Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/spéḱs

Ablaut
, you added this with a hysterokinetic ablaut pattern. What is that based on? —CodeCat 22:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange, if anything, I meant amphikinetic (which is what it is currently). Mayrhofer, De Vaan, and Beekes all mention the root noun, but none provide a declension, but amphikinetic is the only one that makes any sense given the descendants. — JohnC5 23:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we're dealing with a root noun, so the specific kind of -kinetic doesn't matter, there's only a distinction between static and kinetic anyway. But if there is evidence for a zero grade form, then what is it? —CodeCat 23:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the epenthetic vowel in each case would be uninformative anyway. — JohnC5 23:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I right then that you are basing your choice on the non-attestation of an o-grade form? —CodeCat 23:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, though, Beekes does prefer as the primary Greek form which could point vaguely in the direction of an *o-grade. Honestly, I've been trying to find inflected forms of the Sanskrit to see if anything interesting shows up, but I'm having trouble finding them. You'd also be right to point out  that the Sanskrit forms wouldn't evince ā except in the accusative singular in the case of an *o-grade. — JohnC5 23:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So I found RV.4.13.3:, which does not exhibit **spā́śaṃ. — JohnC5 00:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)