Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/pátiš

, when you have a moment, could you check over this entry? If the Sanskrit form is masculine, the stress should be on the ending. Also, RUKI would have caused the PII ending to be *-š. Thanks! --Victar (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC) , thanks for moving it. --Victar (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to reply to this for a while now since you pinged me originally. For the adjectives and nouns in  and  which never seem to demonstrate the expected *(é)-us ~ *(Ø)-éws  proterokinetic (proterodynamic) accent paradigm in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, we should note that later changes in both languages' accent paradigms have prevented that type of accent paradigm from existing. Namely, Sanskrit only has 2 main accent paradigms. In all cases the vocatives should be ignored.
 * When the word is polysyllabic, the accent is stable:


 * Note that there is one peculiarity that i-, u- and ṛ-stems with an oxytonic accent do throw the accent forward onto the genitive plural desinence:


 * When the word is monosyllabic, the accent is mobile:


 * Note that I haven't yet coded the consonant root stems, which are a large portion of this paradigm.
 * Given this, an accent paradigm with pā́tiḥ ~ patéḥ (i.e. proterokinetic paradigms) is not possible by the time of Sanskrit. Similarly, since Ancient Greek's accent becomes primarily governed by the Law of Limitations and the sōtêra rule, except in archaic cases, proterokinetic paradigms don't surface either. Indeed, like Sanskrit, the only normal case when Ancient Greek moves the accent from the stem to the desinence is in monosyllabic words like:


 * Given this, a proterokinetic paradigms would need to collapse into either an acrostatic or a hysterokinetic paradigm. There are some archaic proterokinetic words like ~  (though this latter form was reänalyzed as coming from ). I do not know at what phase the dissolution of the proterkinetic paradigm took place (Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, or Sanskrit), but I hope this clarifies why this paradigm does not surface in most of the Sanskrit or Ancient Greek evidence.
 * might like to chime in on this, but I don't know. — JohnC5 19:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)