Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰedʰh₂-

There are 3 problems with this reconstruction: I encourage you to start using your brain before mechanically copying what you find in the dictionary. Dictionaries are not always up to date and not always take under consideration all the data. It is up to us to examine any potential gaps and problems with their reasoning. In this particular case, the simpler explanation is that -h₂ was fossilized in Latin and in 🇨🇬 but was not originally part of the root. Even De Vaan himself talks about how the root may have originally been a causative (given the o-grade). Clearly, he does not consider the e-grades in Celtic and Slavic. If you don't have answers to the listed problems, I propose returning the reconstruction "*bʰedʰ-".
 * First, it fails to explain all the descendants, in particular . If you examine the sources, you'll see that authors who reconstruct *bʰedʰh₂ (LIV, De Vaan) have overlooked the Greek data.
 * Second, it's unpronounceable. De Vaan and LIV have deliberately reconstructed *bʰedʰh₂ because it needs to be resolved sonorically. In this way, it is explained why lacks aspiration[Edit: Not correct. The de-aspiration is regular.]. Notice that this is the only root which ends in *-GʰH-. Immediately, this should ring a bell.
 * Third, not all sources reconstruct *bʰedʰh₂ (for example, Kroonen and Matasović don't). This is rather misleading.

PS Missed descendants:


 * Hey there! I'm not sure if we've had any discussions before. I'm sorry, but I must disagree with all your arguments here.
 * In the case of, none of the big three dictionaries (Frisk, Chantraine, or Beekes) think that the etymology from is a good idea because of the initial β.   The normal Grassmann's Law outcome should be  < 🇨🇬. The claim by Petersson that there was a very early dissimilation from  >  before the development or Proto-Hellenic is entirely ad hoc. So this is not a good example.
 * Concerning the pronounceability of, it depends what you think the laryngeals were fricatives as with Andrew Byrd and many others, then there is not sonority hierarchy violation. As for , PIE *dʰ normally becomes Proto-Italic *ð and then Latin d, as in  >  > .  is exactly the expected outcome in this case. Furthermore, most people think *h₂ aspirated preceding stops, even in PIE.
 * More generally, you should not trust everything you read without crosschecking. Kroonen and Matasović (as well as many Leiden scholars) have very idiosyncratic views which most Indo-Europeanists do not believe. As for the other descendants, the semantics for each are terrible, and these equations represent wildly speculative attempts to assign random words to the nearest available root.
 * —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 00:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about the Latin part. However, I still stand behind my claim that -GʰH- is functionally unpronounceable. Here the word "unpronounceable" probably is not the best one. The issue with this cluster is that it can't be pronounced in a comprehensible manner. How can a listener distinguish between ʰ and a following h₂? This problem is the opposite of the sonority hierarchy violation. In this case, phonemes are so similar, that they become barely distinguishable for human's ear. Unless -h₂- is attached from an earlier suffix, I doubt it would be deliberately pinned to a root ending in Gʰ from the get-go. Bezimenen (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Greek data: it is viewed as a possible descendant of √*bʰedʰ-. Reconstructing it from root √*bʰedʰh₂- adds just another problem (the missing laryngeal vocalization) to the non-standard application of Grassman law. It's the same problem with the reconstructions of Kroonen, Matasović, etc. Call them idiosyncratic or however you prefer, but listing their references under an entry for root that they do not reconstruct is misleading. If we reconstruct *bʰódʰh₂-ros for βόθρος, it appears as if it supports the reconstruction of the problematic -h₂. Also misleading. Bezimenen (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To address your "missed descendants" list, we're not compelled to include every form authors allege to be descendants. Even Derksen in his own etymology calls "semantically unattractive."  wasn't in the original entry, so feel free to add it. You also added a Tocharian form, but the root meaning cited by Adam is "bend, press (away)", not "dig, pierce", so two semantically very different roots, which Mallory/Adams calls "homophonous". --  01:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Slavic has another word for thigh, which may potentially be from a root meaning to lash, to quilt (the predecessor of ), so it may not so semantically peculiar (albeit speculative). The problem with disregarding 🇨🇬 is that there is less and less evidence that the alleged *bʰedʰh₂- even exhibited e-grade. Clearly, both of us stick to their biases, so I'll pull the breaks on mine. I got answers to some of my objections, so it's fair this way.


 * Regarding the Tocharian entries - note taken. I would not go as far as calling the two roots "very" different (their meanings are in the range of semantic shift from one another), but indeed not identical. I felt that Tocharian is underrepresented in entries of PIE, but indeed this is not without a reason. Bezimenen (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Concerning pronounceability, I think you make two mistakes. The first is believing we know how PIE was pronounced. You're making frankly arbitrary claims about whether you think someone can pronounce sounds whose values we do not know. Second, you massively underestimate what people can pronounce. There are plenty of languages which have contrastive aspiration on voiceless fricatives (e.g. /s/ vs. /sʰ/), which is a very similar type of "unhearable" phonetic distinction. Furthermore, it is very common to reconstruct this cluster, as in the 2pl. secondary ending *-dʰh₂we. See Jasanoff and Ringe, for example.
 * , you said "it is viewed as a possible descendant of √*bʰedʰ-." This is true but barely so. As I showed, the most cited Greek dictionaries do not view or  as a possible source. Only Petersson in really thought that. Also, I think you misunderstood my point, which was that  should not be associated with this root at all, regardless of whether it had *-h₂- on the end or not. Furthermore, the term "compensatory hiatus" means nothing. You probably meant "laryngeal vocalization" or the "triple reflex", but you'll find effectively no real hits for "compensatory hiatus" on Google. Also, if we reaaaaally wanted to use the etymology, which we do not, there is something called the Saussure Effect that could cause that laryngeal to delete, but again  should not be here at all.
 * —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 20:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the last one. If the common consensus is that stays, the Greek data has no place under descendants. It only inflicts greater confusion. Bezimenen (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

two categories for one root
I added PIE root see because redirects to  and has no home. Perhaps this should be fixed in another manner. I suspect one of these categories should be categorized into the other. Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)