Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/méntis

Where exactly does this *méntis form come from, with proterokinetic inflection? AFAICS, all of the reflexes point to static *mn̥tis as a basic form. --Ivan Štambuk 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The inflection is inherent in the -tis suffix itself, so it's not specific to this noun. The daughter languages probably levelled the stem differently, either choosing the nominative or the oblique stem as the base, which is quite common. As a parallel example the heteroclitic r/n stem for 'water' was even retained as such in Germanic, but the n was generalised in North and East Germanic, and the r in West Germanic. —CodeCat 19:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I added a comment for clarification, because on at least one occasion that I can recall, I've encountered *mn̥tis listed as a nominative singular form. Probably obsolete source since this ablaut-accent thing is relatively new. --Ivan Štambuk 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

*mn̥tís
Hi. Can all descendants be deduced from the reconstruction of *mn̥tís? > Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/mintís / Gnosandes (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I paid attention to the discussion above too late. Then it is strange why, for example, the root are aligned, but the thematic vowel itself is not: nom.sg. *méntis ~ gen.sg. *mn̥téys > for example, pre-PBS *mn̥tís ~ *mn̥téys, but not **mn̥téys ~ *mn̥téys > *mintís ~ *mintéis, but acc.sg. *míntin. Gnosandes (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)