Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/náHuš

Why the oxytone?
, the Vedic nominative is ambiguous, but the accusative points to paroxytonic accent. The other case with oxytonic stress show regular accent mobility. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 09:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oxytone stress seems to be result of i- and u-stems containing a laryngeal, per Lubotsky (1992). --Victar (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * so this theory is part of the Leiden attempt to reconcile the apparent absence of evidence for proterokinetic or Leiden inflection in *i- and *u-stems Indo-Iranian. In this case, the acc.sg., nom.pl., and acc.pl. of point unambiguously to a root accent. Also, Lubotsky's views are not widely believed on this matter. Given that Sanskrit is the primary evidence by which we reconstruct the Indo-European accent-ablaut—not to mention Indo-Iranian—and the fact that Lubotsky does not mention this form in the paper, I am moving this back. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 04:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)