I would imagine that the words ‘oval’ and ‘cover’ also relate to the root. Or am I wrong?
On this website, the entires for oval and cover show connections to different roots, not *uper. So you would have to go find some proof beyond the fact that they share the two letters ov.
I’m really only echoing what Scott said, while adding a tiny amount. In etymology it’s easy to guess but it’s hard to be right, so etymology has a very strong bias in favour of hard physical evidence (i.e. stuff from past centuries has to be in writing to really count for anything), and there’s a pretty strong aversion to plausible guesses.
and yet if we solely go on written evidence (and “left-brain” logic programming), it is clearly bias, pseudo-science.
it’s much like saying words we leave out (being clear in context) don’t count.
or that books destroyed at Alexandria are no longer relevant.
I don’t doubt that the current methodology contains bias, but what’s your alternative? Would love to hear your explanation.
it’s not about methodology; rather, it’s about associating phonetics and morphemes with euphonics and phonosemantics as a basis for understanding universal sense of “langage,” and scrapping abstract Latin terminology designed to divorce emotions from underlying phenomena when it comes to human communication.
I actually totally agree with you that the deepness of connection between sounds and meanings is overlooked.
But wouldn’t you acknowledge that many pairings of sounds and meaning are almost completely arbitrary? For me, that makes your approach really difficult.
I don’t subscribe to the so-called “father” Saussure perspective. I do think we are deaf and stubborn, and “choose” to remain that way (on this plane of existence). laughing to myself. ltm
as for pairing, we say what and how we say it as long as we are made understood. and we have gone so far astray that we are removed from SOUND and we cast spells and destroy and pervert “reality”.
Which plane of existence would you recommend switching to, for best results?
start by balancing the chakras
I can’t even balance a chakra while I’m on the ground, and now you expect me to do it in a plane? 
Would you please give a brief explanation of the Saussure perspective? I’m not formally trained in linguistics.
Also, when you say “we have gone so far astray” do you mean that the language itself has gone astray? Like the actual words are corrupted?