ək/ or /*ɡrɯːɡ/ /ɦˠɛk̚/ (核)	核 [hé]	*”kok”	kokoro (こころ | 心) (heart)	kogaengi 고갱이 (heart; pith; kernel)
47) to leave, let go (quitter, laisser)	*“lep(i); nepi”	*leyp- (adhere: to leave) et *leh₁d- (laisser, leave)	*« neni » (to leave)	(b)rɨal (to leave) (离 | 離) (metathesis in Sino-Tibetan)	/*rel/, /*rels/ or /*[r]aj/, /*raj-s/ /liᴇ/, /liᴇH/ (离 | 離)	离 | 離 [lí]	*« (n)ani »	inu (いぬ | 往ぬ | 去ぬ) (to leave) (archaism)	na(kada) 나(가다) (partir, sortir)
48) hole (mouth) (trou (mouth))	* « kwea(r); gwea(r) » (hole and mouth are closely related)	*keuə- (depression; whole) and *sterh₃- (to spread: trou)	* « kiacu » (hole; mouth)	*ku(w) (mouth) (口) which probably gave *kwar (窾) (vacuum; empty) (archaism)	/*kʰoːʔ/ or /*kʰˤ(r)oʔ/ /kʰəuX/ (口) which may have given /*kʰloːnʔ/ or  /khwòn/ /kʰuɑnX/ (窾)	口 [kǒu] 窾 [kuǎn]	*« kut(ci) »	kuchi (くち | 口) (mouth)	guk 굿 or gudeongdi 구덩이 (hole; depression)
49) mouth; word (mot)	*“mon; men” (put something into the mouth (taste)) and *“meor” (mouth related action) (Mouth related words often begin with “m”, hence a probable association to mouth sound or action.)	*men- or *ment- (to project; to chew: mouth) and  *mur- (to mutter: mot)	*“amo” (mouth; taste) (epenthesis in Transeurasian) and *“miala” (to measure (grain)) (cf. entry 303)	*mom / *qom (唵) (to put something in mouth) cognate with *moŋ (river mouth) and *mūr, mut (吻) (mouth; lips: to kiss)	/*qoːmʔ/ /ʔʌmX/ 唵 (put something into mouth) and  /*mɯnʔ/  /mɨunX/ (吻)	唵 [ǎn] (archaism) 吻 [wěn]	*“(a)ma” and *“malu“	amai (あまい | 甘い) (sweet) and masu (ます | 升) (quantity of food to put into the mouth)	맛 (taste) and mal 말 (measure; hence word (measure of the language))
50) sound, voice (son ; voix)	*“siem; swem” (sound, voice) and *“wokw; kweob” (voix; sound) (To relate to whispering or muttering “s” sounds.)	*swen- (sound) and  *wṓkʷs (voice, voix)	*“siure” (sound) and *« kiube » (voice, sound) (Metathesis in Transeurasian)	*siǝm (心) (voice from the heart, hence “spirit”) and *xeŋ or *k(w)eng (聲) (Metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) Cognate with 音 (sound), 響 (to make noise) and 殸 | 磬 (sound; chime; voice)	/*slɯm/ or  /*səm/ /siɪm/ (心) and /*qʰjeŋ/ or  /*[l̥]eŋ/  /ɕiᴇŋ/ (聲)	心 [xīn] 聲 | 声 [shēng]	*“sorae” and *“kewa” (probably lost in Korean) (This etymology seems crossed: 소리 means « voice; sound », so « kewa » is unneeded.)	Lost in Japanese but there are many “so; sa” words related to noise: sawagu (さわぐ | 騒ぐ) (to make noise) or sasayaku ささやく (to whisper) and koe (こえ | 声) (voice)	sori 소리 (noise; voice) whence 속삭이다 소곤거리다 (to whisper) and (?)
51) (to h)ear; to listen (entendre, écouter ; oreille)	*« kleu(t) » ((to h)ear, to listen)  and *“mows ; neows” (ear)	*kleu- (to hear: to listen) and *h₂ṓws (oreille, ear)	*”kujlu” (ear; to hear) and *“mam”(?) (ear) (probably related to entry 109)	*(k/g)ra|  */r/g-na or *nǝ̆H (耳) (ear; to hear; to listen) (metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) whence *reng 聆 (to listen carefully) and *reng 聽  (to listen) and *m/s-nam (to sell) (聞) (explanation entry 75)	/*njɯʔ/ /*C.nəʔ/  /ȵɨX/  [耳] (ear) and /*mɯn/ /*mu[n]/ /mɨun/ (聞)	耳 [ěr] 聞 [wén]	*« kwu(l)i » and *« mjimi » (probably lost in Korean)	kiku (きく | 聞く) (to listen) and mimi (みみ | 耳)	gwi (귀) (ear) and (?)
52) to howl (hurler)	*« (k)au(r) » (May originate from the voice of someone or something howling: awoo, ahoo, gaoo)	*kau-, *kaul-, *kaug-, *kaur- (to howl, hurler)	*“oru” (to cry; to shout) (Initial drop in Transeurasian or own interpretation of the sound)	*(kh)āw (to howl) (號) whence *kuːk (to cry) (哭) (cf. entry 304)	/*Cə.[ɡ]ˤaw-s/ /*ɦlaːws/ /ɦɑuH/ (號) whence /*[kʰ]ˤok/ or /*ŋ̊ʰoːɡ/ /kʰuk̚/ (哭)	號 | 号[háo] 哭 [kū]	*« uru; ulu »	uttaeru (うったえる | 訴える) (to sue; to complain) (old Japanese:“uru tapa”)	ulda (울다) (to cry)
53) mountain; pass (montagne, mont; passage)	*“men; nime” (mountain (top)) and *“pet(e); dap(a)” (cross a mountain (via a pass or a summit)) (Sino-Tibetan word seems very irregular, hence a possible borrowing whose pronunciation has locally derived. The intruding “r” implies a borrowing, such as entry 159 with “mare; horse”)	*men- (to protrude: montagne, mountain, mont) and  *pete- (to spread: pass(age) (mountain)	*“nime” (top; summit) and *”dapa” (to cross a mountain) (Metathesis in Transeurasian)	*s(r)ān (山) (mountain) whence (metathesis) *ŋ(r)ōk (嶽) (tall mountain)  and *s-tjaŋ (upper part; (mountain) top) (巓)	/*sreːn/ or  /*s-ŋrar/  /ʃˠɛn/ (山) and /*tiːn/ or  /*tˤi[n]/  /ten/ (巓)	巓 [diān] 山 [shān]	*« monae » and *« daba »	mine (みね | 峰) (mountain peak) and yama (やま | 山) (moutain)	me (뫼) (mountain) and neomda 넘다 (to cross)
54) what; whom (question) (quoi ; que ; (question))	*« k(w)a; k(w)o » (May be to associate to the sound one makes when they do not understand the speaker’s words: hein, what, quoi?)	*kwo- *kʷód (what; whom)	*“k(w)a; k(w)o”	*qhā- (曷 | 何) (what; whom)	/*ɡaːd/ or /*[ɡ]ˤat/ /ɦɑt̚/ (曷|何)	曷 | 何 [hé] (archaism, literary)	*« k(w)a; k(w)o »	ka (か) (interrogative particle)	까 (kka) (interrogative particle)
55) many (multitude)	*« mar; meor » (Also cf. entry 99, 305)	*mel- (many; multitude)	*“maru” (crow; many) or *”meoju” (all; whole) (Most probably first etymon when comparing PIE and PSTB)	*m(r)ans or  *m[ua]n (萬) (ten thousands; myriad)	/*C.ma[n]-s/ or /*mlans/ /mʉɐnH/ (萬)  (ten thousand)	萬 [wàn]	*« moyn » or *« moro »	mina (みな) (everybody; all) or mol (もろ | 諸) (various)	maen 맨 (everything ; all) whence manda (많다) (numerous) or muri (무리) (crowd)
56) hair (head) (cheveu (tête, chère)) (Also see entry 59, 251, 252)	*« ka(m)put » (head; head) and *« keald » (hair; head)	*kaput- (chef, head: cheveu) and  *ḱer- (hair, chère) and *kar- (hard) which gave (« hair »)	* “kam(p); kang” (Final syllable loss in Transeurasian) and *“keldjo” (bald, head)	*pŏt (~ -uat) (hair) (髪) (Initial syllable loss in Sino-Tibetan) and *m/s-gaw (后) (head)	/*pot/ or /*pod/  /pʉɐt̚/ (髮) and /*ɡoːʔ/, /*ɡoːs/ /*ɢˤ(r)oʔ/ /ɦəuX/, /ɦəuH/ (后)	髮 [fà] 后 [hòu] (do not confuse with 後)	*« kam(a) » and *« keol; kasira »	kami (かみ | 上) (above) which gave kami (かみ | 髪) (hair) and kashira (かしら | 頭) (head)	kama 가마 (hair whorl) karak 가락 (머리카락) (hair) and 골치 (head; brain)
57) hard (s’en)hardi(r)) (Also see entry 108)	*« kat; kar » (Solid and hard things expressed in « k ; g » clinking sounds as a rock one could strike on a solid surface.)	*kar- (hard)	* “keto” (hard)	*r-ka (固) (earth; ground: hard) (Attested by oracle script: a shield is striken on the Earth to imply hardness) or  *ghǝ̄r (頎) (solid; firm)	/*[k]ˤa-s/ or /*kaːs/  /kuoH/ (固) (solid) or  /*ɡɯl/  /ɡɨi/ (頎) (robust; sturdy)	固 [gù] 頎 [qí]	*« kat; keot »	katai (かたい | 硬い | 固い | 堅い) (solid; hard; firm)	kuta 굳다 (solid; hard)
58) flower (fleur) (Also see entry 121)	*”panga” and *“ple(r); pla(r)” (flower; bloom)	*bhel- or  *bʰleh₃- (to bloom: flower, fleur) and  *bʰew-, *bu- (to swell: bud, bourgeon) (associated to Borean etymon one ?) (cf. entry 82)	*« ponga » (bud; flower) (Metathesis in Transeurasian ?)	*phār or *baːr-(葩) (flower; to bloom) whence 花 | 華 (flower)	/*pʰraː/ /pʰˠa/ (葩) (flower (archaism))	葩 [pā]	*« pe(o)n »	hana (はな | 花) (flower)	bongori 봉오리 (bud)
59) face (visage; chère)	*« deor » (face (colour)) and *“skupa” (shape; face) (cf. entry 318)	*dhē- (to set, to put forward: face) and  *skab- (to shape: shape)	*« teri » (skin, face colour) and *« kepa » (forme, visage)	*thjīnH (靦) (face (formal)) or *tēŋ ou *dēŋ (定 | 顁) (face (very formal)) and  *s-ŋa-k or  *ŋār (顏) (face) (metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) related to 額 (forehead)	/*tʰɯːnʔ/ (靦) or /*teːŋs/  /teŋH/ (定) and  /*ŋraːn/  /*C.ŋˤrar/  /ŋˠan/ (顏)	靦 [tiǎn] or 定 [dìng] (steady; firm) -The latter is extremely rare in this case) 顏 [yán]	*« (d)eol » and *« kapo » (lost in Korean, cf. entry 318)	iro (いろ | 色) (colour) and kao (かお | 顔) (face)	eolgul (얼굴) (face) and ( ?)
60) colour (couleur)	*« kleyj » (Colours are used to mask and hide things, hence the meaning. This nuance is also attested in the bronze script of 色, with someone masking their face.)	*ḱel- or *ḱley- (to hide, to mask: colour, couleur)	*« kija » (?) (to lose; to disappear)	*srǝ̆k (色) (colour) (Metathesis in Sino-Tibetan. Intrusive “s”.)	/*srɯɡ/ /*s.rək/ /ʃɨk̚/ (色)	色 [sè]	*“keor”	kieru (きえる | 消える) (to disappear; to hide (extended meaning))	karida (가리다) (to hide; to mask)
61) night; dark (nuit) (I)	*« n(j)eok » ((as dark as) night) and *“deor; der” (dark (as night)) Proto-Semitic *t_̣Vlam- (darkness) whence ظَلَام (zalam) (darkness)	*negw‑ (to be dark: night) or *nókʷts (nuit) and  *dʰer- (dim, dull: dark)	*“djima” (dark, quiet) (Metathesis in Transeurasian) and *« dule » (night)	*ja-n or*rjak (night) (夜) whence (night; evening) (夕) Cognate with 玄 | 伭 (black, profound, mysterious) which seems to be *negw‑ metathesis or *mon (晚) (night; evening) (Metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) and this Sino-Tibetan root is either lost or may be related to 曇 (cloudy; dark cloud)	/*laːɡs/  /*[ɢ]Ak-s/  /jiaH/  (夜) whence /*s-ɢAk/ /*ljaːɡ/ /ziᴇk̚/ (夕) or /*monʔ/ /*m[o][r]ʔ/ /mʉɐnX/ (晚)	夜 [yè] 夕 [xī] 晚 [wǎn]	*« jeom(eol) » and *« jeo »	yami (やみ | 闇) (darkness) and yoru (よる | 夜) (night)	jeomulda (저물다) (to become dark) and (jeo)nyeok (저)녁 (night (the side where the sun sets))
62) black (night) (noir (nuit)) II	*« neo(k) » (dark (night)) and *“(b)leg” (black, obscure)	*nókʷts (night: noir) and *bʰleg- (to burn: black)	*“panek” (shadow) (Epenthesis in Transeurasian. Japanese derivated word attests the final “k”) and *« gepa » (to disappear; obscure) (Metathesis in Transeurasian) (lost in Japanese and Korean)	*nǝk (黑) (dark) and *« (b)leg » attested by 黓 (black) and 黛 (black)	/*hmlɯːɡ/  /*m̥ˤək/  /hək̚/ (黒)	黑 [hēi]	*« peom; pam » and Lost root in « gep »	honoka (ほのか) (dim; sombre)	bam (밤) (night)
63) sour (sûr)	*« sur » (May originate from the noise or face one makes when tasting something sour: ssssu)	*súHr(os) (sûr; sour)	*« suji » (sour)	*śūr (酸) (sour)	/*[s]ˤor/ or /*sloːn/ /suɑn/ (酸)	酸 [suān]	*« seo »	su(ppai) (すっぱい | 酸っぱい) (sour)	shida (시다) (sour)
64) foot (pied)	*« pe(d); pa(d) » (May originate from the sound of walking feet)	*ped-or*pōd(s)‑ (foot; pied)	* « (p)alca » (foot; knucklebone) (Initial dropping of “p” in some Transeurasian languages, but the initial “p” is attested in Korean.)	*pak (步) (to walk)	/*baːs/ or  /*mə-bˤa-s/ /buoH/ (步)	步 [bù]	*« (p)al(i) » (Possible confusion in Korean, Chinese and Japanese between foot and leg because of the oracle script of 足 showing both, and thus referring to both parts)	ashi (あし | 足) (foot; leg)	bal (발) (foot; leg)
65) small (malin (étroit))	*« sei(r); seor » (Proto-Semitic: *ṣ-ɣ-r, hence صَغير (sagir) (small))	*s(m)ei- (small: malin)	*« seja » (thin; rare)	*śewH (小) (small)	/*[s]ewʔ/ or  /*s(m)ewʔ/ /siᴇuX/ (小) (small)	小 [xiǎo]	*« seor »	semai (せまい | 狭い) (narrow)	sai (사이) (interval; interstice)
66) negation (négation)	*« ne; na » (negation) and *« ma » (negative order)	*ne (negation) and  *mā (negative order)	*« ani » (negation) and *« ma » (negative order)	*mă(H) (negation) (Cf. the five types of negation in (old, medieval and modern) Chinese: 不, 弗, 毋, 勿 and 非) (In Sino-Tibetan, there is only one negation)	/*ma/  or /*mo/ /mɨo/ (無 | 毋)	無 | 毋 [wú]	*« an(a) » and *« ma(i) »	na(i) (な(い)) and ma(i) (ま(い)) ➡しまい	an (안) and mal(da) 말(다) or 못 (negative suffix/prefix)
67) red fox (vulpis; vulpine)	*« kwa(p); kweo(p) » (May originate from the fox yelp, yap (when caught?): the one that yelps, yaps)	*h₂wl(o)p- ~ *h₂ulp- (“(red) fox”: vulpine) (probably an  Indo-European word) and *púḱsos (“the tailed one”), possibly from *puḱ- (“tail”).(fox)	*« kiuti » (fox) (Metathesis in Transeurasian)	*kʷā (fox) (狐) (Metathesis in Sino-Tibetan)	/*[ɡ]ʷˤa/ or  /*ɡʷaː/ /ɦuo/ (狐)	狐 [hú]	*« ki(d) »	kitsune (きつね | 狐) (fox)	yeou (여우) begins with “k” in some dialects (fox) or sungnyangi 승냥이 (dhole) or kogyangi 고양이 (cat) whose “I” (이) suffixe refers to a beast
68) dog, wolf, dhole (chien, loup, dhole)	*« k(w)eon» (dog) (May originate from the dog barking) and *“leuwk(o)” (wolf; lynx) (Probably originate from the howling of the wolf) and “sab(u) ; dab(u)” (wild predator, meaning “dhole”, or “hyena” according to the region) and (?) (one root for PIE and PSTB is missing) (General confusion between dog, dhole and wolf in many languages, probably due to their resembling ancestors.) (Proto-semitic: *kalb, whenceكَلْب(kelb (dog)) (Proto-semitic: *ḏiʔb,whence ذِئْب‎(dib (wolf))	*kwon(s)- (dog, chien, hound) and *wĺ̥kʷos (loup, wolf) (This PIE root seems composed of the first etymon, and another word, such as *wl̥kʷós (dangerous: dangerous dog)) or *welh₂- (to tear up) or  *waylos (to howl) and (?) and *“dab(u), sab(u)” word borrowed from Proto-semitic (wolf; hyena)	*“kanga” (dog; puppy) and *“luka” (lynx; big cat) and *« nin(do) » (dog) (seems a composed word) and *“seung; sang” (solely Korean gloss due to nativisation or other languages)	*d-kʷəj-n (犬) (dog) and  *lak (狼) (wolf) and (?) and *“dre” (豺) (dhole, jackal)	/*[k]ʷʰˤ[e][n]ʔ/ or /*kʰʷeːnʔ/ /kʰwenX/ (犬) and /*raːŋ/ /*[r]ˤaŋ/ /lɑŋ/ (狼) and (?) and /*zrɯː/ /*[dz]ˤrə/ /d͡ʒˠɛi/ (豺)	犬 [quǎn]  狼 [láng] (?) 豺 [chái]	*“kang” and *“nukdae” and *« (n)in » (initial drop in Japanese)	ookami (おおかみ | 狼) (wolf) (Native but combined word. May be associated to Jômon people profound belief in mountain gods such as wolves, hence the prefix “oo” (great): great dog.) and possibly neko (ねこ | 猫) (cat) and inu (いぬ | 犬) (dog) and dhole is borrowed ドールor nativised (アカオオカミ (red wolf)）	kae (개) (dog) whence kangaji (강아지) (puppy (강아) + 이 (animal suffix) and neukdae 늑대 (grey wolf) and iri (이리) (Korean wolf) and seung nyanggi 승냥이 (dhole) 승 (dhole) +냥이 (predator suffix)
69) fire (feu)	*« pwar; bwar » (May originate either from the flamboyant manifestation of fire from a sparkle to a flame.) (Proto-Semitic: * nūr- (fire; light) cf. entry 130)	*paəwr̥ or  *pah2wr̥, (fire: feu)	*« pore » (fire; to burn)	*mējH or  *mej (火) (fire) (This root is very irregular due to possible contamination with other etymons) whence *wăr  *bʷar or *pʷar (燔) (fire; to burn (formal))	/*qʰʷaːlʔ/ or  /*[qʷʰ]ˤəjʔ/  /huɑX/ (火) whence /*[b]ar/ or /*ban/ /bʉɐn/ (燔)	火 [huǒ] 燔[fán]	*« pwal; pyal »	hi (ひ | 火) (« fire », but formerly « puy; pui » hence the lenition)	pul (불) (fire)
70) flame (flamme)	*”ben(a) ; pen(a)” (May be related to the above-written etymon and its explanation.)	*bhlē‑or *bhā-1 (to shine, to be bright: flam(m)e)	*“peno” (flame, bright)	*s-ljam (tongue, lick; flame) (炎 | 焰) (Initial drop in Sino-Tibetan)	/*ɦlam/ or /*[ɢ]ʷ(r)am/ /ɦˠiᴇm/ (炎)	炎 [yán]	*« pana »	honoo (ほのお| 炎) (flamme)	(nun)bushi (눈)부시다 (bright)
71) blue(-green)(bleu(-vert)	*« b(r)eol » (Confusion in many languages of blue and green due to the versatility of nature’s colours when young. Attested by  生oracle script which shows a young sprout growing from the ground and its cognate 青 (blue-green))	*bhlē-  or *bhel‑ (clear; bright: blue, bleu)	*« ajbo » (Possible epenthesis in Transeurasian)	*ŋrǝw (碧 (?)) (jade) Cognate with 白 (white) as a vivid colour	/*praɡ/, /*preɡ/ or /*prak/ /pwiᴇk̚/ (碧)	碧 [bì] (blue-green (jade))	*«  (a-)beol» or *« (eobol- / (ö)bö[r]»	ao (あお | 青) (indigo; jade)	puruda (푸르다) (blue-green)
72) hand, to touch (main ; toucher)	*« meon » ((action of) hand) and *“duk(e)” (hand, arm) (hands are often seen as an extension of legs and arms)	*man- (hand: main) and  *dewk- (to pull: hand)	*« monneo » (to knead, to press) and “tiure” (leg, knee) and “talo” (wing, shoulderblade) are related)	*māj (摩) (to massage; to rub) or 摸 (to touch) and *ƛŭH / *ƛŭk (手) (hand) (assimilation in Sino-Tibetan) or  *thjuk (觸) (to touch)	/*maːl/ or /*maːls/ /muɑ/, /muɑH/ (摩) and /*hnjɯwʔ/ /*n̥uʔ/ /ɕɨuX/ (手) or  /*tʰjoɡ/  /*tʰok/  /t͡ɕʰɨok̚/ (觸)	摩 [mó] 手 [shǒu] 觸 [chù]	*« meom(ji) » and *« tari »	momu (もむ | 揉む) (to mass; to knead) and te (て | 手) (hand)	manjida (만지다) (to touch) and dari 다리 (leg)
73) frog (grenouille); turtle (tortue) (Possible confusion between « frog » and « turtle » as seen in sinograms 鼃 and 黽)	*”kero» (PTA) or *« gwra(d)” (PIE, PSTB) (May originate from the croaking of the frog: the one that croaks) and *”terkʷ”or *« k(w)riap » (turtle) (Borrow in PIE? The one with twisted limbs) (“turtle” in PST and PTA seem from the word « shell »: the one with a shell/carapace?) (cf. entry 129)	*prew- (to leap; to bounce (frog)) or  *gʷredʰ- (hypothetic word for « frog ») (grenouille and raine(tte) are onomatopoeic) and *terkʷ (turtle, tortoise (the one with twisted limbs))	*« kero » (frog; toad) and *« kiapa » (turtle) (In PTA the first etymonseems to originate from the frog croak such as “kerokero” in Japanese: the one that croaks. The second etymon seems from the word for “shell”)	*“gwra” (蛙 | 鼃 | 䵷) (frog) (Seems to originate from the croak sound of the frog) and *k-rip (turtle) (鱉 and 獵 (archaism)) 黿 and 鰲 (sea turtle) are local words to designate a sea turtle 黽 (frog) is rather mysterious (possibly a local word)	/*qʷraː/, /*qʷreː/ /*qʷˤre/, /*qʷˤre/, or /*m-qʷˤre/, /*m-qʷˤre/ /ʔˠuɛ/, /ʔˠua/ (蛙 | 鼃) and /*ped/ /*pet/ /piᴇt̚/ (鱉)	蛙 | 鼃 [wā] and 鱉 [biē]	*« keor ; kaer » (frog) and *« kampye » (turtle)	kaeru (かえる | 蛙 |黽) (frog) and kame (かめ | 亀 | 龜) (turtle; tortoise)	kaeguri 개구리 (frog) and keobugi 거북이 (turtle)
74) nose (nez)	*“(s)nar” (nose) (Word for nose accompanied by a final noise referring to sneezing or snor(t)ing. Literally: the body part that snor(t(e)s) or sneezes) and *“biro ; bi(k)o” (nose; beak) (Confusion of these two words close to mouth and nose)	*néh₂s- or *nh₂es- (nose; nostril, nez) and  *bak-, *baḱ- (pointed stick: beak)	*« pune » (nose, to smell) (Epenthesis in Transeurasian or combination of two roots) and *”piro” (beak; nose)	*/s-na  or *s-naːr (nose) and  *bi (nose) (鼻) (final loss in Sino-Tibetan but attested in Old Chinese)	/*blids/ /*m-bi[t]-s/, /*Cə-bi[t]-s/ /biɪH/ (鼻) (Note: the root  « sna(r) is lost in Chinese but stays in 紐, 鈕, 䶊, 衄, which all refer to something related to the nose or something salient)	鼻 [bí] (nose)	*« punae » (seems lost in Korean) and *« buri »	hana (はな | 鼻) and (kuchi)biru (くちびる | 唇) (lips)	(?) and buri 부리 (beak)
75) (to) smell (sentir)	*« (s)neb; (s)nab » (May originate from the sound one makes when sniffing)	*smelə- (to burn hence « smell ; smoke”)	*“nibi” (Initial drop in Transeurasian)	*m/s-nam (to smell) (聞) (Confusion between “smell” and “hear” in Sino-Tibetan because « nose » (s-na ; s-naːr) and « ear » (r/g-na) are very close to each other)	/*mɯn/ /*mu[n]/ /mɨun/ (聞) (to hear; to smell)	聞 [wén]	*« ne(p); ne(b) »	niou (におう | 匂う) (to smell)	nae(eumsae) (내음새) (odour; smell)
76) odour (odeur)	*« b(w)ed; p(w)ed » (May originate from the smoke one smells and says « p(ou)ah ». Also seems related to the fire etymon)	*h₃ed- (to smell; to stink: odour)	(no good candidate for Transeurasian; all words related to smell or smoke begin with “k;g”)	*pit (~ b-) (pleasant scent) (Light “b ; p”)	/*bliːɡ/, /*bliɡ/ /*[b]ˤi[t]/ /biɪt̚/, /bet̚/ (苾) (literary)	苾 [bì]	*« put; but »
77) cloud, cumulus (nuage)	*« keo(l)meo » (Proto-Semitic “gaym” whence  غَيْمَة  (gayma (cloud))	*ku-m-olo from *ḱewh₁- (to swell : cumulus) and *nebh- or *nébʰos (cloud: nuage) and  *gel- (to pile up: cloud)	*« kolma » (shadow; cloud) from *“gela” (to mask; to hide. Cloud: the one that masks) (cf. entry 282)	*gʷǝn (~ qhʷ-) (雲) (cloud) from 運 *gʷiǝ̆r or 回 (to turn) *gʷiǝ̄l (the one that turns or derive) Cognate with 群(to gather) and昆 (to swarm)	/*ɢun/ /*[ɢ]ʷə[n]/ /ɦɨun/ (雲)	雲 [yún]	*« kulmeo »	kumo (くも | 雲) (cloud)	kurum (구름) (cloud)
78) in; to; at (dans ; en ; y) (dative (COI); locative) I	*« qen; hen » (in; en) and *« het; qet ») (at; à) and *“gaet” (to (go))	*h₁én (in; en (fr)) and  *h₂éd (at)  and *ǵʰeh₁- (to go; to walk and *gʰi  (emphasis) and *ḱe (ici) for (« y » (aller))	*« (n)in » and *« du; deo » (Metathesis in Transeurasian)  and *“gae” (allative)	ʔay (於) (to; at; towards (formal)) (In Sino-Tibetan 於 assimilates all dative and locative cases)	/*[ʔ]a/ /*qa/ /ʔɨʌ/ (於)	於 [yú]	*« (n)i(n) » and *« teo » and *“gae“	(n)i (に) (particle “ni” locative and dative) and to et (ni)te と and (に)て (locative) and he へ (he)	eun ;  nun (은 | 는) (particle eun, nun) and de 데 (place) and ae 에 (particle ae)
79) me; I (direct nominative) (moi ; je : nominatif direct)	*« eg(h) » (May originate from a primitive sound one made to designate oneself. This word is the very essence of the Borean Middle Palaeolithic split, and the fundamental difference of mind between East Asian and Indo-European.)	*éǵ(h)₂ (ego, from Latin)	Case in*« ŋ » (Metathesis in Transeurasian)	*ŋa-j  ou  ka 吾 (I; me) (No distinction between direct and indirect subject in Sino-Tibetan)	/*ŋaː/ /*ŋˤa/ /ŋuo/ (吾)	吾 [wú]	Case in *« ŋa »	ga が (direct subject particle)	ga 가 (direct subject particle)
80) this, that (demonstrative) (ce ; ça (démonstratif))	*« teo; deo »	*só; tó (this, that)	*« ko » (Assimilation of “t” into “k” in Transeurasian languages)	*m-daj ~ m-di (this, that) (之) or (是) (archaism in this nuance)	/*djeʔ/ /*[d]eʔ/ /d͡ʑiᴇX/ (之 or 是)	是 [shì] 之 [zhī]	*« k(i)eo »	ko こ (this) which gave kore (これ) (this) koko (ここ) (here) kono (この) (this thing)	ki 기 which gave yeogi (여기) (here) jeogi (저기) (there) keogi (거기) (over there)
81) accusative (COD)	*« (w)o »	case in *ó  or Ø	*(w)o (accusative)	*ŋa-j ou ka 我 (I; me: accusative)	/*ŋˤajʔ/  /*ŋaːlʔ/ /ŋɑX/ (我)	我 [wǒ]	case in *« wo or ba/be » ～をば	wo (を) (particle COD, wo)	ancient case in « bil » which became eul (을) and reul (를) (COD particle)
82) leaf, bud (feuille, bourgeon)	*« lia(e)p; la(e)b » (leaf) and “bure” (leaf; bud (very similar to Latin “burra” and Old French “burjon”)) (This entry is closely related to entry 58, as buds and leaf seem to be extensions of flowers in Borean)	*lewbʰ- (to cut; to detach: leaf) and  *bʰew-, *bu- (to swell: bud) and  *bʰleh₃- (to blossom, flower: feuille) (cf. entry 58)	*« liapa » (leaf) and *« pure » (leaf, bud)	*s-lap (leaf) (葉) and *“(b)ru” 苞 or 蕾 (bud)	/*leb/ /*l[a]p/ /jiᴇp̚/ (葉) and /*pruː/ /*pˤ<r>u/ /pˠau/ (苞)	葉 [yè] 苞 [bāo]	*« naep » and *« pa » (probably lost in Korean)	nae (なえ | 苗) (sprout) and ha (は | 葉) (leaf)	ip (잎 but formerly nip (닢)) and (?)
83) skin; bark (peau, écorce)	*« p(e)l; pe(t) » (skin) and *“sniak(i); sken” (skin; flesh) and *“bergo, krawp” (bark; skin) (May originate from the sound of a cracking nut, shell or bark)	*pel- (to cover; to envelop: peau) and  *sken- (to split off: skin) and  *bʰergo- (bark (tree))	*« peta » (meat; skin) and perhaps *”siali“ (flesh) and *“kapa” (skin; bark) (Metathesis)	*phal (皮) (skin) and  *s-nja-k (肉) (meat; flesh) (Metathesis in Sino-Tibetan) and  *khrǝ̄w (shell, bark) (殼)	/*bral/ /*m-[p](r)aj/ /bˠiᴇ/ (皮) and /*njuɡ/ /*k.nuk/ /ȵɨuk̚/ (肉) and /*kʰroːɡ/ /*[kʰ]ˤrok/ /kʰˠʌk̚/ (殼)	皮 [pí] 殼 [ké, qiào, què] 肉 [ròu]	*« ped » and *“sal; sisi” and *“kap(a)”	hada (はだ | 肌) (skin) and shishi (しし | 肉 | 宍) (meat (archaism) and kawa (かわ | 皮) (skin, leather, hide)	beogida 벗기다 (to peel) and sal 살 (skin) and kat (갗) (skin; hide)
84) to pierce; to sting (percer ; piquer)	*« tsegh; stiegh » (May originate from a piercing or sticking sound) (Closely related to entry 32)	*stegh- (to pierce; to prick: sting)	*“tiku” (to stuff into, to thrust)	*ʒeŋ or *stek (刺) (to pierce) (Final “k” derivates into “ng” such as “sting” in English)	/*sʰeɡs/  /*[tsʰ]ek-s/  /t͡sʰiᴇH/ (刺) (to sting; to pierce)	刺 [cì]	*“tsuk; tseok”	tsuku (つく | 突く) (to hit; to thrust)	jjikda (찍다) (to pierce, to cute)
85) rain (pluie)	*« piawre(g) » (rain) or possibly two distinct roots (In PIE, the word is dislocated, perhaps due to the nuance associated with this word)	*(H)reǵ- (to flow: rain) and  *plew- (to wash: pluie)	*“piage” (rain) (Combination of the two roots, with first by metathesis)	*k/r/s-wa (to rain) (雨) whence 雩 (rain dance) (Combination of the two roots)	/*ɢʷaʔ/ /*C.ɢʷ(r)aʔ/ /ɦɨoX/ (雨)	雨 [yǔ]	*“ampye” This word is supported by the Ainu language with “apto” (rain) or “anpe” (rain storm)	ame (あめ | 雨) (rain)	pi 비 (rain) whence perhaps jangma (장마) (rainy season) (長 and 마 (rain))
86) house (I) (maison)	*« djeg; tshek » (May originate from the sound of wood or other raw material one chops to build a house: tac tac, tick tick)	*teks- (to weave, to fabricate by hand (wood for house)) (also gave “textile; technology”)	*« jibi » (house) (Palatalisation of « t » into « j » in Transeurasian languages)	*t[ŭ]k 塾 (house (archaism)) or *t(r)ak (宅) (house) 家 (house) is strongly associated to « pig » as observed in oracle script	/*djɯwɢ/ /d͡ʑɨuk̚/ (塾) and /*r’aːɡ/ /*m-tˤ<r>ak/ /ɖˠæk̚/ (宅)	塾 [shú] and 宅 [zhái]	*« jipe » This word is supported by the Ainu language with « cise » (house)	ie (いえ | 家) (house) taku (たく | 宅) (house (formal)) (Chinese borrowing)	jip (집) (house) taek 댁 (Chinese borrowing)
87) house (II) (dome; domestic)	*« q(w)eom; d(w)eom » (Chinese sinogram seems to imply the nuance of a big private house)	*dem- (house; dome)	*« malu » (room) (Metathesis in Transeurasian)	*qĭm ( ~ *qʷĭm) (house; dwelling) (宮) (Assimilation of “d” into “q/k” in Sino-Tibetan)	/*kuŋ/ /*k(r)uŋ/ /kɨuŋ/ (宮)	宮 [gōng]	*« maru ; muro »	muro (む ろ| 室) (storage room)	maru 마루 (Korean veranda)
88) two; pair (deux ; paire)	*« p(w)ura(s) » (pair) and *« dwo(l) » (two)	‌*‌perə-2 (to allow equally) and *dwo- (two)	*« pucu » (two; pair) and *« t(s)u(bu)l » (two; company)	*p(r)ɨ̄H (倍) (pair ; double) and tŭr (對) (pair)	/*bɯːʔ/ /*[b]ˤəʔ/ /bʌiX/ (倍) and /*tuːbs/ /*[t]ˤ[u]p-s/ /tuʌiH/ (對) (pair; contrast)	對 [duì] 倍 [bèi]	*« futa » and *« t(s)ure »	futa (ふた) (two) and tsure (つれ) (companion)	jjak (짝) (pair) and dul (둘) (two)
89) (to) breath(e), to live (respirer, souffle)	*“gwet(i); (s)eki” (to live, to breathe) and *“put; peyt; pul” (to blow) (All blowing related words beginning with “pu ; fu ; bu”, which originates from a blowing sound)	*gʷeyh₃- or  *gʷíh₃weti (to live, vivid) and  *(s)peys- (to blow, to breathe: respire (spirare))	*”iki, iko” (to live, to settle) (Probable metathesis) and *“pulgi” (to blow) (closely related to entry 26)	*sǝ̆k or  *m-sak (息) (to breathe; life) (Probable metathesis) or *sɨā (蘇) (to live; to breathe) and  *bŭ (-t) (弗 | 拂) (to blow)	/*slɯɡ/  /*sək/ /sɨk̚/ (息) or /*sŋaː/ /*s-ŋˤa/ /suo/ (蘇) and /*pʰɯd/  /*pʰ[u]t/ /pʰɨut̚/ (拂)	息 [xī] 蘇 [sū] 拂 [fú]	*« iki » (Maybe inexistant in Korean due to the next entry) and *“bul(k)”	Ikiru (いきる | 生きる) (to live) whence iki (いき | 息) (breath) and fuku (ふく | 吹く) (to blow)	(?) and bulda (불다) (to blow)
90) to be; to exist (être, exister)	*« (e)sumi » Spiro ergo sum (Inspired by Cogito ergo sum) (This state of mind and way of living is the very essence of Borean speakers: I breathe so I am)	*h₁ésmi (“I am, I exist” from the verb h₁ésti (to be; to exist) “breath” seems to originate from  *bʰuH- (to be(come)) and  *h₁es (to be)	*« sumi » (to live; to breathe)	*sjəm or *s(j)am-s (heart, spirit, breath)  (心)	/*slɯm/ /*səm/ /siɪm/ (心)	心 [xīn]	*« s(u)mi »	sumu (すむ | 住む) (to live, to dwell)	shida 쉬다 (to breathe) whence sum 숨 (breath) as attested by some Korean dialect in 쉼or 쉬미
91) lightening, thunder (foudre, éclair, tonnerre)	*« b(w)eo(l)k; p(w)eo(l)k » (thunder, flash) (May originate from the sound lightening makes when falling onto the ground) and *“(st)en ; (s)lin” (lightening, thunder) (Onomatopoeic imitative sound for lightening: ling, sten (?))	*bʰel- (to shimmer, to shine: foudre) whence *bherəg- (to shine; bright) and  *(s)ten-, *(s)tenh₂- (thunder, tonnerre)	*« pialki » (lightening, thunder) and *“ina” (dawn, dusk) (flash in the dark (Starostin)) (intial drop in Transeurasian)	*m-bru(ŋ/k) (dragon, thunder) (隆 (rumble), 雷 | 靁 (thunder)) 霹靂 (thunder) seem both onomatopoeic) and *lin(g) (lightening, flash) (電 and 神 from 申 (thunder in oracle script))	/*ruːl/ /*C.rˤuj/ /luʌi/ (雷) and /*hlin/ /*l̥i[n]/ /ɕiɪn/ (申)	雷 [léi] 申 [shēn]	*« pe(n)kai; pikar » and *“ina” (probably lost in Korean)	hikaru (ひかり | 光る) whence hikari (ひかり | 光) (light) and ina(bikari), ina(duma) (いなびかり | 稲光)、(いなづま | 稲妻) (lightening) kaminari (かみなり | 雷) is a native creation 神+鳴り (gods rumble)	beongae (번개) (lightning)) and (?) 천동 (天動) (thunder) 벼락 (霹靂) (lightening) 우레 (雨雷) (thunder) are non native
92) butterfly; lepidopteran (papillon ; lépidoptère)	*« lepa » (May originate from the light flapping sound butterflies make when flying: the one that flaps) (Flying insects possibly beginning with the syllable “pe(p); le(p)”, as next entry) Proto-semitic: p/far, hence فَرَاش (ferasha (butterfly)	*“lep” (to peel, scale: lepidopteran) whence  *pāpel-, *peypel- (butterfly: papillon) which seems a double creation of the first one	*« nepa » (flying insect)	*lēp (蝶) (butterfly)	/*l’eːb/ /*lˤep/ /dep̚/ (蝶)	蝶 [dié]	*« napai »	chôchô (蝶々) being a borrowing from Chinese, old Japanese has other words with the same root as « tombo  (dragonfly) » for the word. Ainu language has « heporap » (butterfly) including « rap », which may be the lost (Ainu-Jômon) word for “butterfly”.	nabi (나비) (butterfly)
93) bee (abeille)	*« bera; pera » (May originate from the buzzing sound bees make: the one that buzzes) (Flying insects possibly beginning with the syllable “pe(p) ; le(p)”, as previous entry) Proto-semitic: *dubur (bee) (probable epenthesis) or  *nūb hence   نَحْل (nahl (bee))	*bʰi-, *bʰey- (bee, abeille) (« dragonfly » and “libellule” are combined native constructions in French and English)	*« pera » (bee)	*bung or *“bra(w) (蜂) (bee) whence *guājH (*guājH-*ruājH) (蜾蠃) (bee; wasp)	/*boːŋ/, /*pʰoŋ/ or /*pʰ(r)oŋ/ /buŋ/, /pʰɨoŋ/ (蜂) whence /*kloːlʔ/ /*kˤorʔ/ /kuɑX/ (蜾蠃)	蜂 [fēng] 蜾蠃 [guǒ]	*« peal(y)i » (Ainu languages has « soya » which seems and old derivative of the Borean word)	hachi (はち | 蜂) (bee)	beol (벌) (bee)
94) cricket; locust (criquet ; grillon)	*« gra(p); kra(p) » (May originate from the stridulation of the cricket/locust: the one that stridulates)	*gerh₂- and *gerə-2 (to resound; to crack: cricket, criquet)	*« kiape » ((flying) insect) (locust, cricket sounds: 찌르르찌르르, 귀뚤귀뚤 コロコロ)	*g(h)raH (蝗) (cricket; locust) perhaps from  */k/p/s-rwak or *bəw (insect) (No sinogram for “locust” because they were associated to 秋 (autumn) as the flea of the season in oracle script))	/*ɡʷaːŋ/, /*ɡʷraːŋ/, or /*ɡʷraːŋs/ /*[ɢ]ʷˤaŋ/ /ɦwɑŋ/ or  /ɦˠwæŋ/, /ɦˠwæŋH/ (蝗) (locust)	蝗 [huáng]	*« kwo(p)u(r) »	koorogi (こおろぎ) (cricket)	kwidurami (귀뚜라미) (cricket) (?)
95) hot (chaud)	*« keot; kayt” (May originate from the sound one makes when feeling something hot: あつ, 더워) (also cf. entry 110, 119)	*kay- or *ḱelh₁-. (heat, to heat: chaud, chaleur, hot)	*« ota » (fire, hot, warm) (Initial drop in Transeurasian)	*(s)ta (暑) (hot (climate)) whence *ʔŭk (~ɣ-, -ŏk) (燠) (hot (literary))	/*hjaʔ/ /*s-tʰaʔ/ /ɕɨʌX/ (暑)	暑 [shǔ]	*« (a)ta; eo(to) » (In Japanese and Korean, differenciation is made between heat for the climate or a surface)	whence atsui (あつい | 熱い |暑い) (hot) but also atatakai (あたたかい |温かい | 暖かい)	whence ddatut 따뜻하다 or (warm) ddasu hada 따스하다 (warm)
96) moon (god(dess)) ((dieu, déesse de la) lune)	*« m(r)ah” (moon; month) and *“lewku; lewkgu” (to shine (as the moon)) (very irregular root) (This entry seems to associate to entry 192 (god), hence a moon (god(dess))	*mēh- (measure: moon) and *lewk- (light, to shine: lune)	*« mura » (round (as the moon)) whence *“milte” (full (moon)) and *« tieolgu » (moon) (Epenthesis) whence *“tiolo” (to shine (moon))	*lăH (s-)or  *ʔʷăt or  *s-ŋwat (moon; star) (月) (moon) and  (entry 192 (?))	/*ŋod/ /*[ŋ]ʷat/ /ŋʉɐt̚/ (月) and (entry 192 (?))	月 [yuè] (entry 192 (?))	*“maru; muri” and *« tokeol”	maru(i) (まるい | 円い | 丸い) (round) and tsuki (つき | 月) (moon; month)	muri 무리 (moon or sun halo) and dal (달) (moon; month)
97) to fly (voler)	*« plen(g)e » (to fly, to rise) (very irregular root) and *“nero; bero” (to fly)	*plew(k)- (to fly) and  *welh₁- (voler)	*« tepe » (to wave; to flap) and *“nero” (to fly)	perhaps *lǝ̆ŋ (乘) (to ride, to rise, to ascend) and *bjar ~ *p(i/u)r (飛) (to fly)	/*ɦljɯŋ/ /*Cə.ləŋ/ /ʑɨŋ/ (乘) and /*pɯl/ /*Cə.pə[r]/ /pʉi/ (飛)	飛 [fēi] 乘 [chéng]	*“tembi” and *« nar; neor »	tobu (とぶ | 飛ぶ) (to fly) and   noru (のる | 乗る) (to ride) expressions such as 風に乗る (to ride the wind) suggests an elevation similar to flying	teombida 덤비다 (to rush, fly at) and nalda 날다 (to fly)
98) to eat; meal (manger ; repas)	*« meo(k); ma(g) » (to eat; meal) (May originate from the munching sound one makes when eating) and *« (t)(h)eop » (food; meal)  Proto-Semitic: /ʔakal-	* mē- (to measure: meal, manger) and *h₁ed- (manger: to eat)	*« muke » (to suck, to eat) and *« eopo » (bread, food) (Initial drop in Transeurasian)	*m/s/g-ljak (食) (to eat) and *thV̄p (呫) (to taste; to eat (archaism))	/*ɦljɯɡ/ /*mə-lək/ /ʑɨk̚/ (食) and /*tʰeːb/ (呫)	呫 [tiè] 食 [shí]	*« meok » and *« eop »	makanai (まかなう | 賄う) (to provide food) and opomono (food (archaism)) whence taberu (たべる | 食べる) (to eat)	meokda (먹다) (to eat) and bap (밥) (meal)
99) thousand  (multitude (mille ; multitude)	*« teong; tseong » (thousand; many) (Hundred seems to be seen a huge number.) (Also cf entry 55)	*teuə or  *tewh₂- (swell: « thousand » is swollen hundred)	*« cako » (many; to be full)	*s-toŋ (眾 | 衆) (thousand)	/*tjuŋs/ /*tuŋ-s/ /t͡ɕɨuŋH/ (眾 | 衆) (many; multitude)	(眾 | 衆) [zhòng]	*« ta(k) »	takuwaeru (たくわえる |蓄える) (to stock) whence takusan (たくさん) (a lot; many) (たく (many) and さま (appearance)) written phonetically as 沢山	chada (차다) (to be full)
100) to freeze(geler)	*« preut; preug  »	*preus- (to freeze; to burn)	*« bieg »	*piǝ̆t (~ w-) (冹) (to freeze, cold (archaism))	/*pod/, /*pud/ /pɨut̚/, /pʉɐt̚/ (冹)	冹 [fú]	*« bie »	hieru (ひえる | 冷える) (to chill)	(?) lost word in Korean maybe due to the versatility of shikda 식다 (to cool)

101) mammoth (mammouth) (Combination of entry 114, 214 and 222)

(European Mammoth) *« mal(g)a » (earth; big land) and *« hen » (front, devant (antler, horn)) which yield *“mal(g)a(h)en” (Great horned-beast that roamed plains and fields) (Asian mammoth) *« nal(g)a » (earth; big land) and *« kirs » (elephant, big animal which yield *“na(la)kirs” (Great mammal that roamed the earth) Proto-Mansi  attests this word *mē̮ŋ-ońt meaning “earth-horn” wherefrom originate the reconstruction)

*méǵh₂s  (big great; plain, field, mega) and *h₂énti (front: horn (antler)) which yield *méǵh₂énti (big horn: mammouth)

*« nala » (earth; land) and * « kirsi » (rhinoceros; elephant) which yield *« nalakirsi » (earth elephant (plain))

獁 [mǎ] (mammoth) (Different origin in Sino-Tibetan due to late arrival of mammoth into Asia) *m/g-(r)wa-ŋ/k/t (antler; horn) (角) and *ƛă(j) (地) (soil; earth) which yield *mrang (獁) (mammoth : (horned creature) living upon earth) whence *glaŋ or *lăŋH (elephant, ox) (象)

/*kroːɡ/  /*C.[k]ˤrok/  /kˠʌk̚/ (角) and /*l’els/ or /*[l]ˤej-s/ /diɪH/ (地) which yield /*m(r)a’els/ or /*[m]ˤej-s/ /miɪH/ (獁)

獁 [mǎ]

*« na(ra) » and *« kir(s)a »

nakisa or nagisa (なきさ, なぎさ | 地象) whence kisa (きさ | 象) (elephant (archaism))

naragili 나라기리 maybe abreviated Into 나끼리 whence kokkiri 코끼리 (elephant)

🇬🇧 To reconstruct this lost word for mammoth, which must have existed before the animal’s demise circa 12-10 Kya, I have turned to the Proto-Mansi word ма̄ (mā, “earth”), а̄ньт (ānʹt, “horn”) meaning “earth-horn”, which does not seem to be a recent creation made by naturalists.

            As proof that this word must be ancestral rather than recent, in Indo-European, which is very close to the Mansi language (Uralic languages) in the Borean tree, I have observed that *méǵh₂s (big, great) was a cognate with “plain”, “field”. This cognate seems more than a coincidence. The word *h₂énti reminded me of the word “antler; horn”.
In Proto-Mansi, I almost instantly recognised *« mal(g)a ; nal(g)a » (earth; big land) and *« nieor ; hen » (front, devant (horn, antler)), I had previously reconstructed, and which would fit the description of a mammoth as a huge creature roaming the earth and harbouring horns in front of it.

However, this logic did only fit the Indo-European thinking and the reconstructed word in Sino-Tibetan and Transeurasian seemed unnatural, for these languages seem to associate words differently, hence my propositions with “earth” and “elephant”. This proposition seems more plausible and could have already resembled the word for “elephant” itself as its legitimate descendant. Hypothetical word evolution also seems more probable when assembling these two words.

            As for the word for elephant in Japanese, the reason that it was associated with a mammoth or a kind of lost elephant could explain the extinction of the word, and support its use in the word for “mammoth”. Korean reconstruction seems very natural and plausible.

🇫🇷 Afin de reconstruire ce mot perdu pour le mammouth, qui a sûrement dû exister avant le déclin de cet animal vers -12-10 000, je me suis tourné vers le proto-mansi ма̄ (mā, “terre”), а̄ньт (ānʹt, “corne”) signifiant « corne de la Terre », et qui ne semble pas être une création linguistique récente forgée par les naturalistes.

Comme preuve que ce mot doit être ancestral plutôt que récent, en indo-européen, qui est fort proche de la langue mansi (langue ouralienne) dans l’arbre du boréen, j’ai observé que *méǵh₂s (big, great) était un cognat avec « plaine » et « champ ». Ce cognat m’a semblé plus qu’une coïncidence. Le mot *h₂énti m’a rappelé le mot « antler » (corne) en anglais.
En proto-mansi, j’ai presque instantanément reconnu *« mal(g)a ; nal(g)a » (Terre ; grande terre) et *« nieor ; hen » (front, devant (horn, antler)) que j’avais précédemment reconstruits et qui conviendraient à la description d’un mammouth, comme d’une énorme créature errant sur la terre et arborant des défenses devant elle.

Cette logique n’a cependant semblé que s’adéquater à la pensée indo-européenne et le mot reconstruit en sino-tibétain et transeurasien semblait innaturel, car ces langues semblent associer les mots différemment, d’où mes propositions pour « terre » et « éléphant ». Cela semble plus plausible et pourrait avoir déjà ressemblé au mot « éléphant » lui-même en tant que légitime descendant. L’évolution hypothétique des mots semble également plus probable en associant ces deux mots.

Quant au mot éléphant en japonais, sa possible association avec un mammouth ou un éléphant disparu pourrait expliquer l’extinction du mot et étayer son usage dans le mot « mammouth ». En coréen, la reconstruction semble très naturelle et plausible.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Brendan Geer for his reviews and advice and Yugo for his daily and thorough support.