Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/puttaz

PIE root
I added the possibility of a PIE, due to the constraint on two voiced plosives in a root. From what I understand, Kluge's law can turn PIE *-dʰn-, *-dn- and *-tn- into PGmc *-tt-. If the Armenian form is cognate, it points to or. I'm not very experienced outside of Germanic however, so I could be wrong. Anglom (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about this to add anything useful. Kluge's law is still controversial and not generally accepted. 16:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is true. But I think the Germanic and Armenian words are cognate, if I'm right about the pre-Armenian form. The stem *putt- could have also split off from an n-stem, *bewdon-/*bewton-, as the Armenian seems to continue, where there's zero-grade in the oblique, giving *budnV́-/*butnV́-. I can't find that Kroonen mentions this word anywhere, but he gives quite a few examples of this type. Anglom (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The connection with Armenian is Petersson's idea (1916). I have uploaded the relevant pages here. He derives  from PIE  and Armenian from  or . Armenian requires a *-d-.
 * I have also expanded the etymology at ; see it. --Vahag (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Germanic *t and Armenian *t consistently give out PIE *d. In the "article" it gives PIE *beud as an alternative when it should be the rule and PIE **beut as a (distant) possibility (at most, an honorable mention) because it can mislead folks less knowledgeable about Proto-Indo-European.

two voiced plosives
the above makes perfect sense to me .... why is *beud even on our list when the standard reconstruction of PIE has no such roots? Personally i think its just a loan from the Latin word for drink .... but that's a story all its own. not related to the question of which PIE root we trace this to if it is in fact directly inherited from PIE. — Soap — 18:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)