Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/póntoh₁s

Variant reconstructions
, It looks as if the entries, and  are the same. They should probably be merged. I wouldn't know how to analyze all the descendants but it seems like a amphikinetic pónt-oh₁-s ~ pn̥t-h₁-és could conciliate most of them. Although it's morphology looks awkward to me.--Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. could you look into the IIr stuff? —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 19:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , Leiden reconstructions it as *pont-eh₁-s, a hysterodynamic *h₁-stem. --Victar (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The o-grade explains greek reflexes though. I think the reconstruction *pént-oh₁-s ~ *pont-éh₁-m̥ ~ pn̥t-h₁-ós, which as far as I know, still follows the accentual paradigms of the Leiden school, would be more suitable.--Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 01:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , if you see the sources I added, Beekes gives *pont-éh₁-s ~ *pn̥t-h₁-ós as the etymology for the Greek under the Leiden model. Regardless, *póntoh₁s is hecka irregular and needs a better explanation. --Victar (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To me the morpheme "*-eh₁-" looks just as non-existent as "*-oh₁-". Maybe Beekes implies a relation with the verbal suffix "*-eh₁-", but I wouldn't know how that would work. Either way, greek thematization would make a lot more sense if the grade of the suffix is "*o". And even if the the original suffix had in fact an e-grade, it wouldn't be surprising if was replaced by "*o" as in *-os-/*-es-, or in doublets such as *-tor-/*-ter-, *-mon-/*-men- and heteroclites "-or-"/-en-". A simple hysterokinetic could not have yielded a barytone in Sanskrit. A hysterodynamic as the one I proposed could though. The only two living Leiden scholars that I recognize would probably reconstruct three stems. They would probably give the following chronological development:
 * *pént-h₁-s ~ *pn̥t-éh₁-m̥ ~ pn̥t-h₁-és – all vowels were deleted except for "*é".
 * *pént-eh₁-s ~ *pent-éh₁-m̥ ~ pn̥t-h₁-és – Here the nom. and acc. assimilate, but keep the accentual mobility.
 * *pént-oh₁-s ~ *pont-éh₁-m̥ ~ pn̥t-h₁-és – Antonic "e" regularly becomes "o".
 * Kortlandt and Kloekhorst usually argue that for a period "*e" and "*o" where allophones to explain their alternation. But they need to assume too many analogical developments that makes it all hard to swallow. And their assumptions cannot explain static o/e alternations, so they need to make up a kinesis even if there isn't one. In my opinion they are wrong in the very first step when they claim that all vowels were deleted except for tonic "*é", and therefore all their conclusions are wrong too. But who knows, maybe I'm a little cynical. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 04:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So this word shows one of two pristine cases of amphikinesis in Vedic. The question is about the quality of the vowels. The prevalence of o in the "root" (if this is analyzable as a derivative of some type) in non-IIr languages speaks to a likely original *o-grade at some point. As to the grade of the second vowel, that's way dodgier. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)