This article investigates the problem of the lexeme for ‘apple’ in the reconstructed Indo-European for which there are two roots possible, namely *meh2-lo and *h2ebol-, both meaning ‘apple’ or a fruit similar to it. The former has been usually taken as a borrowing while the latter as a true PIE root for ‘apple’. However, there are problems with this assumption – the presence of the vowel */a/ and the consonant */b/, both of marginal status, and the attestation of this lexeme mostly in the North-West Indo-European languages. It is shown that the lexeme in question might actually be an ancient Wanderwort

Piwowarczyk, Dariusz R.

Portal Czasopism Naukowych (E-Journals)

Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia
vol.	19:	161–167  Kraków	2014
doi:10.4467/20843836SE.14.009.1652
Dariusz R. PIWOWARCZYK (Kraków)
THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN ROOT FOR ‘APPLE’ 
AND THE PROBLEM OF COMPARATIVE RECONSTRUCTION
Abstract.	This	article	investigates	the	problem	of	the	lexeme	for	‘apple’	in	the	reconstructed	
Indo-European	for	which	there	are	two	roots	possible,	namely	*meh2-lo	and	*h2ebol-,	both	
meaning	‘apple’	or	a	fruit	similar	to	it.	The	former	has	been	usually	taken	as	a	borrowing	
while	the	latter	as	a	true	PIE	root	for	‘apple’.	However,	there	are	problems	with	this	assump-
tion	–	the	presence	of	the	vowel	*/a/	and	the	consonant	*/b/,	both	of	marginal	status,	and	the	
attestation	of	this	lexeme	mostly	in	the	North-West	Indo-European	languages.	It	is	shown	
that	the	lexeme	in	question	might	actually	be	an	ancient	Wanderwort.
Keywords:	etymology,	Proto-Indo-European,	Wanderwort,	loanwords
1. The	Proto-Indo-European	(PIE)	reconstructed	lexeme	for	‘apple’	presents	
us	with	an	interesting	geographical	distribution.	It	is	attested	in	Lithuanian	and	
Slavic	(Lithuanian	obuolỹs,	Slavic	*(j)abl-ŭko,	Russian	jábloko,	Polish	jabłko from 
the	lengthened	grade	*ābōl,	cf.	Smoczyński	2007:	432),	Germanic	(Old	English	
æppel,	Old	High	German	apful),	Celtic	(Old	Irish	ubull with	additional	problems)	
as	a	lexeme	coming	back	to	the	PIE	root	*h2ebōl	(cf.	the	discussion	and	additional	
forms	in	Gamkrelidze-Ivanov	1995:	548–549).	But	in	Greek,	Latin	and	Hittite	
this	lexeme	is	absent	and	the	word	for	‘apple’	present	in	those	languages	would	
theoretically	go	back	to	the	*meh2-lo	proto-form	(Greek	μῆλον,	Latin	mālum,	
Hittite	maḫlaš).	Now,	the	question	arises	if	this	is	merely	a	coincidence	that	the	
North-West	Indo-European	languages	differ	from	those	of	South	Indo-European	
in	this	word	or	whether	it	is	a	sign	of	something	else.	I	would	opt	for	the	latter.	
Of	course,	as	Weiss	rightly	observes,	we	have	to	keep	in	mind,	in	dealing	with	
the	differences	in	lexicon,	that	the	language	“may	have	had	and	lost	any	given	
lexeme”	(Weiss	2009:	472	n.	37).	This	lexeme	has	also	been	reconstructed	by	
some	scholars	as	a	PIE	word,	notably	a	hysterodynamic	l-stem:	nom.	*h2éb-ōl,	
acc.	*h2b-él-m,	gen.	*h2b-l-ós	(so	Beekes	1995:	177,	for	a	review	of	other	opinions	
cf.	NIL:	263).	As	regards	the	second	lexeme,	the	*meh2-lo	and	Hittite	maḫlaš,	
it	has	been	argued	that	it	should	be	taken	as	loanword	(so	Kuryłowicz	1927:	102	
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione. 
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
162 DARIUSZ R. PIWOWARCZYK 
after	Goetze	19251;	see	also	the	discussion	of	this	word	and	problems	in	semantics	
mentioned	by	Kloek	horst	2008:	539–540).	The	former	root	(*h2ebōl),	or	rather	the	
word	which	gave	the	name	for	‘apple’	in	the	respective	Indo-European	languages,	
has	been	discussed	at	length	by	many	scholars	(see	Zavaroni	2008:	35–37	for	the	
discussion	of	earlier	views)	whose	views	on	the	subject	differ:	some	claim	that	it	
is	a	real	PIE	root	(NIL:	364,	Matasović	2004:	97,	Beekes	1995:	177,	Gamkrelidze-
Ivanov	1995:	549)	while	others	claim	that	it	belongs	to	the	lexicon	of	North-West	
Indo-European	(Meillet	1922:	19,	Hamp	1979,	Markey	1988,	Oettinger	2003:	189)	
and	still	others	compare	it	to	words	in	other	language	families	like	Zavaroni	
who	connects	it	with	the	word	for	‘genitals’	in	the	Hamito-Semitic	languages	
and	reconstructs	as	*HmB-,	partly	building	on	the	hypothesis	of	Vennemann	
(Zava	roni	2008).	The	latter	proposal	seems	not	very	likely	to	me,	since	it	also	
treats	*meh2-lo	and	*h2ebōl	as	coming	back	together	to	the	single	root	*HmB-.	
Further	probable	Indo-European	and	even	Altaic,	specifically	Turkic,	cognates	
were	ably	discussed	at	length	by	Erdal	(Erdal	1993),	who	pointed	out	the	chrono-
logical	difference	between	the	attested	Turkic	and	Indo-European	words	but	also	
tried	to	connect	both	lexemes	for	‘apple’	in	Indo-European	in	one	proto-form	
which	seems	to	be	a	forced	analysis.	The	analysis	of	the	PIE	lexeme	for	‘apple’,	
along	with	genetic	details,	was	also	done	by	Friedrich	in	his	monograph	on	PIE	
trees	(Friedrich	1970:	57–64).	He	claims	that	it	is	not	possible	either	to	treat	both	
lexemes	(*meh2-lo	and	*h2ebōl)	as	going	back	to	a	single	PIE	root,	nor	to	prove	a	
borrowing	from	a	non-Indo-European	language	(Friedrich	1970:	64).	However,	
the	general	tendency	nowadays	seems	to	favour	the	reconstruction	of	*h2ebōl as 
an	inherited	PIE	word.
2. Now,	the	main	controversy	connected	with	this	topic	is	whether	*h2ebōl is 
really	the	inherited	name	for	‘apple’	and	whether	we	are	entitled	to	reconstruct	it	
for	PIE	even	though	it	is	attested	in	the	North-West	lexicon	only.	Already	Meillet	
(1937:	383)	observed	the	fact	that	etymologists	in	general	and	Indo-Europeanists	
in	particular,	tend	to	project	everything	into	prehistory	as	inherited	what	they	can	
reconstruct	and	everything	which	does	not	show	obvious	signs	of	being	a	bor-
rowing2.	But	the	lexicon	of	every	language,	without	exception,	is	bound	to	have	
1	 ‟maḫlaš	«pomme» :	gr.	μᾶλον	est	intéressant	quoique	le	mot	ne	soit	pas	indoeuropéen	
(A.	Götze:	Heidelberger Jahrbücher	1925)”	(Kuryłowicz	1927:	102).
2	 ‟Les	étymologistes	raissonnent	souvent	comme	si	tous	les	mots	des	langues	attestées	
qui	ne	sont	pas	notoirement	empruntés	à	des	idioms	connus	devaient	être	d’origine	
indo-européenne,	et	ils	utilisent	pour	fournir	une	étymologie	indo-européenne	de	
chaque	mot	d’une	des	langue	de	la	famille	toutes	les	ressources	de	leur	ingéniosité : 
c’est	oublier	que,	entre	la	période	indo-européenne	et	les	plus	anciens	textes	de	chaque	
langue,	il	s’est	écoulé	des	centaines	d’années,	durant	lesquelles	il	a	pu	être	fait	un	nombre	
illimité	d’emprunts	à	des	langues	aujourd’hui	inconnues”	(Meillet	1937:	383).
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione. 
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
 THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN ROOT FOR ‘APPLE’ 163
borrowings.	And	PIE,	no	matter	what	we	conceive	it	to	be	(a	true	PIE	language	
or	a	hypothetical	construct),	was	no	exception	here.	We	simply	have	no	rigid	and	
ultimate	way	to	judge	whether	a	given	lexeme	is	a	borrowing	or	not.	The	usual	
method	of	identification	(cf.	Campbell	2004:	69–74)	fail	us	if	the	borrowing	is	
already	commonly	present	in	the	language,	has	been	already	very	well	accom-
modated or is a Wanderwort	(not	to	mention	that	we	do	not	have	the	original	
form	attested	in	the	probable	“donor	language”).	In	that	case,	it	might	be	possible	
that	the	borrowing	occurred	way	back	in	prehistory	(cf.	a	similar	suggestion	by	
Fortson	2010:	45),	when	the	Indo-European	speaking	tribes	invaded	or	simply	
colonized	the	regions	of	Europe,	probably	inhabited	by	the	Pre-Indo-European	
substrate	languages.	In	that	case,	the	borrowing	would	have	been	very	well	ac-
commodated	in	the	language	and	not	easily	identifiable.	However,	there	are	some	
ways	to	trace	it.	Let	me	give	another	example:	the	PIE	word	for	‘white’	recon-
structed	variously	as	*(h1)albhos	(Weiss	2008:	74)	or	*h2olbhos	(De	Vaan	2008:	32	
after	Lubostky	p.c.).	This	word	is	attested	in	Hittite	as	alpaš	(meaning	a	‘cloud’,	
probably	a	‘stormy	cloud’	that	is	why	some	scholars	would	immediately	decline	it	
as	being	cognate	with	‘white’	but	others	point	to	the	fact,	that	clouds	are	usually	
white;	I	would	opt	for	the	latter	hypothesis3),	in	Greek	as	alphós	‘white	leprosy’,	
in Latin as albus	‘white’,	in	Umbrian	as	alfir	(abl.	pl.)	and	probably	also	in	Slavic	
as	e.g.	Polish	łabędź ‘swan’	(cf.	Boryś	2005:	292).	From	the	point	of	view	of	mod-
ern	Indo-European	linguistics	we	have	a	problem	in	reconstructing	the	Anlaut	of	
this	word,	because	Greek	and	Latin	clearly	point	to	the	*h2e-	but	the	laryngeal	is	
not	preserved	in	Hittite	as	it	should	be	according	to	regular	sound	laws	(cf.	Greek	
ἀντί	‘before’	and	Hittite	ḫantezzi	‘first’	from	PIE	*h2ent-).	Kuryłowicz	back	in	the	
1930s	made	an	ad hoc	assumption	that	there	was	a	*h4	which	coloured	the	*h4e 
sequence	into	*h4a,	just	like	*h2e	gives	*h2a,	but	disappeared	in	Hittite	without	a	
trace	(Kuryłowicz	1935:	29–30).	This	has,	of	course,	no	coverage	in	the	attested	
languages.	Another	solution	was	posited	most	recently	by	Weiss	(Weiss	2008:	74),	
who	claims	that	this	lexeme	began	with	*h1,	which	was	subsequently	lost	in	Hittite	
as	expected,	and	it	had	a	vowel	*/a/.	But	this	requires	us	to	posit	another	lexeme	
with	prehistoric	PIE	*/a/,	the	presence	of	which	in	the	proto-language	is	marginal	
(cf.	Meier-Brügger	2003:	82–83,	Beekes	1995:	138–139),	though	not	non-exist-
ent	(cf.	Weiss	2009:	41).	Yet	another	solution	was	posited	by	de	Vaan	following	
Lubotsky	(de	Vaan	2008:	32)	that	the	Hittite	word	was	actually	coming	back	to	
PIE	*h2olbhos	sequence	with	the	o-grade	of	the	root	and	the	laryngeal	was	then	
lost	due	to	Saussure’s	Effect	(cf.	Meier-Brugger	2003:	118–119).	This	is	again,	
an ad hoc	solution	of	an	o-grade	in	one	lexeme	only	(where	other	languages	
3	 Michael	Weiss	(p.c.)	informs	me	that	the	actual	meaning	of	the	Greek	and	Latin	words	
corresponding	to	the	Hittite	one	is	‘dim’	and	‘greyish’	rather	than	‘white’	which	strength-
ens	this	argument.
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione. 
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
164 DARIUSZ R. PIWOWARCZYK 
show clearly the e-grade),	just	like	Kuryłowicz’s	fourth	laryngeal.	It	seems	to	me	
that	those	are	the	prevalent	contemporary	hypotheses	concerning	that	lexeme.	
Yet,	back	in	the	1930s,	Meillet	and	Ernout	observed	that	this	lexeme	may	be	of	
non-Indo-European	origin	(Ernout-Meillet	1951:	36),	probably	a	borrowing	from	
one	of	the	pre-Indo-European	substrate	languages,	of	which	we,	unfortunately,	
know	nothing	at	all.	Of	course,	this	solution	cannot	escape	the	criticism	of	being	an	
ignotum per ignotius	–	after	all,	we	have	no	direct	traces	of	the	pre-Indo-European	
substrate	languages	from	the	ancient	times	in	continental	Europe	and	one	might	say	
that	invoking	substrate	influence	is	a	sort	of	a	“sweep-under-the-carpet-solution”.	
The	same	solution	is	put	forward	by	Kortlandt	(Kortlandt	2003:	3)	and	it	seems	
very	strange	that	it	is	not	mentioned	by	either	Kloekhorst	(Kloekhorst	2008:	169)	
or	de	Vaan	(de	Vaan	2008:	32).	Whereas	in	principle	this	could	seem	possible,	
it	could	also	be	that	the	word	is	a	true	Indo-European	lexeme.	As	demonstrated	by	
Schindler	(Schind	ler	1978)	it	falls	into	the	category	of	colour/appearance	names	
with	the	*-bho-	suffix.	This	may	mean	that	the	word	either	belongs	to	the	inherited	
lexicon	of	Proto-Indo-European	(with	yet	another	example	of	*/a/	phoneme)	or	
it	is	an	ancient	and	well-accommodated	loanword.	This	is	impossible	to	discern	
given	the	fact	that	there	is	no	viable	donor	language.
3. The	same	might	be	true	with	‘apple’.	The	more	so	that	this	lexeme	was	
probably	preserved	in	the	Sabellic	place	name	–	Oscan	Abella	in	Campania	(cf.	the	
Oscan	word	abellanús) which was described as mālifera,	i.e.	literally	“carrying	
apples”,	“rich	in	apples”	by	Vergil	(Aeneid,	VII,	740).	As	Meillet	rightly	suggests	
(Meillet	1937:	398)	this	might	point	to	the	fact	that	the	Sabellic	peoples	borrowed	
this	lexeme	from	the	earlier	substrate	(or	the	borrowing	occurred	into	North-
West-Indo-European)	while	the	Romans	borrowed	the	term	μῆλον	from	Greek	
(where	it	came	from	the	Mediterranean	substrate).	It	is	noteworthy	to	observe	that	
this	word	falls	in	the	category	of	lexical	differences	between	Latin	and	Sabellic	
to	which	the	words	for	“fire”	(Latin	ignis	:	Umbrian	pir),	“water”	(Latin	aqua : 
Umbrian	utur)	and	“people”	(Latin	populus	:	Oscan	touto),	among	others,	belong	
(cf.	Wallace	2007:	54–55).
4. The	problem	with	the	geographical	distribution	of	the	lexeme	for	‘apple’	
*h2ebōl	or	*abōl	is	furthermore	complicated	with	the	existence	of	Middle	Iranian	
words	for	‘apple’:	e.g.	in	Pashto	maṇá	‘apple’,	which	could	be	traced	back	to	
*amarna	<	*abarna,	cf.	Mallory-Adams	2006:	158.	If	the	Iranian	words	are	
cognates	with	the	North-West	Indo-European	names	for	‘apple’	then	it	might	
point	to	a	common	Proto-Indo-European	lexeme.	However,	the	a-vocalism,	the	
presence	of	marginal	phoneme	/b/	and	a	somewhat	unclear	formation	of	the	word	
(it is considered to be an l-stem	but	there	are	hardly	any	words	belonging	to	this	
class	reconstructed	for	the	proto-language)	might	point	to	the	fact	that	it	is	an	
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione. 
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
 THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN ROOT FOR ‘APPLE’ 165
ancient	loanword	or	a	Wanderwort	(this	hypothesis	was	already	put	forward	by	
Joki	1964).	It	is,	of	course,	equally	possible	that	the	other	languages	(like	Hittite	
for	example)	lost	this	word	and	borrowed	the	other	term	leaving	us	with	no	traces	
of	this	older	borrowing	or	inheritance.	Additionally,	Vaclav	Blažek	has	recently	
argued	that	the	word	for	‘apple’	should	be	considered	a	borrowing	but	from	
Semitic	rather	than	from	an	unknown	pre-Indo-European	substrate	(cf.	Blažek	
2004:	23).	His	argument	is	based	on	the	fact	that	the	Indo-European	and	Semitic	
traditions	share	similar	mythological	motifs	concerning	‘apples’	and	that	there	is	
a	Semitic	word	for	denoting	different	fruits	reconstructed	as	*ʔabul-	and	*ʔubal-.	
However,	this	root	and	reconstruction	is	not	given	by	the	authors	of	the	etymo-
logical	dictionary	of	Semitic	languages	(Orel-Stolbova	1995).	They	reconstruct	
the	Semitic	word	for	‘apple’	as	*tũpaḥ-	(cf.	Orel-Stolbova	1995:	508).	The	only	
other	Semitic	word	bearing	resemblance	to	the	Indo-European	word	for	‘apple’	
is	the	word	denoting	‘genitals’,	reconstructed	as	*ʾ abol-	(Orel-Stolbova	1995:	2).	
The	diverging	meaning	of	this	lexeme	is	in	my	opinion	an	argument	enough	to	
disprove	any	connection	with	the	Indo-European	word	(cf.	also	the	discussion	of	
Zavaroni’s	hypothesis	above).
5. As	I	have	shown,	there	is	more	to	be	said	about	the	probable	reconstruction	
of	the	root	for	‘apple’	in	PIE.	The	controversy	goes	back	essentially	to	the	basic	
problem	of	comparative	linguistics,	i.e.	how	to	divide	the	lexicon	of	an	attested	
language	into	the	inherited	and	borrowed	part.	
Dariusz	R.	Piwowarczyk
Os.	Szklane	Domy	1/204
PL	–	31-972	Kraków
[dariusz_piwowarczyk@yahoo.com]
B i b l i o g r a p h y
Adams,	Douglas	Q.	1985.	“The	Indo-European	Word	for	‘apple’	Again”.	Indo-
germanische Forschungen	90.	Pp.	79–82.
Beekes,	Robert	S.	P.	1995.	Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Intro-
duction.	Amsterdam	–	Philadelphia:	John	Benjamins	Publishing	Company.
Blažek,	Vaclav.	2004.	“Indo-European	‘apple(s)’”,	in:	Die Indogermanistik und 
Ihre Anrainer.	Ed.	T.	Poschenrieder.	Innsbruck:	IBS	Verlag.	Pp.	11–30.
Boryś,	Wiesław.	2005.	Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego.	Kraków:	Wydaw-
nictwo	Literackie.
Campbell,	Lyle.	2004.	Historical Linguistics. An Introduction.	Cambridge	MA:	
The	MIT	Press.
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione. 
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
166 DARIUSZ R. PIWOWARCZYK 
Erdal,	Marcel.	1993.	“Around	the	Turkic	‘Apple’”.	The Journal of Indo-European 
Studies	21/1–2.	Pp.	27–36.
Ernout,	Adolf	–	Meillet,	Antoine.	1951.	Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue 
latine.	Paris:	Librairie	C.	Klincksieck.
Fortson,	Benjamin	W.	IV.	2010.	Indo-European Language and Culture.	2nd	ed.	
Wiley-Blackwell.
Friedrich,	Paul.	1970.	The Proto-Indo-European Trees.	Chicago-London:	University	
of	Chicago	Press.
Gamkrelidze,	Thomas	V.	–	Ivanov,	Vyaceslav	V.	1995.	Indo-European and the 
Indo-Europeans. Part I.	Berlin-New	York:	Mouton	de	Gruyter.
Hamp,	Eric.	1979.	“The	North	Indo-European	word	for	‘apple’”.	Zeitschrift für 
celtische Philologie	37.	Pp.	158–166.
Joki,	Aulis.	1964.	“Der	wandernde	Apfel”.	Studia Orientalia	28.	Pp.	1–17.
Kloekhorst,	Alwin.	2008.	Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon.	
Leiden:	Brill.
Kortlandt,	Frederik.	2003.	“Initial	Laryngeals	 in	Anatolian”.	Accessed	on	
06.06.2010.	http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art202e.pdf
Kuryłowicz,	Jerzy.	1927.	“ə	indoeuropéen	et	ḫ	hittite”,	in:	Symbolae grammaticae 
in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski,	Volumen	I.	Cracow.	Pp.	95–104.
Kuryłowicz,	Jerzy.	1935.	Études indoeuropéennes.	Kraków:	Gebethner	i	Wolff.
LIV2.	Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben.	2001.	Ed.	Helmut	Rix	et	al.	Wies-
baden:	Dr.	Ludwig	Reichert	Verlag.
Mallory,	James	P.	–	Adams,	Douglas	Q.	2006.	The Oxford Introduction to Proto-
Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World.	Oxford:	University	Press.
Markey,	Thomas.	1988.	“Eurasian	‘apple’	as	Arboreal	Unit	and	Item	of	Culture”.	
The	Journal	of	Indo-European	Studies	16/1–2.	Pp.	49–68.
Matasović,	Ranko.	2004.	Gender in Indo-European.	Heidelberg:	Carl	Winter	
Universitätsverlag.
Meier-Brügger,	Michael.	2003.	Indo-European Linguistics.	Translated	from	
German	Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft,	2002,	by	C.	Gertmenian.	
Berlin-New	York:	Mouton	de	Gruyter.
Meillet,	Antoine.	1922.	Les dialectes indo-européennes.	Paris:	Champion.
––––.	1937.	Introduction a l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes.	
Paris:	Libraire	Hachette.
NIL.	Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon.	2008.	Ed.	D.	S.	Wodtko,	B.	Irslinger,	
C.	Schneider.	Heidelberg:	Carl	Winter	Universitätsverlag.
Oettinger,	Norbert.	2003.	“Neuerungen	in	Lexikon	und	Wortbildung	des	Nordwest-
Indogermanischen”,	in:	Languages in Prehistoric Europe.	Ed.	A.	Bammes-
berger.	Heidelberg:	Carl	Winter	Universitätsverlag.	Pp.	183–193.
Orel,	Vladimir	E.	–	Stolbova,	Olga	V.	1995.	Hamito-Semitic etymological diction-
ary.	Leiden-New	York-Köln:	Brill.
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione. 
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
 THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN ROOT FOR ‘APPLE’ 167
Schindler,	Jochem.	1978.	„Hittite	šalpa-„.	Die Sprache	24.	Pp.	45.
Smoczyński,	Wojciech.	2007.	Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.	Wilno:	
Uniwersytet	Wileński.
De	Vaan,	Michiel.	2008.	Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic 
Languages.	Leiden:	Brill.
Wallace,	Rex	E.	2007.	The Sabellic Languages of Ancient Italy.	München:	
LINCOM.
Weiss,	Michael.	2009.	Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of 
Latin.	Ann	Arbor	–	New	York:	Beech	Stave	Press.
Zavaroni,	Adolfo.	2008.	“I-E.	‘apple’,	Hamito-Semitic	‘genitals’	and	roots	begin-
ning	with	*HmB-”.	Historische Sprachforschung	120.	Pp.	20–41.
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione. 
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych


The Proto-Indo-European root for ‘apple’ and the problem of comparative reconstruction

http://www.ejournals.eu/sj/index.php/SEC/article/download/4900/4817

The Proto-Indo-European root for ‘apple’ and the problem of comparative reconstruction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Portal Czasopism Naukowych (E-Journals)