Reconstruction talk:Proto-Balto-Slavic/śwṓ

nom. *kwṓ ~ obl. *śún-
(etc.) Hi, I have such a question. If we use Matasović's strange rule for depalatalization, then wouldn't it be worth combining two Balto-Slavic articles (*śwṓ and *kwṓ) into one? I created two articles in 2021, but the idea did not occur to me, as it is now, that there might not be a R (in Ḱ > K/_RVback) from the Matasović rule in indirect cases. In other words, in the nominative case, depalatalization occurred according to the rule, whereas in the indirect cases there was palatalization, but then there was an alignment of the bases. This had a different effect on the descendants.

Since I do not accept the mainstream in Indo-European accentology, I leave the decision to you about synchronization with Proto-Indo-European case reconstruction: ɶLerman (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Proto-Indo-European nom.pl. *ḱwónes > Proto-Balto-Slavic nom.pl. *śúnes or *kwónes ?
 * Proto-Indo-European gen.sg. *ḱunés > Proto-Balto-Slavic gen.sg. *śunés ?