This Proto-Indo-European entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence.

Proto-Indo-European edit

Etymology edit

A derivative of the root *h₁weydʰh₁- (to separate), given that widows are irreversibly separated from their husbands.

Noun edit


  1. widow

Inflection edit

Athematic, proterokinetic
nominative *h₁widʰéwh₂s
genitive *h₁widʰwéh₂s
singular dual plural
nominative *h₁widʰéwh₂s *h₁widʰéwh₂h₁(e) *h₁widʰéwh₂es
vocative *h₁widʰéwh₂ *h₁widʰéwh₂h₁(e) *h₁widʰéwh₂es
accusative *h₁widʰéwh₂m̥ *h₁widʰéwh₂h₁(e) *h₁widʰéwh₂m̥s
genitive *h₁widʰwéh₂s *? *h₁widʰwéh₂oHom
ablative *h₁widʰwéh₂s *? *h₁widʰwéh₂mos
dative *h₁widʰwéh₂ey *? *h₁widʰwéh₂mos
locative *h₁widʰwéh₂, *h₁widʰwéh₂i *? *h₁widʰwéh₂su
instrumental *h₁widʰwéh₂h₁ *? *h₁widʰwéh₂mis

Alternative reconstructions edit

  • *h₁widʰéweh₂

Reconstruction notes edit

De Vaan disputes the existence of this word as a feminine noun in PIE, as the Latin and Greek forms point to a thematic adjective *h₁widʰ(h₁)éwos which could be substantivized for people of either gender.[2]

Descendants edit

References edit

  1. ^ Ringe, Donald (2006) From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (A Linguistic History of English; 1)‎[1], Oxford: Oxford University Press, →ISBN
  2. 2.0 2.1 De Vaan, Michiel (2008) “viduus”, in Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, pages 676–677:Latin and Greek show a them[atic] adj[ective] used for both sexes […] it is unlikely that the f[eminine] noun was original, and adjectivized without any suffix in Latin and Greek. I therefore assume the primacy of the o-stem adj[ective] in PIE.