Thread:User talk:CodeCat/"Proto-Germanic had no ā"/reply (2)

But if that's an accepted development, why would an apparently respectable linguist (from a quick google of the author of the source provided) still make that claim? As a matter of fact, the source states that this is "generally believed" to be a "migratory term", which would thus have been able to be borrowed from an Indo-Iranian language (unlike what the IP's edit suggested, Bandle does not claim it is a direct borrowing from "Old Iranian", by the way, just that it is of Indo-Iranian origin). I have no idea what Bandle bases his conclusion on, but given his aforementioned apparent reliability as a linguist and his reference to the existence of a scholarly dispute on the matter (he explicitly mentions *mēkijaz as well, saying that that reconstruction has "long been disputed"), perhaps it at least merits a mention on the entry.