Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁óh₃s

Alternative reconstructions
Reconstructing "h₃" initially is controversial, both Kloekhorst and Merlchert believe it would have been preserved in Hittite. I think the first alternative reconstruction is more suitable "*h₁éh₃s ~ *h₁h₃sós". Kloekhorst also says that the geminate "š" in Hittite could only be explained by assimilation of a laryngeal (against his own reconstruction). So we know that "*h₃" and "*s" were adjacent at least in the week stems. Should we move the page to "*h₁éh₃s ~ *h₁h₃sós"? --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 23:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hittite's plene spelling of the dative-locative and occasional allative suggest accentual mobility. So does Verner doublets in PGmc. I don't think it's likely that this was suffixed with . It can only derive acrostatic/barytones action nouns, while this is neither of those things.
 * I think this makes sense, though I'd use Melchert's reconstruction. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 19:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * : I couldn't find the source Kloekhorst referenced, but I generally trust Melchert's views. I guess that as long as it doesn't have the issues that "h₃éh₁os ~ h₃éh₁esos" has I'll be ok with it. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 01:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Though this doesn't explain Germanic Verner doublets and Hittite's accent, which both point to a kinetic root noun. Also the initial "i" in the weak stem of Hittite "išš-" could not have come from a fulgrade, since "*h₁éh₃sos" would regularly yield "ašš-". Furthermore, the geminate "š" in the weak stem "išš-" requires assimilation, meaning that the laryngeal and the "*s" had to be adjacent. However, Kloekhorst argues that the "i" in nominative "a-iš" has to be analogical to a weak stem of the shape "*h₁(e)h₃esos". Everything seems very contradicting to me, but I think the evidence for kinesis is pretty solid so I would reconstruct "*h₁éh₃s ~ *h₁h₃sós". --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 04:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've read Kloekhorst. I'll quote his lose-lose conclusion:
 * What do you think about a (secondary) proterokinetic root noun ? --Victar (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, given that it's impossible to really tell which was the original grade of the root, I don't really have much of a preference. I would however, reconstruct the locative with an e-grade, as in "r", and "n" stems. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 02:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think so. --Victar (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , FYI, part of why I'm reconstructing it as being originally an o-grade acrostatic, beside many proterodynamics being remade acrostatics, is because most PIE external body parts are constructed as such. --Victar (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In general I tend to be cautious concerning o-grade acrostatics, since many are erroneously reconstructed as Kloekhorst has pointed out. Although he rejects the paradigm all together, which of course cannot be right. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 13:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kloekhorst has a lot of misses under his belt, but whether you believe in the o-grade or not, you can't deny that they're chiefly acrostatics, several of which were remade into other paradigms. --Victar (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kloekhorst has a lot of misses under his belt, but whether you believe in the o-grade or not, you can't deny that they're chiefly acrostatics, several of which were remade into other paradigms. --Victar (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)