Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/túh₂

The reconstructed form
What's the evidence the laryngeal was h2 and not h1 or h3? And is it really necessary to mark the vowel as accented in a monosyllable? If the answers to these questions are "none" and "no", I'd recommend moving this to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/tuH. —Angr 14:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some monosyllables, like some of the inflected forms listed in the table, lacked inherent accent, so it's important to distinguish those that did it from those that didn't.
 * Regarding the type of laryngeal - I don't see either why it must be *h₂. Hittite reflects *tih₁/tu- which is according to Kloekhorst 2011 more archaic, being analogically replaced in post-Anatolian IE with *tuH/tu-, which then renders *H as *h₁, i.e. ultimately *tuh₁. This table was taken from Ringe 2006:57, apud Katz 1998 (Topics in Indo-European Personal Pronouns) and Sihler's 1995 (comparative grammar) 369–82 but I've checked and both of them reconstruct both long *tū and short *tu for the nominative singular. Meier-Brügger 2002 also has *túh₂ but doesn't explain it. I don't see why the laryngeal is needed at all? There are too many reflexes of short *tu.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So it could really be just *tu, with lengthening in some contexts to prevent an isolated word from being just a light syllable. That makes sense, and it's seen in other pronouns too, such as *me, where Old Irish mé has to be lengthened secondarily from *me, because original *mē or *meh₁ would have given *mí rather than mé. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

you/thou
Why not list both? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I'm not sure that Mr. Stur von Beharrlichkeit (80.114.178.7) will be, though. Tharthan (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that too. Why does the pseudonym accuse me of organised crime? --80.114.178.7 04:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't. I was jocularly stating that you were stubborn. That's all. And how did you know that my username was a pseudonym? Tharthan (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That "jocularly stating that you were stubborn" doesn't explain "von". Please retract. --80.114.178.7 23:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Confer Modern English neologisms as "Awesome MacCoolname" (and variants).
 * I knew your "username" was a pseudonym because amongst English speaking people, a personal name and a family name are customary. --80.114.178.7 23:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, thanks. I personally wouldn't have drawn that conclusion, though, as somebody who has "Tom" as their username is not necessarily using a pseudonym. They might simply being using their given name by itself. Tharthan (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Declension Tables
Does anyone know what works the Kortlandt, and de Vaan reconstructions are taken from? I can check that Beeks and Ringe are from the same works cited on wikipedia later and add them as references, but when quoting declension tables we really ought to be explicitly referencing to avoid plagiarism. Tristanjlroberts (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)